The Iowa Renewable Energy Association has postponed the planned Winter Solstice events for today and this evening in Iowa City because of the extremely cold weather.

Check their website (www.irenew.org) to find out about plans to reschedule. I will also post information on my weekly even calendar here.

What are you doing to survive the cold? Our dog got only half as long a walk this morning as he would usually get. Fortunately, I remembered to refill the bird-feeder yesterday, when it wasn’t too bad. Otherwise the birds would have run out of food today or tomorrow when I didn’t want to be outside fiddling around with the feeder.

Here’s a good soup recipe for a cold day:

Potato, Carrot and Leek Soup

1 1/2 cups chopped leeks (or onions, but I like leeks)

2 1/2 to 3 cups chopped carrots

3 to 5 cups chopped potatoes (depending on what proportion you like of potatoes to carrots). I scrub the potatoes but don’t peel them, but you can peel them if you like.

1 Tbsp honey

salt to taste

Saute leeks and carrots in a small amount of oil or butter in a large saucepan. After about 5 minutes, add potatoes and enough water to cover (I just barely let the water cover the vegetables, but if you like thinner soup, you can use more water).

Bring to a boil, stir in the honey and salt to taste (I use about a teaspoon, but you can use less), then reduce heat, cover and simmer for 20 to 30 minutes.

Puree with an immersion blender or a hand-held food mill, or for a chunkier soup, just mash with a potato masher. You don’t want to put potato-based soups in a blender or food processor, because it will create a gluey texture.

Return to pot, reheat and serve with fresh ground pepper if you like. With some bread and a side vegetable or salad, this is a whole meal for us. It keeps well for a couple of days in the refrigerator.

I don’t recall nearly as intense a reaction to Bill Clinton’s or George Bush’s nominees for secretary of agriculture. Either food and farm issues are much more salient now than they used to be, or I am noticing it more because Barack Obama is tapping an Iowan to head the USDA.

Tom Vilsack’s friend Jennifer Donahue says Vilsack is the “best possible” choice for secretary of agriculture.

Denise O’Brien urges sustainable agriculture advocates not to give up hope, because as governor Vilsack was accessible and did some good things on food and environmental issues.

Another Iowan, Food & Society Policy Fellow Angie Tagtow of Elkhart, wants Vilsack and incoming Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Daschle to work together:

A dichotomy exists between agriculture policies and Dietary Guidelines for Americans – yet, ironically, both are overseen by the USDA. Current food and farm policies stand in the way of making healthy food the easiest choice.

Food and agriculture policies must support disease prevention efforts and can save millions in health care costs. The USDA and USDHHS must use sound science, instead of pressures from special interests like biotechnology companies and the food industry, to reform policies and programs that support a healthy and sustainable food and agriculture system.

Specifically, Tagtow advocates cooperation between Vilsack and Daschle toward the following goals:

1. Creating an intradepartmental Food Policy Council, led by a Food Czar, “to assure farm, food and nutrition policies and programs support public health goals.”  

2. Enacting policies to build fertile soil. “Farmers should receive support or credits for decreasing use of synthetic farm chemicals, protecting natural resources, building soil, reducing fossil fuel use and capturing carbon.”

3. Creating incentives to grow more fruits and vegetables in the U.S.: “Our agriculture system does not grow enough of the right foods that promote our health. We are forced to rely on other countries to put fruits and vegetables on our plates.”

4. Making fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains more available to people on federal food and nutrition assistance program: “Improving the nutritional quality of the WIC food package and the foods served in schools will nourish healthy children, prepare them to learn, reduce childhood diseases, reduce food insecurity and produce healthy, productive adults.”

5. Leveraging food production as economic development. “Growing more food closer to where we eat it increases our access to fresh seasonal food, cultivates a closer relationship with farmers, and builds community resiliency, economic stability, food security and health.”

Tagtow’s suggestions are all excellent, and I hope Vilsack and Daschle will act on them.

Rob Hubler, former Congressional candidate in Iowa’s fifth district, is asking everyone on his e-mail list to support petitions calling for a more sustainable agriculture policy:

Friends,

[…] Will you join me in continuing to work for the same values we campaigned on? There are two quick, but important, actions I want you to take. Both will make a difference for the future of rural communities, family farming and our entire food system.

First, I was proud to add my name to a remarkable effort to pressure President-elect Obama to appoint a “Sustainable Secretary of Agriculture” originated in our own district. Food Democracy Now (http://www.fooddemocracynow.org), launched last week by Iowan Dave Murphy, rocketed to national attention when Nicolas Kristof endorsed the effort in his New York Times column.

Nearly 50,000 people have already signed. Will you help push the petition to 100,000?

Second, the Center for Rural Affairs launched a Grassroots Letter to the next Secretary of Agriculture. No matter who Obama selects, the next head of the USDA needs to hear from you. You can sign the Center for Rural Affairs Grassroots Letter and leave your own comment about the change you would like to see to food, farm and rural policy. The Center for Rural Affairs will send your signature and comment onto the next Agriculture Secretary.

Join me in signing their letter here: http://www.cfra.org/08/grassro…

Peace & Justice,

Rob L. Hubler

I agree that it’s helpful to add more names to those petitions. Food Democracy Now has more than 58,000 signers already. The Center for Rural Affairs’ proposals are wide-ranging and sensible.

The Organic Consumers Association, which came out swinging against Vilsack last month, hasn’t given up on blocking this appointment. On Wednesday they launched a “Stop Vilsack” petition.

This strikes me as ineffective and unwise. There is no chance of Obama backing off from this nomination. He was aware of Vilsack’s position on agriculture when he made the decision. There is no chance of the Senate not confirming Vilsack. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa chairs the relevant committee and has already said he will make sure Vilsack’s confirmation hearings go smoothly.

The Organic Consumers Association would do better to organize pressure on Vilsack to take specific actions, either reversing bad Bush administration policies or moving in a more sustainable direction, as the Center for Rural Affairs and Tagtow are proposing.

Daily Kos user CornSyrupAwareness had a different take on Vilsack’s nomination:

I’m glad to see Iowa get their due with this pick of Tom Vilsack. They were instrumental in getting our man elected, and we should all tip our caps to Iowa. Iowa is now paid in full for their efforts and I’m glad. This way they don’t get their due by ‘vetoing’ a Surgeon General’s warning on High Fructose Corn Syrup.

CornSyrupAwareness also quoted some comments Obama made months ago about corn syrup, and posted this great clip of Bill Maher asking Joe Biden, “Which is more likely to contribute to the death of your average American: a terrorist strike, or high-fructose corn syrup, and air that has too much coal in it?”

Once Vilsack is confirmed as secretary of agriculture, a lot of other positions within the USDA will need to be filled. At La Vida Locavore, Obama Foodorama drew attention to last week’s little-noticed resignation of Elizabeth Johnson, the Under Secretary for Food Safety of USDA and made the case for Bill Marler to replace her:

[T]here are opportunities for swift and dramatic change, particularly in food safety. If the USDA fulfilled even half of its already existing mandate, we’d have a far cleaner and safer food chain. Elizabeth Johnson’s now-vacant post as Under Secretary for Food Safety needs to be filled by an inspired, activist leader, someone with both a long institutional memory, and a firm grasp on how to rapidly change what’s so terribly wrong with our system. There’s one individual in the food safety world who is the most uniquely qualified candidate to take on such a huge challenge: Attorney Bill Marler, the foremost food poisoning authority in the country (pictured).

