Scott McClellan appeared before the House Judiciary Committee today to testify about the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.

McClellan recently published a book called, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.”

According to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, Republicans on that committee “worked feverishly to discredit the former White House press secretary who had turned against his patron and former boss, President Bush.”

I don’t have a transcript of the hearing, but Milbank reported that Iowa’s own Congressman Steve King asked McClellan, “Couldn’t you have taken this to the grave with you and done this country a favor?”

That’s just what I try to teach my kids–when you see other people committing crimes and lying about it, do the country a favor by keeping your mouth shut.

If you are tired of King embarrassing our great state on a regular basis, please donate to Rob Hubler, the Democrat seeking to represent Iowa’s fifth Congressional district.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall put up this video clip from C-SPAN at Talking Points Memo:

SECOND UPDATE: Daily Kos user 2laneIA posted a good and funny diary about this too.

Jason Hancock has a story up at Iowa Independent about labor unions working hard to increase the Democratic majorities in the Iowa legislature.

It’s clear that members of the labor community are still furious that Governor Chet Culver vetoed a collective-bargaining bill passed toward the end of this year’s session:

Ken Sager, president of the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, said the 2008 legislative session ended on a sour note, but he hopes that be used as motivation in the future.

“A lot of our members are very disappointed and angry that we were finally able to get a [collective bargaining] bill through the legislature and we couldn’t get the governor’s signature,” he said. “We were very surprised, and we’ve heard from a number of legislative leaders who were just as stunned as we were. Now, we’re trying to focus that anger in a productive way to help build the labor movement for the future.”

In the federation’s most recent newsletter, the veto was put in much starker terms.

“The 2008 Legislative Session will go down in Iowa labor history as the session when a Democratic governor turned his back on the unions that enthusiastically supported him and helped get him elected,” the newsletter said. “When Gov. Culver vetoed the public sector collective bargaining bill, not only public workers, but all of labor was stunned by what they felt was an out-and-out betrayal.”

Cityview weekly’s “Civic Skinny” column recently commented on the strained relationship:

It wasn’t on his schedule, but [Culver] showed up the other day at the dedication of the Iowa Workers Monument. Skinny wasn’t sure what that means – so she turned to the Senior Analyst for Civic Skinny, who had a ready explanation. “This was organized labor’s effort to recognize Iowa’s workers that started way back in 2004. With the collective bargaining veto, it would have added insult to injury to have skipped the event, but he didn’t put it on his public schedule or send out a press release to promote the dedication of the monument – which is located on state property,” the Senior Analyst analyzed. Then, morphing into a Senior Cynic, he added: “Maybe this was the advice he got from the same pollsters that advised him to veto the collective bargaining bill.” “Way back in 2004” is code for “during the Vilsack administration,” and several Vilsack people – including the former governor himself – are on the Monument committee, which might be another reason Culver didn’t play up the dedication.

I wish labor unions every success in helping elect more Democratic legislators who are strong on their issues.

If Culver had asked for my advice, I would have encouraged him to sign the collective-bargaining bill. I wasn’t persuaded by the arguments that corporate and Republican interest groups made against it.

That said, the Democrats in the legislature badly bungled the passage of the bill, in my opinion.

Let’s take a step back.

In 2007 the slim Democratic majority in the House was unable to hold together to pass the “fair share” bill that would have weakened Iowa’s right-to-work law. This was one of the hot-button issues from the earliest days of the session, and it was a blow to the leadership’s credibility not to get it through.

Statehouse leaders tried a different tactic with the collective-bargaining bill this year. Instead of making clear early in the session that it would be one of their priorities, they let it be added as a 14-page amendment to a different bill, after the first funnel deadline had passed.

In theory, bills need to be approved by a legislative committee before that funnel deadline in order to be voted on during the legislative session. There are exceptions (the leadership can introduce new bills after the funnel), but in general, major initiatives are not supposed to be introduced after the funnel date.

Then, Democrats tried to limit debate over the collective bargaining proposal, prompting Senate Republicans to take unusual steps to force debate on it.