A founding partner of Seattle’s Marler Clark law firm, Marler is an extremely activist consumer advocate and champion of change in food safety policy and practice, both in the US and abroad. His focus on food safety began in 1993, when he won a landmark settlement against Jack in The Box for E. coli contamination. Since then, Marler’s firm has become a powerhouse of food borne illness litigation, garnering close to half a billion dollars in settlements for injured clients.

Marler himself is now the leading US expert in institutional and agricultural structures for food safety, and he regularly works with farmers and major corporations to change/create safety practices (most recently, he persuaded global conglomerate Conagra to dramatically alter their policies). He’s repeatedly testified before Congress on food safety, and has been a vociferous and much-published critic of government policies and practices (including the ongoing labeling fights over “organic”). His Marler Blog is the best internet source for food safety information, and as the years have gone by, Marler has devoted more and more of his professional life to non-profit consultations on food safety and security around the world. Under the umbrella of Marler Clark’s non-profit organization, Outbreak, Marler consulates with foreign food agencies, producers, and governments on how to better protect the public from poisoned food, and how to create safe food systems. This is crucial for any Under Secretary for Food Safety, because America imports a huge part of our food supply each year. Marler has not only been an activist on getting foreign producers to focus on safety, but he’s also intimately acquainted with exactly what goes on in international markets.

The undersecretary appointments don’t get much attention but are quite important. Thanks to Obama Foodorama for shining a light on food safety. (UPDATE: Daily Kos user Halcyon informed me that Marler is an occasional diarist at Daily Kos. His most recent post is about the top ten food safety stories of 2008.)

Share any relevant thoughts on Vilsack’s nomination or federal policies on food and agriculture.

As Barack Obama assembles his cabinet and key White House advisers, he’s choosing a lot more people from the “centrist” or corporate-friendly wing of the Democratic Party than movement progressives. He is leaving George Bush’s Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, in place. He has also made some symbolic moves that angered a lot of progressives, in particular selecting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration.

I understand the political arguments in favor of Obama’s strategy, and opinion polls support some of them. When asked whether they approve of Obama or how he is handling the transition (different pollsters ask the question differently), anywhere from 65 percent to 75 percent of Americans are saying they approve.

I’ve been wondering how much Obama’s conciliatory gestures have been helping him with Republicans and conservatives of the wingnut variety. I’m not talking about Jim Leach Republicans, I’m talking about the kind of person who really believed Obama was a “socialist.”

For example, one of my friends told me last month that her mother’s best friend believes changing the American flag will be “the first order of business” when Obama takes office. I am not kidding.

In the next ten days, many of us will attend holiday parties and family reunions. I don’t recommend that you bring up politics at these events if that would make people uncomfortable. However, if you come from a family where politics are often discussed when folks get together, I would like to hear from you.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find out whether your conservative friends and relatives have abandoned some of their more paranoid beliefs about Obama since he was elected. In other words, how well have Obama’s conciliatory gestures allayed conservative fears about his intentions? Is he likely to get more of a honeymoon than Bill Clinton did in 1993?

Feel free to post your own diary or a comment in this thread.

I opposed the massive Wall Street bailout rushed through Congress this fall, but if the government can provide hundreds of billions of dollars to financial firms with no oversight, it’s only fair that $13.4 billion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program be used to prevent General Motors and Chrysler from collapsing:

“These are not ordinary circumstances,” Bush said at the White House today. “In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action.”

The cost of letting automakers fail would lead to a 1 percent reduction in the growth of the U.S. economy and mean about 1.1 million workers would lose their jobs, including those in the auto supply business and among dealers, the White House said in a fact sheet.

‘Necessary Step’

President-elect Barack Obama endorsed the plan, calling it in a statement a “necessary step” to avoid a major blow to the economy.

“I do want to emphasize to the Big Three automakers and their executives that the American people’s patience is running out,” Obama said later at a news conference. “They’re going to have to make some hard choices.”

The United Auto Workers are “disappointed” that Bush added “unfair conditions singling out workers,” the union’s president, Ronald Gettelfinger, said in a statement.

“We will work with the Obama administration and the new Congress to ensure that these unfair conditions are removed,” Gettelfinger said.

This diary by TomP has a lot more detail and reaction to the bailout deal.

It would be grossly unfair for only the workers to be asked to sacrifice to make these companies profitable. Some Republicans, notably Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee are explicitly trying to drive wages in union shops down to the level paid to non-union employees of Japanese automakers in the southern states.

But it’s no coincidence that the standard of living in states with more union workers is higher than the standard of living in the deep south.

I don’t know enough about the details to know whether this bailout can save GM and Chrysler, but failing to act was not an option with so many jobs on the line.

By the way, all three U.S. automakers have made a lot of mistakes over the years, but kudos to management of Ford Motors for locking in a large credit line while credit was easy to obtain. In case you were wondering, that’s why Ford is not currently on the brink of collapse, begging for a government bailout. Nevertheless, I’m sure Ford will have to do a lot of restructuring to adapt to this tough economy, just like GM and Chrysler. I can’t imagine 2009 will be much better for new car sales than 2008 was.

Chrysler has already idled all of its plants for a month. Ford is extending the holiday break at most of its plants until January 12, and GM plans massive production cuts next year.

Those actions may be necessary to save the automakers, but they will have disastrous ripple effects in all the communities where the idled factories are located.

Some of these problems could have been avoided if Congress had fixed our broken health-care system years ago. This report is more than two years old:

The competitive disadvantage of U.S. automakers resulting from the absence of a national strategy on health care financing is becoming increasingly clear. GM faces legacy costs (health care plus pensions for retired workers) of $1,500 per car. Together, the Big Three automakers support roughly 800,000 retirees, compared to less than 1,000 for foreign-owned competitors in the United States.

Clearly the failure to address America’s health care finance problems has become a major competitive disadvantage for our economy as a whole and has placed U.S. workers in a diminished bargaining position for wages and job security in relation to the rest of the industrialized world. Targeting retiree health costs offers an opportunity to provide strong incentives for industry action on fuel savings investment and reduces the competitive disadvantage.

Share any relevant thoughts in the comments.

UPDATE: Why I am not surprised to learn that banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are giving out large bonuses to some executives after receiving billions in bailout money from the federal government?

Note also that George Bush attached all kinds of conditions to the loans for automakers, while major financial institutions just got free money with no oversight.

I saw at Iowa Independent that the Asian-American newspaper AsianWeek named Swati Dandekar the Asian Pacific American person of the year for 2008:

[I]t was hard to decide who should be the APA Person of the Year in 2008. When looking at the future of Asian Pacific America, however, and thinking about the community’s growth out of the comfort of urban enclaves and into suburban and even rural America, the answer became clear: Swati Dandekar.

Dandekar, a Democrat born and educated in India, has been living in Iowa for over thirty years and has served three terms as a member in the Iowa House of Representatives. In 2008, she threw her hat in the ring to run for an Iowa state Senate seat that had voted Republican for almost 20 years. Reaching out to many rural Iowans with a platform based on education, quality health care, renewable energy and economic growth, she won 54.3 percent of the vote and is seen as a rising star of Iowa politics.

Swati Dandekar could have played it safe and stayed in her House seat because most incumbents are re-elected. Instead, she chose to reach for a higher office that required her to knock on doors in areas where she had not represented the people and where knowledge of Asian Indian Americans may not have been high. As a result of her successful gamble, however, she now has added clout as she battles for educational opportunity and other key concerns. And APAs now have a state Senate-level standard-bearer in a state not know for its high percentage of APAs.

I echo the newspaper’s statement that Dandekar took a big risk in running for Senate district 18. Even though she has attracted a lot of cross-over Republican voters while representing Iowa House district 36, seeking the Senate seat long held by Mary Lundby (who retired) was no sure thing.

Congratulations to Dandekar for picking up a Senate seat for Iowa Democrats while making Asian Pacific Americans across the country proud.

When Governor Chet Culver scheduled a $5,000 a head fundraiser in Des Moines, he probably didn’t expect the event to fall on the same day he announced about $100 million in “painful” budget cuts.

Trust me, Bleeding Heartland’s resident troll won’t be the only one to use this convergence to push Republican talking points about Democrats no longer being the party of working people.

Last week Iowa legislative leaders appeared at a forum organized by Iowa Politics, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy characterized the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections bill as “flat-out bad”:

It would cause taxpayer money to rain down in districts where candidates typically spend far less on campaigns, and would cause corporations to control the parties, he said. Meaningful reform should come from federal lawmakers clamping down on political committees such as 501(c)4 groups that can raise unlimited money and use it to influence campaigns, he said.

Sure, because it doesn’t look “flat-out bad” for Democrats to schedule high-priced fundraisers while most families are tightening their belts.

Of course, the real problem with our current system of funding politicians isn’t the lousy optics, it’s how narrow interests are able to push through bad bills or block legislation that is in the public interest and has broad bipartisan support.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement gave a few other reasons why McCarthy is “flat-out wrong”:

McCarthy also claimed that under VOICE, corporations would “control the parties” through their contributions. Currently, corporate contributions to candidates are prohibited in Iowa, and would remain banned under VOICE. However, Iowa is one of only 13 states that have no limit on what any one individual can contribute to a candidate for public office.

In fact, McCarthy took a total of $90,000 in contributions from five individuals from out of state in 2008, and all the reports aren’t even in yet. And, $351,815 of his $652,205 came directly from Political Action Committees (PACs) representing special interests. States that have systems for publicly financed elections similar to VOICE, like Arizona, Maine, and Connecticut, have not seen an influx in 527 or PAC activity trying to influence elections. Rather, more candidates are running for office, including women and minorities. And, although these kinds of groups are already here in Iowa, CCI and other organizations last year worked for and passed legislation to force 527s to report their in-state activities. This has allowed the public to see who is contributing to organizations that try to influence our public elections.

McCarthy also claimed that VOICE would cause candidates to become lazy, “Which is absurd,” said CCI member Alice Bryan of Des Moines. “VOICE candidates will actually have to work harder, going door to door meeting constituents, rather than dialing for dollars and relying on slick mailers and TV ads. A VOICE candidate who agrees to limit their spending would truly represent their constituents, not the special interests that fund campaigns.”

Public Campaign has created an online petition you can sign if you want to tell McCarthy that “VOICE would make elections in Iowa about voters and not campaign donors.”

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement has scheduled a Rally and Lobby Day for January 27, 2009,

to kick off the legislative session and push for VOICE, local control of factory farms, keeping families in their homes and protecting the rights of all workers.

If you care about this issue, mark your calendar.

UPDATE: Ed Fallon published an op-ed piece in Friday’s Des Moines Register called Illinois seat not only thing that’s for sale:

Blagojevich is a menace and needs to go to the gated community where other Illinois governors before him have gone. But America’s campaign-finance system is a far greater menace to democracy. If we can muster shock and disgust for Blagojevich, we should be utterly appalled at the pervasive role of money in politics.

Face it. What we call “elections” have become auctions. The auctioning of U.S. Senate seats occurs every six years – every two years for congressional and state legislative seats. Big donors, corporations and special interests “bid” on the candidate of their choice. In close races, the smart money bids on both candidates, and the one backed by the highest bidders usually wins.

We don’t want to believe our elected officials can be bought. But as someone who served for 14 years in the Iowa House, I say with confidence that what big money wants, big money usually gets. Rank-and-file lawmakers may be well-intentioned but often are strong-armed by legislative leaders beholden to corporate donors and special interests. As a result, the most pressing challenges of our time – climate change, budgetary reform, health care, farm policy, to name a few – see practically no progress year after year.

So, while I hope the good people of Illinois fire Blagojevich and fire him soon, I have a more pressing hope that Americans across the country get fired up for campaign-finance reform. In Iowa, Senator-elect Pam Jochum is leading the charge on VOICE (Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections). This bill would make it easier for rank-and-file lawmakers to stand up to party leaders, allow more citizens to run for office and give the public far greater access to the halls of power.

News about several more key appointments by President-elect Barack Obama emerged today. His choice for Secretary of Labor will be Representative Hilda Solis of California, a bit of a surprise since she didn’t seem to be on any of the short lists leaked so far.

Solis comes from a union family and is a passionate supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act (also known as “card check,” which would make it easier to organize workers in non-union workplaces). Her voting record on labor issues is very solid.

TomP has more background on Solis, including YouTubes.

Ideally, Obama would have introduced his Labor Secretary along with the rest of his economic team to underscore the importance of the job, but I’m not going to quibble about the timing. This is a very solid appointment. I assume that Solis would not give up a safe House seat unless Obama had given her some assurances that he would keep his campaign promise to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

Speaking of which, Representative Xavier Becerra of California declined Obama’s offer to become U.S. Trade Representative a few days ago. It was a smart move, as Becerra has a chance to become Speaker of the House someday. Today Obama offered that job to former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, who had previously been mentioned as a possible candidate for Secretary of Transportation.

Obama made some campaign promises about replacing “free trade” with “fair trade,” but it’s not clear whether choosing Kirk signals a plan to retreat from those promises. The Wall Street Journal argued that

By naming Mr. Kirk, Mr. Obama nodded to the free-trade wing of the Democratic Party, which is small but has important ties to business.

Solis is firmly in the “fair trade” camp of the Democratic Party.

Obama’s chief science adviser will be the physicist John Holdren, an internationally-renowned expert on energy and climate issues. He is apparently a highly effective communicator as well as a brilliant scientist.

Obama also has chosen Oregon State University professor Jane Lubchenco to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a very large agency within the Commerce Department. The Deep Sea News blog ran with the headline, “Obama Appoints Totally Awesome Marine Biologist to Head NOAA!”

Holy Mola! I can’t contain my excitement about this appointment. Her work in marine ecology and conservation is seminal and her involvement in science outreach is phenomenal. This marks a new era for NOAA indeed. I am very excited to see where she takes the agency. Yet again, another amazing Obama appointment. It feels so strange to have a president who respects science and appoints highly qualified people to important posts.

It’s looking more and more like Obama is serious about tackling the global warming problem. But can any of the highly qualified scientists he’s appointed talk him out of promoting “clean coal”?

UPDATE: Reuters says Obama “has chosen retired Navy Adm. Dennis Blair as the top U.S. intelligence official” and will announce that decision soon.

Ouch:

Gov. Chet Culver announced an across-the-board budget cut today and said education and Medicaid won’t escape unscathed.

Culver announced a 1.5 percent across-the board reduction in an attempt to deal with the state’s declining revenues.

The governor said staff reductions and employee furloughs are likely, which will be determined by each department. “It’s going to be painful,” he said.

The cuts announced today amount to $91.4 million and will have an effect on services, Culver acknowledged. In addition, Culver ordered a transfer of $10 million of unused money into the general budget. Most of that transfer money will come from an underground storage tank account, which is used to investigate and clean up any past petroleum contamination from underground storage tanks.

A week ago, Culver announced $40 million in cuts, largely through a hiring freeze and limiting out-of-state travel. In addition, Culver said he will ask the Legislature to withdraw plans for a $37 million new office building.

Combined with cuts announced Dec. 9, the total is $178.4 million in reduced expenses in the current budget year that ends June 30.

Clearly spending cuts in the current year are unavoidable because of the decline in projected revenues.