As I said above, I support the substance of the bill. I understand why it would be advantageous for the leadership not to tip their hand early in the session about the collective bargaining bill. Doing so would have given opponents more time to mobilize against it and lean on the less reliable members of the Democratic caucus.

But look at this situation from Culver’s perspective. The Democrats in the legislature looked like they were afraid to debate the collective bargaining measure in broad daylight. That’s what is implied when you introduce a major policy initiative as a long amendment and limit debate before forcing it through on a party-line vote.

I have no idea whether Culver vetoed the bill over substantive disagreements or solely because of political considerations, but I understand his reluctance to get behind a controversial bill approved in this manner.

Let’s elect more good Democrats to the legislature. They should be able to pass a strong collective bargaining bill next year without giving the appearance of trying to slip it in under the radar.

Then Culver should sign it without hesitation.

Michael Gartner, who as NBC News president put Tim Russert in charge of the network’s Washington bureau and later in the moderator’s seat at Meet the Press, wrote a moving essay about Russert for the Des Moines weekly Cityview.

I’m not going to pull any quotes. Just read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Cityview link isn’t working, but the piece also ran in USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/p…

Here is Barack Obama’s first television commercial for the general election campaign:

Chris Bowers did an interesting content analysis, putting “conservative frames” in bold and underlining “progressive frames”:

The progressive frames include non-traditional family background, a community approach to governing, valuing service over Wall Street, and implications about increasing health care and opposing trade deals that hurt working families. The conservative frames are equally abundant, with talk of “self-reliance,” “heartland,” cutting taxes, “welfare,” and lots of emphasis on values and country.

I wonder if the ad is too muddled in order to be effective. While both progressives and conservatives will hear frames that they like in the ad, everyone will also hear things that they don’t like. Fundamentally the ad is chasing after both types of voters instead of trying to persuade them. Overall, it might end up leaving a mixed impression.

To me it was just a bland, introductory biographical ad. I didn’t find it particularly good or bad.

According to Marc Ambinder, the ad will run in 18 states:

Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia

Interesting to see him being aggressive in places like Alaska, Montana, Georgia and North Dakota. I give him virtually zero chance of winning any of those states (and only a very slim chance of taking Missouri), but maybe he’s just trying to scare McCain into spending money and time there.

I don’t know why Obama would need to run this ad in Iowa, where people viewed many of his ads for months last year. John McCain has virtually no organization in this state and should not be a threat.

If it runs in the Omaha/Council Bluffs market, then Obama could make inroads in Nebraska’s first and second Congressional districts. Nebraska awards one electoral vote to the winner of each Congressional district and two to the statewide winner, so Obama may have a chance to pick up one or two electoral votes here.

What do you think of the ad’s content and placement?

Some conservative Iowa bloggers didn’t take kindly to my recent post about their reaction to the floods.

Emily Geiger of Battleground Iowa seems pretty angry at the “uninformed” liberals who disagreed with her suggestion that state officials wait to see what the federal government provides before appropriating money for flood relief and reconstruction:

It seems my post was (intentionally) misinterpreted to mean that Iowans should sit on their heinies and wait for the feds to come in and fix everything.

Iowans can fix most things ourselves. It’s just a matter of who is going to pay for it all after the fact. This isn’t like New Orleans, where (I heard some relief worker on the radio the other day say that) out-of-state volunteers had to wake up residents at 10 a.m. so that the volunteers could get inside the houses where the residents then sat around and watched the volunteers work.

What would we do without conservative talk radio to reinforce our latent racist stereotypes? It’s a good thing we Iowans are not lazy like most residents of New Orleans are! We’ll have our towns fixed up in no time.

The main point of Geiger’s post, though, was that we don’t need to change state law to permit deficit spending, which would “give Supreme Iowa Democrat Mike Gronstal lots more (borrowed) money to throw around to his liberal buddies at the expense of Iowa taxpayers (and our grandchildren).” She notes that according to Krusty Konservative, state funds accounted for just 1 percent of the $1.4 billion spent on flood relief in Iowa after the 1993 floods. So by her calculation, we shouldn’t have to deplete our $600 million rainy day fund, even if much more damage was done in this year’s flooding.