When state legislators draft next year’s budget, though, I hope they will not rely only on spending cuts to make up for projected lower revenues. David Sirota explains why:

Almost every single economist agrees, the last thing we want to do in a recession is slash government spending. We want, in fact, to increase that spending so that it is a counter-cyclical force to a deteriorating economy. So the question, then, is how to most safely generate the revenue to maintain or increase that spending. By  “most safely” I mean how to raise the revenue in a way that will minimize any negative economic impact. And the answer comes from Joseph Stiglitz:

 

“[T]ax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families.”

So, first and foremost, you don’t want dramatic spending cuts (beyond the usual rooting out of waste/fraud) and you don’t want to raise taxes on middle- and lower-income citizens who both need the money for necessities, and are the demographics that will most quickly spend money in a stimulative way. That leaves taxes on the super-rich, and Stiglitz – unlike anti-tax ideologues – has actual data to make his case.

For more information, see Budget Cuts or Tax Increases at the State Level:

Which is Preferable During an Economic Downturn?

Will Democrats dare to raise taxes, knowing that Republican candidates and interest groups will hammer them for it in 2010?

I have no idea, but if drastic spending cuts send the economy further into recession, 2010 isn’t going to be a picnic for Democrats anyway. I doubt they’ll rally the troops with “At least we didn’t raise your taxes” as a campaign message.

When analyzing the new Iowa House Democratic committee assignments, Chase Martyn noticed,

Almost all vulnerable Democratic incumbents have been kept off the Ways and Means committee.  In a year of budget shortfalls, Ways and Means will likely have to send some tax-increasing bills to the floor.

Post any thoughts about the budget/spending/taxes debate in this thread.

UPDATE: The press release from Culver’s office is after the jump.

SECOND UPDATE: If you think Iowa’s budget outlook is grim, read this short piece about the situation in California.

THIRD UPDATE: Nancy Sebring, the superintendent of the Des Moines Public Schools, announced plans to cut $3.3 million from the current-year budget (about 1 percent) in light of the state budget cuts. Presumably most if not all school districts in Iowa will need to take similar action. I wouldn’t be surprised if fiscal constraints force more of our small school districts to merge.

President-elect Barack Obama has apparently decided to appoint retiring Republican Congressman Ray LaHood of Illinois as Secretary of Transportation. LaHood was elected to the U.S. House in the 1994 landslide. He decided not to run for re-election this year because “It’s not any fun being in the minority.” (Are you listening, Tom Latham?)

An Illinois blogger writes that LaHood doesn’t have much of a record on transportation issues, although he has voted for more public transit funding and more passenger rail service on Amtrak.

At Grist, Ryan Avent sees three possibilities:

  1. Obama doesn’t intend the DOT secretary to do the heavy lifting on his transportation policies,

  2. Obama doesn’t really care about transportation, and

  3. It isn’t true.

But I agree with the reader who suggested a fourth possibility:

4) Obama knows this guy personally, finds him to be a trustworthy sort.  

I am going to hope for number 4 and that Obama will have LaHood implement the transportation priorities Obama and Biden believe in. Expanding passenger rail is one of the biggies.

Incidentally, LaHood was one of the leaders of the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton. Let’s hope he won’t try to undermine Obama’s presidency as well.

Regarding Obama’s choice of Senator Ken Salazar for Secretary of Interior, some environmental groups are concerned. He’s far from the environmental champion they were hoping for in Congressman Raul Grijalva. Kate Sheppard has more on the environmental community’s mixed feelings on Salazar at Grist.

However, the Sierra Club praised Salazar, as well as Tom Vilsack, in this press release.

In this Daily Kos diary, Kula 2316 provides more reaction to Obama’s choice of Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture.

Share any relevant thoughts in the comments.

I wonder whether Barack Obama will ever make a gesture to the millions of liberal Democrats who helped him win the nomination and general election. Now he’s chosen Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration. Having Warren there will just reinforce the stereotype that top religious leaders are conservative on social issues.

Picking a respected and inclusive minister on the “religious left” would better represent “change we can believe in.”

I understand that Obama will be the president of all Americans, but it seems like he is going out of his way to associate himself only with centrists and conservatives.

Does he think that having Rick Warren there will inspire the right wing to give him a honeymoon? They will try to destroy his presidency from day one no matter what.

By choosing an outspoken supporter of California’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Obama is also insulting the millions of gays and lesbians who voted for him in large numbers.

I can’t say I am surprised, given Obama’s willingness to schedule a campaign event with gospel singer Donnie McClurkin last year in order to make political gains among black voters in South Carolina. Don’t expect him to be there for any Democratic constituency if he can benefit politically from turning his back on them.

UPDATE: Todd Beeton and I are on the same wavelength:

The thing is, there’s no shortage of progressive Christian pastors, ministers and priests who opposed Proposition 8 and are no less Christian than Rick Warren. Sure Warren may be better known, may have sold a whole lot of books and brings with him the added bonus of sending a dog whistle signal to Christian conservatives that he’s their president too, but what about sending a signal to the LGBT community and broader progressive community who, ya know, actually supported him and worked our ass off for him? Reinforcing the false notion that the only real Christians are conservative Christians is NOT change I can believe in at all.

Beeton also has the video of Warren endorsing California’s Proposition 8.

Look, I understand why Obama quietly opposed Proposition 8 without doing anything to defeat it. I’m sure he worried that speaking out against banning gay marriage in California would hurt him in a lot of other states. But the election’s over now, and he won. He should not give Rick Warren the honor of delivering the invocation at the inauguration.

SECOND UPDATE: This is a hot topic on many of the blogs, with some people mocking the outrage over Warren.

I wouldn’t say this is the most important thing in the world. If Obama’s other appointments had suggested that he would have lots of progressives in his inner circle, probably many people would be more willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Anyway, this diary by Clarknt67 does a good job explaining why Warren matters to a lot of people:

And let’s also be clear, Obama is not “engaging” the far-right. This is not an “engagement;” it is a great honor. He’s giving Rick Warren a grand platform and an international audience. He is endorsing Rick Warren, and make no mistake, Warren’s particular flavor of Christianity with all the legitimacy and prestige of the office of the President of the United States.

In fairness I should note that Obama has also giving Reverend Joseph Lowery a role at the inaugural:

Lost in all the uproar over Warren’s presence is the presence of another preacher at the inaugural: Joseph Lowery, the fellow who will give the closing benediction — and who, in addition to being a civil-rights hero on the order of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. himself, is also a friend to the GLBT community.

Click that link to read more about Lowery.

Barack Obama will officially announce today that he is nominating Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture.

Vilsack said last month that he was not being vetted for any position in Obama’s cabinet. According to the Des Moines Register, Vilsack

was notified Thursday that Obama wanted to meet with him at the presidential transition headquarters in Chicago, sources close to the transition said.

Obama and Vilsack met Friday, after which the Iowan was offered the position.

I have to say, they did a pretty good job keeping that under wraps for three days.

Senator Tom Harkin will make sure Vilsack’s confirmation hearings go smoothly.

Iowans from both parties expect Vilsack’s appointment to benefit Iowa:

Iowa Department of Economic Development Director Mike Tramontina said Vilsack, as agriculture secretary, would benefit Iowa in multiple ways.

Tramontina, a Democrat and Vilsack supporter, said the department is the primary source of federal money for the state. Its effect on commodities and trade, renewable energy, water quality and, more immediately, flood control, would be magnified with Vilsack at the helm, he predicted.

“We’ll have someone there who understands Iowa’s animal agriculture, a person who understands Iowa’s topography, its rivers and streams and its small towns,” Tramontina said.

“To have someone like Tom Vilsack, who understands Iowa the way he does, is going to be a tremendous benefit to us.”

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey, a Republican, had kind words for Vilsack.

“It’s nice to have an Iowan in this job,” Northey said. “He understands what’s going on in agriculture. He’s a quick study, and I think Iowans will have good access in the USDA.”

Chuck Grassley must be happy to have Vilsack out of the running for the 2010 Senate election:

One top Iowa Republican, Sen. Charles Grassley, sounded relieved in a statement he released Tuesday night. “This comes as a surprise since about three weeks ago Governor Vilsack stated that he was not in contention for the job, but it sure isn’t a surprise because of his qualifications,” Grassley said.

“As governor of Iowa, he had a firsthand look at the role of agriculture in our global economy. I’m happy for him, happy for Iowa, and this is welcome news for agriculture.”

David Yepsen views this appointment as “a nice political thank you to Iowa,” adding

It’s less clear what Vilsack, a trial lawyer by training, brings to the job. He has never been a dirt-under-the-fingernails farmer. A policy wonk, he won’t be much for those backslapping visits to farm shows and state fairs, which is often the fate of an ag secretary.

What’s wrong with having a policy wonk run this department? The job should go to someone who can do more than fit in at farm shows and state fairs. Remember, the USDA

also covers food production and safety, as well as the Food Stamp Program. Vilsack is expected to work with Harkin next year as the reauthorization of the National School Lunch Program, which includes subsidized meals for low-income students, comes up for reauthorization.

“We have to focus on nutrition, and I look forward to working with Sen. Harkin on this,” Vilsack said.

I didn’t realize the school lunch program was up for reauthorization next year.

Anyway, my point is that there’s no reason Obama shouldn’t appoint a policy wonk for this job. If Vilsack had done more to support sustainable agriculture while he was governor, I would feel great about this appointment. As it is, I think he will be a good manager but will just continue the status quo in our agriculture policies, which from my perspective are not ideal for our economy, environment or health.

On that note, John Nichols of The Nation is not thrilled with Obama’s choice:

Vilsack is a capable administrator with the right partisan credentials.

But he only moved to the top of the list of Agriculture secretary prospects because he is a prominent Democrat who comes from what Washington insiders know as a “farm state.” As governor of Iowa, Vilsack had to engage with farm issues. But that embrace was anything but inspired. Family farm activists, fair-trade campaigners and advocates for organic foods were regularly disappointed by the stands he took. The Organic Consumers Association was blunt, declaring: “Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto.” […]

Obama could have done better, much better. […]

More competitive — and still quite appealing — was Tom Buis, the president of the National Farmers Union, who was an early and wise counselor for the president-elect. Buis, an Indiana farmer who has also served as an aide to top Democrats in the Senate, has over the past several years been in the thick of every major debate about farm and food policy. He knows the issues and, for the most part, he has been on the right side of them, although critics of ethanol initiatives will find fault with his advocacy on that front.

Unlike the Farm Bureau, a conservative grouping that has historically aligned with corporate agribusiness interests and Wall Street, the Farmers Union has for a century represented working farmers and Main Street. In recent years, Buis and the NFU have emerged as key players in advancing fresh thinking about farm and food issues: supporting the development of organic farming, backing the development of farmers’ markets and local food programs, promoting country-of-origin labeling and other food safety initiatives, and battling the commodities speculators that have driven up global food prices.

Nichols expressed hope that Vilsack will tap either Buis or “sharp state official[s]” for senior posts within the USDA. Strong contenders include Wisconsin Secretary of Agriculture Rod Nilsestuen, North Dakota Commissioner of Agriculture Roger Johnson, former North Dakota Commissioner of Agriculture Sarah Vogel, and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.

Natasha Chart’s assessment is worth reading.

At La Vida Locavore, Jill Richardson explains in detail why she opposes putting genetically-modified organisms in food. Vilsack has been a prominent advocate of GMOs and “pharmacrops.”

UPDATE: Congressman Dave Loebsack released this statement:

“Governor Tom Vilsack is an outstanding choice as the next Secretary of Agriculture, I can think of no better person to serve our nation in this capacity.  Governor Vilsack is a proven leader and he possesses a deep understanding of the opportunities and challenges facing rural America.  As Secretary of Agriculture, Governor Vilsack will be able to draw on his experience and knowledge to protect family farms, support rural communities, and end our nation’s dependence on foreign oil by bolstering the production of bio-fuels and other renewable sources of energy.  Iowans are proud of Governor Vilsack, and excited by the opportunity to have one of our own serve as a cabinet secretary in the new Obama Administration.”

Congressman Bruce Braley released this statement:

“My friend Tom Vilsack is a great choice for Secretary of Agriculture, and I’m glad to see that an Iowan will play a major role in President Obama’s administration.  Governor Vilsack knows agriculture and is a strong supporter of renewable energy and biofuels.  I can’t think of a more qualified and capable candidate for the job,” said Rep. Bruce Braley.

If Congressman Leonard Boswell’s office sends me a statement, I would be happy to post that as well.

UPDATE: Open Left user Hopeful in NJ was right. Other media are now also reporting that Tom Vilsack will be Barack Obama’s secretary of agriculture.

A vigorous debate on the merits of the choice is going on in this thread at Daily Kos.

Natasha Chart wrote a thoughtful piece at MyDD.

Last month Vilsack told the Des Moines Register that he wasn’t being considered for any position in Obama’s cabinet.

Some sustainable agriculture advocates had lobbied against his appointment to head the US Department of Agriculture.

I thought Vilsack would have been a great Secretary of Education, but Obama just gave that job to Arne Duncan.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Was Vilsack telling the truth when he said he wasn’t being vetted for the position? Or was that a head fake to divert the activists who were opposing his appointment?

Obama seems to have changed course several times on the Interior appointment. It’s possible that he wasn’t seriously considering Vilsack for the USDA post last month, but changed his mind in the past couple of weeks.

It would be interesting to know when Obama’s transition team first approached him about this job.  

Exciting news out of Dubuque:

Dubuque City Manager Michael Van Milligen has appointed Sheila Samuelson to the new City position of Sustainable Community Coordinator. She will begin her employment on January 19, 2009. “I was very pleased with the high caliber of candidates for the position,” said Van Milligen. “Sheila’s experience, education, skills, and commitment to sustainability proved to be the right fit for Dubuque.”

As Sustainable Community Coordinator for Dubuque, Samuelson will be responsible for developing, implementing and maintaining the City’s sustainability plan and programs. Sustainability is defined as a Dubuque’s ability to meet the environmental, economic, and social equity needs of today without reducing the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The City of Dubuque has adopted a three-part approach to sustainability to create policies and programs that address economic prosperity, environmental integrity, and social cultural vibrancy. When all three components are addressed, the result is a community that is viable, livable, and equitable.

“I am excited to work closely with City departments, community groups, businesses, and individuals to help Dubuque continue on a path toward sustainability, and become a model community that represents cultural vibrancy, social equity, economic viability, and environmental health,” said Samuelson.

Samuelson, an Iowa native, has a bachelor’s degree in biological sciences from the University of Iowa and will receive her MBA in sustainable management from the Presidio School of Management in San Francisco in December of this year. Her MBA studies have focused on environmentally, socially, and financially sustainable business models.

Her sustainability consulting experience includes work for the San Francisco Department of the Environment Green Business Certification Program and for Architecture for Humanity, also in San Francisco. Samuelson’s professional experience includes work with the Green Purchasing Institute in Berkeley, Calif., where she helped local and regional governments adopt and implement green procurement policies and programs. She also worked for Century Farm Harvest Heat in Iowa City where she researched and wrote a non-fiction book on biomass as a local source of renewable fuel for heating homes and businesses.