Now, Krusty makes some valid points in that post, but let’s not kid ourselves. The federal government incurs huge annual deficits and is deeply in debt. Those costs are going to be passed on to our children and grandchildren.

So it’s disingenuous to pretend to be all about fiscal responsibility and living within our means if your main response to the floods is, “Let the federal government pay for everything.” That money comes from taxpayers as well.

Striker of In Flyover Country agrees with Geiger and with “EFJ,” a commenter on The Real Sporer who wrote:

We are missing the obvious here. We must follow some logical course of action:

1. Assess actual costs of flood recovery.

2. What costs are responsibility of the whole? (I hate to say government, because government is us and only has money they confiscated from us.)

3. What costs are the responsibility of the individualprivate sector?

4. Evaluate what should reasonably be done. (not all buildings, homes, businesses, and schools have some absolute right to be rebuilt. Prioritizing is ok)

5. Figure out how to pay for the work.

a. $600 million rainy day fund. No coincedence [sic] the name fits. It is a term started in our agrarian society to describe dealing with flooding.

b. CUT SOME FAT!!!

(I know, I know, there’s no fat in government. Every program is important as it buys another constituency group of “looters” for liberals)

The problem can be solved without borrowing, but it won’t because liberals will employ their hyperbole and make this about caring for the poor, and disenfranchised, the children, and the elderly.

The best way to to care for the future of Iowa is to NOT incur debt if at all possible.

Well, obviously, the costs of flood recovery will be assessed, including which costs are the responsibility of the individual/private sector.

And obviously, not every building will be rebuilt, just as Johnnie’s Vets Club in Valley Junction and the Holiday Inn on Fleur Drive were not rebuilt after the 1993 flooding. No one, not Chet Culver, not Mike Gronstal, and not David Yepsen, has said we must borrow enough money to rebuild every structure that was damaged in the floods.

Republicans always talk about “cutting the fat” as the answer for every budget problem, but sometimes, when a major calamity strikes, there just isn’t enough fat to cut.

As I said in my earlier post, it’s quite telling that Yepsen, who never met a tax cut he didn’t like and loves to write columns about fiscal responsibility, recognizes that we probably will need to borrow to address some of the flood reconstruction costs.

Most economists, even conservative Republicans, understand the need for deficit spending under some circumstances–for instance, to prevent a recession from becoming a depression. I believe even President Bush has made that argument to justify his own administration’s deficit spending.

We’re not going to rebuild Iowa’s infrastructure, homes and businesses without deficit spending. The question is whether all the deficit spending will be at the federal level, or whether the state may also have to go into debt to get the job done quickly and comprehensively.

Iowa is fortunate in that both our U.S. senators have a lot of seniority, which should help us secure a large amount of federal funding. But I would be very surprised if federal disaster aid proved sufficient.

Even if it did, I don’t think a special legislative session is a bad idea. Iowa’s elected officials need to do the assessing and prioritizing that EFJ was talking about. I understand why that worries the conservative bloggers, because they don’t trust Democrats to do anything. But it is not “politicizing the floods” to convene our elected officials to deal with an enormous natural disaster.

One more thing jumped out at me in Krusty’s post. It’s amazing how “konservatives” see lowering corporate taxes as the solution to every problem (in this case, the problem of how to keep flood-damaged businesses from relocating outside Iowa).  

Just yesterday House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was telling us that he’d basically lost control over House Democrats and that they were the ones forcing his hand in this ridiculous compromise over FISA that would grant big telecommunication companies immunity over their warrantless wiretapping and other exercises.  At about 11:30 this morning I get an email from the office of the majority leader telling me that between the House and Senate majority and minority leaders of their respective intelligence committees that a compromise has been reached–and according to the Wall Street Journal, that compromise essentially include immunity.

As David Kurtz points out at TPM, it is a ridiculous compromise that creates such a weak standard for “conditional immunity” that just about any telecom company could meet.

If Hoyer thinks he’s lot control now (but then regained it to tout this compromise) let’s show him what a lack of control looks like when the blogosphere puts the pressure on his office and Congressional Democrats across the country not to vote for this POS compromise.

CALL NOW!