Samuelson also spent 10 weeks in Greensburg, Kan., following a tornado that destroyed 95 percent of the town in 2007. She worked closely with local, state and federal agencies, and on a grassroots level with local citizens, to work toward a sustainable recovery effort. Samuelson was also a board member for The James Gang, the non-profit organization in Iowa City under which she founded and directed Earth Expo, a now-annual sustainability festival in Iowa City.

I’ll look forward to hearing more about Samuelson’s work in Dubuque. If any Bleeding Heartland readers are in the area, feel free to post a diary or send me an e-mail when something interesting is going on.

The city has posted more information about the “Sustainable Dubuque” program on its website.

It’s been a week since the Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Varnum v Brien. You can view the video of the proceedings here (scroll down the page). For three different analyses of the legal issues in this case, see the legal primers that jpmassar and Osorio wrote before the Supreme Court hearing, or this piece Chase Martyn published today.

Grant Schulte of the Des Moines Register summarized the key points raised by each side in this article. Assistant Polk County Attorney Roger Kuhle argued that:

*the district court judge erroneously threw out expert testimony;

*the Polk County recorder being sued had no choice but to follow the Defense of Marriage Act;

*allowing same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy becoming legal;

*allowing same-sex marriage could hurt children being raised by heterosexual parents;

*allowing same-sex marriage could hurt the institution of marriage, because future generations would know marriage is no longer about procreation;

*the Iowa legislature (not courts) should decide this matter.

Dennis Johnson, the attorney for the six couples seeking marriage rights, argued that:

*Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection and due process provisions of Iowa’s Constitution;

*arguments about potential damage to the institution of marriage are “highly speculative”;

*the district court judge was right to reject the expert testimony concerning the benefits of having a mother and a father;

*marriage is not about procreation, because Iowa issues marriage licenses to many people who cannot have children or who would be bad parents (e.g. sex offenders);

*Iowa already permits same-sex couples to be foster parents and adopt children;

*gay marriage would not lead to legalizing marriages between more than two people.

Drake University Law Professor Sally Frank wrote a brief play-by-play of the arguments, which she observed from the courtroom. (Side note: Iowans may not be aware that Frank is well-known for filing the lawsuit that ended gender discrimination at Princeton University’s eating clubs.) I agree with Frank’s comments about the weakest point for plaintiffs’ attorney Johnson:

The lawyer for the Plaintiffs’ (six couples seeking marriage) […] had a little trouble distinguishing his argument that marriage was a fundamental right that could not be limited to heterosexuals from the question of polygamists also having a fundamental right to marry. At one point though, he pointed out that no other Iowa laws that deal with marriage in any way would need to be changed if same sex couples were allowed to marry. This would not be the case with polygamy.

When questioned about whether Iowa would be forced to permit polygamy if the court allowed gay marriage, Johnson’s first response was to say that marriage had always been about two individuals–not strong turf when the rest of your case holds that the tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman is not sufficient grounds to deny same-sex couples those rights. He was correct to point out shortly thereafter that certain laws (e.g. related to custody or inheritance) would have to be changed if Iowa allowed polygamy.

Several people I’ve spoken with felt that Kuhle, who is an excellent attorney, was not at the top of his game last Tuesday while being questioned by the judges. They speculated that either he did not prepare enough or did not believe all of the arguments he was making.

The Iowa City Press-Citizen editorial board said watching the arguments made them

even more confused as to what compelling interest the state has in denying otherwise qualifying same-sex partners from applying for and receiving a state marriage license.

The Des Moines Register editorial board also felt many of Kuhle’s arguments were weak:

If the Iowa Supreme Court ultimately upholds Iowa’s law limiting marriage to a man and a woman, it will have to have a better reason than the one offered by defenders of the law at Tuesday’s oral argument.

Legal experts quoted in this article by Jason Hancock said they could not tell how the court will rule on this case from observing the oral arguments.

As a non-lawyer, I found it difficult to follow some of the discussion during the hearing. At Iowa Independent, Lynda Waddington wrote a good piece explaining the significance of all that talk over whether the court should apply a “rational basis” or a “strict scrutiny” standard in this case. She interviewed former Iowa Supreme Court judge Mark McCormick:

“The Court has decided quite a number of equal protection clause cases,” said McCormick. “A good deal of what the court does in [those] cases depends on what the test or standard is.”

When a case involves a routine economic issue, the court typically applies a rational basis test, he said. That means the judges seek to decide if the Legislature could have had any reasonable basis for making the classification that it did. If the judges conclude that the state had a rational reason for the law, the court won’t interfere with it, but will defer to the Legislature.

“Strict scrutiny” is a more demanding standard, he said.

“Where you are dealing with an issue like race or citizenship or something that is considered a fundamental constitutional right, the burden is on the government to prove a compelling need for the classification,” he explained.

Some prominent social conservatives in Iowa expect the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, clearing a path to same-sex marriage in this state.

University of Iowa law professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig told the Iowa City Press-Citizen that she also expects the state law to be overturned. The same article noted that while the legal arguments made in this case resemble those made in other states, the attorneys for the plaintiffs also relied on legal precedents specific to Iowa:

Camilla Taylor, a senior staff attorney with Lambda Legal and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, foresees several possible outcomes of the hearing.

She said there could be an outright win or loss, the case could be remanded back to trial court to hear from more witnesses, or the court could duplicate rulings on similar cases in New Jersey and Vermont.

In those states, the courts granted civil unions but did not rule on the issue of gay marriage. Taylor said she expected the Legislatures in Vermont and New Jersey to draft legislation supporting same-sex marriage, thus taking it out of the court’s hands.

Taylor said she doubted the Iowa Supreme Court would use the last two options.

“Most likely it will be an outright win because of constitutional precedent. The cases we are relying on are very strong,” she said. “I don’t want to sound presumptuous, but I am optimistic because of the Iowa cases we are relying on.”

Meanwhile, Kate and Trish Varnum, whose name has become famous because of this case, just want to get married.

Whatever the state Supreme Court decides, gay marriage is not going away as a political issue anytime soon in Iowa.

Yesterday the Sioux City Council tabled a resolution that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman:

Instead, the council will seek an attorney general’s opinion about whether a city council can legally pass such a resolution and whether doing so would open the city up to litigation.

The Iowa branch of the American Civil Liberties Union has already come out against the Sioux City proposal, so the idea of litigation against the city is not far-fetched.

Arguments about gay parenting and whether homosexuality should be “normalized” in public schools will likely be prominent in next year’s school board elections. By a 6-1 vote on Monday, the Ankeny school board

denied a request by parents who said “And Tango Makes Three,” a children’s book about two male penguins that raise a chick together, should be off-limits to elementary school students.

Looking beyond Iowa, I imagine that Newsweek’s mailroom is having a busy week after the magazine published a cover story on gay marriage by religion editor Lisa Miller. The opening passage is sure to anger many:

Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel-all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments-especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. “It is better to marry than to burn with passion,” says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple-who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love-turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

This is an open thread for any comments about the politics or the legal issues surrounding the marriage equality debate.

Like many Iowa progressives, I strongly supported Denise O’Brien (creator of the

Women, Food and Agriculture Network) for secretary of agriculture in 2006. Still have my O’Brien for Secretary of Agriculture t-shirt, in fact.

Although she fell short in the election, the sustainable food movement continues to grow, with unprecedented online and real-world activism about whom the president should appoint for secretary of agriculture and what policies that person should implement. Some people think it’s time the U.S. had a “secretary of food” focused on a broader range of interests than the agribusiness sector.

Kerry Trueman asked O’Brien about these efforts and posted her answer at Open Left. Excerpt:

As a farmer of thirty plus years, I am intrigued by all of the emails, blogs and websites devoted to the selection of the United States Secretary of Agriculture. My mind swirls with all sorts of fantasies of what a progressive “Secretary of Food” could do for our country. But alas, today as I check out the latest candidates, I am brought back to the unfortunate reality of our current situation – the United States, just like our little state of Iowa, is owned solely by big agribusiness interests with the American Farm Bureau Federation leading the corporate interest pack. It has often baffled me how an insurance company has been able to “speak for the farmers” when they are certainly not a farm organization. […]

Sure, it would be swell to have a person at the head of the Department of Agriculture who understands what the food movement is about, but seriously, that would be an incredible leap for corporate interests. Food justice is just not a concept that sector can even begin to grasp.

I have had firsthand experience taking on corporate ag and although I was not successful in my bid for the Iowa Secretary of Agriculture, my friends all tell me I scared the sh… out of them! What this indicates is that we all must continue to work for food democracy. In my humble opinion, food democracy is about economic democracy. That is where we need to be heading.

Food Democracy is the “right of all people to an adequate, safe, nutritious, sustainable, food supply.” The Food Democracy blog is here. The Food Democracy Now petition to Barack Obama is here. As of 5 pm on Tuesday, nearly 54,000 people had signed. OrangeClouds115 reported today that the people who drew up the petition have been in communication with Obama staffers, and the petition itself has reached the desk of some senior advisers.

I have no illusions about Obama appointing a USDA head who is committed to sustainable agriculture, but it’s good that his people know that large numbers of Americans are going to watch his agricultural policies closely.

Ramona Cunningham was sentenced to seven years in prison for her part in misappropriating $1.5 million in federal funds while she headed the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium (CIETC). Others involved in the fraud at CIETC will be sentenced later this month or next year, but presumably Cunningham will do the most time in prison, having been the central figure in the scandal.

The prison sentence seems fair; misusing funds meant for job training programs is a serious crime. I’m sure many people will say Cunningham should be punished more harshly, though. The hatred of her is out of proportion to the crimes at CIETC.

Speaking of crime and punishment, Glenn Greenwald wrote a good post contrasting the media’s exhaustive coverage of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s alleged crimes with the near-total silence about the Senate Armed Services Committee’s recent finding:

The bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report issued on Thursday — which documents that “former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials share much of the blame for detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba” and “that Rumsfeld’s actions were ‘a direct cause of detainee abuse’ at Guantanamo and ‘influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques … in Afghanistan and Iraq’” — raises an obvious and glaring question:  how can it possibly be justified that the low-level Army personnel carrying out these policies at Abu Ghraib have been charged, convicted and imprisoned, while the high-level political officials and lawyers who directed and authorized these same policies remain free of any risk of prosecution?  

Great question.

UPDATE: CIETC’s former chief accountant Karen Tesdell got sentenced to two years on Tuesday for looking the other way as her colleagues misappropriated money.

Marc Hansen’s latest column reviews the arguments Cunningham’s attorney Bill Kutmus used during the sentencing hearing. He said his client wasn’t the ringleader and should not be punished more harshly than John Bargman (CIETC’s former chief operating officer, who will be sentenced next year). He also said Cunningham was a victim of sexism, and that U.S. prosecutors had treated her unfairly.

I agree that misogyny was driving a lot of the intense hatred of Cunningham. But I have some advice for her: next time you decide to commit a bunch of federal crimes, strike a plea bargain like Bargman did if you don’t want to do serious prison time.

Look at Mitchell Wade. He bribed a member of Congress with more than $1.8 million and just got sentenced to only 30 months in prison, because he cooperated with prosecutors.  

I’ve just learned that 1000 Friends of Iowa has postponed the Best Development Award ceremony scheduled for tomorrow, because of the large snowstorm expected to hit Iowa. Since I included that event on this week’s calendar, I wanted to post this news as well.

Congratulations again to the winners.  

UPDATE: Barack Obama announced the key appointments in his energy and environmental team today. Meteor Blades has a good piece up on the “Green Team” of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, “energy czar” Carol Browner, Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson and head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Nancy Sutley.

On Saturday Obama devoted his weekly address to the housing crisis (click the link to watch the video) and announced that New York City Commissioner of Housing Preservation and Development Shaun Donovan will serve as Housing and Urban Development Secretary in his cabinet. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York commented,

Shaun Donovan has been one of the most effective housing commissioners in New York City’s history. At this time, with the housing crisis raging, he is exactly the kind of person we need as HUD secretary.

Sam Dillon of the New York Times discussed some possibilities for Secretary of Education and noted,

As President-elect Barack Obama prepares to announce his choice for education secretary, there is mystery not only about the person he will choose, but also about the approach to overhauling the nation’s schools that his selection will reflect.

Despite an 18-month campaign for president and many debates, there remains uncertainty about what Mr. Obama believes is the best way to improve education.

Will he side with those who want to abolish teacher tenure and otherwise curb the power of teachers’ unions? Or with those who want to rewrite the main federal law on elementary and secondary education, the No Child Left Behind Act, and who say the best strategy is to help teachers become more qualified?

UPDATE: Obama reportedly plans to nominate Arne Duncan, the head of Chicago’s public school system, as Secretary of Education. Duncan is also a longtime friend of Obama’s.

Meanwhile, nearly 45,000 people have signed this online petition at Food Democracy Now. Excerpt:

As our nation’s future president, we hope that you will take our concerns under advisement when nominating our next Secretary of Agriculture because of the crucial role this Secretary will play in revitalizing our rural economies, protecting our nation’s food supply and our environment, improving human health and well-being, rescuing the independent family farmer, and creating a sustainable renewable energy future.

We believe that our nation is at a critical juncture in regard to agriculture and its impact on the environment and that our next Secretary of Agriculture must have a broad vision for our collective future that is greater than what past appointments have called for.

Presently, farmers face serious challenges in terms of the high costs of energy, inputs and land, as well as continually having to fight an economic system and legislative policies that undermine their ability to compete in the open market. The current system unnaturally favors economies of scale, consolidation and market concentration and the allocation of massive subsidies for commodities, all of which benefit the interests of corporate agribusiness over the livelihoods of farm families.

Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, has set a goal of 100,000 signatures for this petition.

Steph Larsen discussed some names on the short list for Secretary of Agriculture here. Sustainable agriculture advocates would love to see the job offered to Chuck Hassebrook, executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs. Hassebrook wrote this guest opinion for the Des Moines Register a few weeks ago, saying

Nothing better illustrates the broken politics of Washington than farm and rural policy. The federal government spends billions subsidizing mega farms to drive smaller farms off the land and often penalizes the best environmental stewards with lower payments. It largely fails to invest in the future of America’s rural communities.

For example, in 2005 the Department of Agriculture spent nearly twice as much to subsidize the 260 biggest farms across 13 leading farm states than on rural development initiatives to create economic opportunity for the 3 million people living in those states’ 260 most struggling rural counties. That does not help family farms or small-town Americans. It does not serve the common good.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is among those who want to see Obama nominate a “secretary of food” with a broad vision for agriculture. He named Hassebrook as a good candidate for the job.

The Center for Rural Affairs has launched its own online petition asking Obama’s future Secretary of Agriculture, whoever that may be, to promote a new vision for rural America. It’s a long petition, advocating priorities such as:

policies to support grassroots entrepreneurship in rural America, such as the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program, the Value Added Producer Grant Program, and the Farmers Market Promotion Program;

a plan to get affordable high-speed internet service to every rural business and home;

policies to support local ownership of wind turbines by farmers and ranchers, communities, and the rural workers who maintain wind turbines;

a plan to find the right approach to biofuels;

federal policies that work for family-size farms, including caps on payments;

better land and water stewardship using the Conservation Stewardship Program and other programs.