Here’s the switchboard number for the Majority Leader’s Office: 202-225-3130

You can reach Iowa’s congressmen at these numbers:

• IA-01, Bruce Braley (D): (202) 225-2911
• IA-02, Dave Loebsack (D): (202) 225-6576
• IA-03, Leonard Boswell (D): (202) 225-3806
• IA-04, Tom Latham (R): (202) 225-5476
• IA-05, Steve King (R): (202) 225-4426

Remember to be polite and concise, expressing your opposition to the FISA Amendments Act (H.R. 6304) and asking for your representative to oppose it as well.

If you get a response one way or the other on how they’d vote, leave a note in the comments.

This morning, Barack Obama sent this video an email to supporters explaining his decision to opt out of the public financing system for presidential elections.

Last fall, Obama told Common Cause that he would participate in the system by aggressively pursuing a so-called “fundraising truce” with the Republican nominee.  But as Ambinder noted in his background statements, McCain and his campaign didn’t seem to want to participate.

My thoughts?  I think this is a good decision, especially after witnessing what happened in 2004 by the Republican special interests and 527s.  The problem itself isn’t money in politics but big money in politics…and the fact that there is a lack of regulation in certain arenas and too much regulation in others.  Obama has raised millions of dollars from millions of small-dollar donors.  And he’s publicly asked and demanded that 527s not support him but instead asked for those individuals to directly support his campaign or the Democratic National Committee.  McCain is doing nothing to keep lobbyists and big money from trying to influence the system even though he says he’s committed to a system of reform and clean elections.  McCain says one thing and does another (tacitly, at least, because he allows it to happen).

You can find the full text of Obama’s remarks below the fold.

This column by Marc Hansen should be required reading:

John Morrissey, president of the Highland Park Neighborhood Association, asks a good question.

“Here we have a levee the Corps of Engineers said would fail, and yet it hasn’t been rebuilt in 15 years. And why is that? Why have our leaders not taken up the banner to protect the people who live and work and put their sweat and tears in this town every day?”

[…]

Improvements were made to the Birdland-area levee. Money was spent after the 1993 soaking, but obviously not enough. Why?

These are some of the most vulnerable residents in the metro area. We’re talking about people who might not be getting paychecks for weeks or months, people who have the most to lose.

[…]

Zero in on the north side of town, however, and something wasn’t so right. Morrissey wants to know why the focus is on cosmetic projects like the Principal Riverwalk, at the expense of essential needs like keeping working-class neighborhoods dry.

[…]

The Birdland levee was approved for renovation. But when the flood arrived, it was still on the waiting list.

Here’s hoping the Des Moines Register will devote some investigative reporting to this matter in the coming months. The damage to the Birdland neighborhood caused more human suffering and will cost a lot more public money to fix than crimes committed at the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium (CIETC), which the Register covered at great length.

Also worth reading regarding the flooding:

href=”http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080618/OPINION01/806180345/1166/OPINION01″>This column by former Register editorial writer Bill Leonard, called “Eroded soil sends message: Step up conservation.”

This diary by Matthew Grimm on a benefit concert scheduled for tonight (Thursday, June 19) in Iowa City.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is taking no steps to halt or even thoroughly study the use of pesticides that have been implicated in massive die-offs of honeybees, according to a press release from the Sierra Club. The release circulated on the Iowa Sierra Club e-mail loop yesterday.

Germany has suspended the use of neonicotinoid pesticides after agricultural research found that “poisoning of the bees is due to the rub-off of the pesticide ingredient clothianidin from corn seeds.”

Not only do many American farmers spray neonicotinoids on their crops, “Bayer and Monsanto have acquired patents to coat their proprietary corn seeds with these neonicotinoids,” the Sierra Club notes. The group has called on the USDA to impose “a precautionary moratorium on these powerful crop treatments to protect our bees and our food,” pending thorough studies of their effects.

This New York Times article from February 2007 discusses the threat that “colony collapse disorder” poses to approximately $14 billion worth of seeds and crops that honeybees pollinate in the U.S. every year.

Other articles discussing the possible link between pesticides and bee die-offs are here, here and here. The neonicotinoids may be affecting the bees’ memory, making them unable to find their way back to their hives.

The full text of the press release from Sierra Club is after the jump.