According to the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, Obama’s two finalists for Secretary of Transportation are former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk and Steve Heminger, executive director of the San Francisco Bay area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Kirk was an early Obama supporter and the first African-American mayor of Dallas. Heminger has the strong backing of California’s large Democratic Congressional delegation. I don’t know enough about either man’s views on transportation to have an opinion about who would be better for this job.

New names continue to emerge in the speculation surrounding Obama’s Secretary of the Interior. Among the names previously floated, environmentalists have advocated for Raul Grijalva and against Mike Thompson. Now the Denver Post says Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado is a finalist for the job. Traditionally, someone from the west is named to head the Interior Department. Salazar is up for re-election in 2010, and Swing State Project already has a thread up to discuss possible Democratic candidates to replace him if he leaves the Senate for a cabinet position.

UPDATE: CBS news in Denver says Salazar has accepted Obama’s offer to become Secretary of the Interior. Not a great choice, and it leaves Democrats an open Senate seat to defend in Colorado in 2010.

Post any relevant thoughts or opinions in the comments.

The phrase “carbon sequestration” is often used in connection with so-called “clean coal” technology that doesn’t exist. Scientific debate over the best methods of carbon capture and storage tends to weigh the costs and benefits of various high-tech solutions to the problem.

But Tim LaSalle, CEO of the non-profit Rodale Institute, reminds us in a guest column for the Des Moines Register that an effective means of sequestering carbon in our soil already exists:

By using organic agricultural methods and eliminating petroleum-based fertilizers and toxic chemical pest-and-weed control, we build – rather than destroy – the biology of our soil. While improving the health of the soil we also enhance its ability to diminish the effects of flooding, as just one example. In some laboratory trials, organically farmed soils have provided 850 percent less runoff than conventional, chemically fertilized soils. This is real flood prevention, not sandbag bandages for life-threatening emergencies.

When the soil is nurtured through organic methods, it allows plants to naturally pull so much carbon dioxide from the air and store it in the soil that global warming can actually be reversed. Farms using conventional, chemical fertilizer release soil carbon into the atmosphere. Switching to organic methods turns a major global-warming contributor into the single largest remedy of the climate crisis, while eliminating toxic farm chemical drainage into our streams, rivers and aquifers.

Using such methods, we would be sequestering from 25 percent to well over 100 percent of our carbon-dioxide emissions. Microscopic life forms in the soil hold carbon in the soil for up to 100 years. This is much more efficient than inserting foreign genes. Healthy soil already does that at such remarkable levels it usually can eliminate crop disasters, which means greater food security for all nations. And the beauty is, investing in soils is not patentable, enriching just some, but instead is free to all.

Where has this science, this solution, been hiding? It has been intentionally buried under the weight of special interests – that are selling chemicals into our farming system, lobbying Congress, embedding employees in government agencies and heavily funding agricultural university research.

A few years ago, the Rodale Institute published a detailed report on how Organic farming combats global warming. Click that link for more facts and figures.

For more on how groups promoting industrial agriculture lobby Congress, see this Open Secrets report and this piece from the Green Guide on The New Food Pyramid: How Corporations Squash Regulation.

Expanding organic farming and reducing the amount of chemicals used on conventional farms would have other environmental advantages as well, most obviously an improvement in water quality both in farming states and downstream. Last week the National Academcy of Sciences released findings from the latest study proving that chemicals applied to farms are a major contributor to the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico:

The study, conducted at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency, recommends setting pollution reduction targets for the watersheds, or drainage areas, that are the largest sources of the pollution that flows down the Mississippi River to the gulf.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture was urged to help fund a series of pilot projects to test how changes in farming practices and land use can reduce the runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus. The report, written by a panel of scientists, did not say how much money would be needed. Agricultural experts and congressional aides said it wasn’t clear whether there was enough money in federal conservation programs to fund the necessary projects.

[…]

The government has been debating for years about how to address the oxygen-depleted dead zone, or hypoxia, in the gulf. The dead zone reached 8,000 square miles this year, the second-largest area recorded since mapping began in the 1980s.

[…]

Agricultural groups don’t want mandatory controls put on farms.

However, a scientific advisory board of the EPA has recommended reducing the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus flowing to the gulf by 45 percent. More than 75 percent of those two pollutants originates in nine states, including Iowa, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Here’s a link to more detailed findings about how agricultural states contribute to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

Organic farming is also good for rural economic development because it employs more people. I’ll write more soon on the economic benefits of implementing other sustainable agriculture policies.

UPDATE: This post generated a lot of good discussion at Daily Kos. You can view those comments here.

When OrangeClouds115 speaks, I listen:

BTW – can you request in your diary that people who support your ideas here sign the petition at http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/ ? Apparently its 40,000+ signatures have gotten the attention of Obama’s transition team and Michael Pollan himself thinks that they may actually listen to us if we get to 100,000 signatures.

SECOND UPDATE: Thanks to understandinglife for the Digg link.

What would charitable organizations and other non-profits do without the holiday season? Many groups bring in more donations during December than during any other month of the year. Without holiday giving, meeting basic expenses would be a challenge. If you get a mailing from a group you support, I encourage you to give what you can afford.

Responding to telephone solicitations isn’t such a good idea, as Lee Rood reported in the Sunday Des Moines Register:

The Register’s examination of more than 80 professional fundraisers serving more than 500 charities – often for little-known nonprofits but sometimes for well-known charities – also shows:

– The median percentage of proceeds that wind up with a charity is about 24 percent, according to reports to Iowa’s attorney general by fundraisers that made disclosures in 2007. Just five charities received more than 75 percent of the proceeds from fundraising campaigns.

– One fundraiser, Aria Communications, reported charging nonprofits more than the company raised last year.

– Most for-profit fundraisers do not disclose how much money is given to a charity after they take their cut for fees and expenses. Although Iowa law requires such disclosure, companies fail to report the actual costs of telemarketing or direct-mail efforts and the amounts given to the charities in about four out of five cases.

– About a half-dozen fundraising companies continue to do business in Iowa even though they have been subject to cease-and-desist orders, hefty fines and multiple court actions for breaking solicitation rules or financial disclosure laws, or for deceiving would-be donors. (See related article on this page.)

– Many of the charities that benefit from the fundraising are poorly rated by watchdog groups or give a tiny fraction to the individuals or groups that solicitors claim donations will benefit.

The whole article and related sidebar are worth reading. If you want to support a group, find the organization’s address on the web or in the phone book and mail a check. That way your full donation will go to a good cause, instead of paying mostly for telemarketer fees.

Speaking of telemarketers, a funny story appeared in the Register a few days ago:

Gov. Chet Culver told Iowa school administrators a story on Monday about an experience he had with the New York Times early in his political career.

Culver, who ran for Iowa secretary of state in 1998, said shortly after he announced his candidacy, he received a telephone call from Bob Smith with the New York Times.

Culver said he was surprised a reporter from the newspaper was calling him when he hadn’t yet done an interview with The Des Moines Register or other media outlets in the state.

Culver said he asked Smith if he could call him back, and the man said yes. The governor said he was relieved because it would give him more time to prepare for an interview. He asked Smith what he wanted to talk to him about.

“This is regarding your Sunday subscription to the New York Times,” Smith told him.

UPDATE: Here’s a link to the Charity Navigator website in case you want to look up a group before you donate.