The Des Moines school board on Tuesday voted not to waste money and its own attorney’s time on challenging a new state law that requires school board elections to be held only in odd-numbered years beginning in 2009.

It’s a good decision, because the legal challenge almost certainly would have failed.

The board voted earlier this month to implement the new law by shortening the terms of Jon Narcisse and Patty Link by one year. Instead of facing re-election in 2010, three years after they were first elected, they will face voters in 2009.

Although Narcisse has criticized that plan, it’s a lot better than an idea floated earlier in the spring, which would have shortened his term by a year while allowing Link to serve until 2011 before facing re-election.

Ed Fallon sent an e-mail to supporters today asking for donations to help retire approximately $35,000 in debt from his campaign (the first campaign he has ended in debt).

He hired a large field staff and was apparently counting on more help from national groups than he ultimately received. With the notable exception of Democracy for America, which raised tens of thousands of dollars for Fallon’s campaign, most progressive groups stayed on the sidelines during the primary in Iowa’s third district.

That includes some groups that spent lots of money on behalf of Donna Edwards in her successful primary challenge in Maryland’s fourth Congressional district.

Relatively few nationally-prominent bloggers helped Fallon raise money. In contrast, the Daily Kos community and the Blue America group of bloggers each raised tens of thousands of dollars for Donna Edwards.

The full text of the e-mail from Fallon is after the jump. If you want to donate to his campaign, you can still donate through the website at:

http://www.fallonforcongress.com

Alternatively, you can mail a check to Fallon for Congress, 752 16th Street, Des Moines, IA 50314.  

It is probably still an inconvenient or touchy time to be talking about this with all of the truly disastrous flooding coming to an end in Iowa and the cleanup just beginning.  But it has to be said: we weren’t truly prepared for this kind of disaster and we have to take steps to prevent it from happening in the future.

Brad Johnson, a research associate at the Center for American Progress and a blogger at their Wonk Room policy blog, brought my attention to a couple of his posts on the terrible flooding and storms in the Midwest this summer, particularly in Iowa.  And in those posts he makes a couple of fascinating points.

First, he notes Sen. Chuck Grassley’s hypocrisy in calling attention to the complacency over severe weather (speaking on the Senate floor about the deadly Parkersburg tornado) yet voted to filibuster the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.

Second, he notes an unfortunate quote from Gov. Chet Culver about our inability to “anticipate or prepare for” these types of events.  The facts are that reports since at least 2000 have been forecasting the types of weather patterns Iowa has been experiencing over the last couple of years.  See the link above for more information at Johnson’s post.

It seems clear that leadership on both sides of the political spectrum in Iowa have failed us.  They are not considering the big picture when it comes to environmental concerns in the state of Iowa.  And statewide environmental groups aren’t putting the pressure on local and state officials to keep them accountable either.

We need better and bolder leadership on the broad issues of global climate change and environmental issues in Iowa.  Whether or not you want to attribute the cause of these terrible weather patterns to global climate change, call them a natural aberration, or simply just call them normal, our leaders should be considering some important things when moving forward with reconstruction.  Bill Becker at Climate Progress offers more details, but here is his list which he deems lessons from an angry planet:

1. We need to put unprecedented pressure on our national leaders to get serious about mitigation and adaptation.
2. It’s past time to rethink national flood control and water management strategy.
3. When we repair and rebuild disaster-damaged buildings and infrastructure, we should do so with cutting-edge mitigation and adaptation in mind.

Groups like the Iowa Global Warming Campaign, the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Iowa Environmental Council, and any other group committed to protecting and defending Iowa’s environment should be tackling issues like this.  Granted, there are concerns about hog lots, Iowa’s waterways, and coal power plants to be concerned about as well.  Heck, even 1000 Friends of Iowa should be concerned about future development that not only is environmentally-friendly but that protects families and businesses on or near flood plains.

The state needs leadership on these pressing issues.  We call events like these “100 year floods” and “500 year floods” for a reason.  The frequency with which they occur is not what is implied, but the the likelihood that they will.  In just a 15 year period of time, we’ve experienced drastic periods of extreme drought and extreme precipitation.  You can even go back to periods in the 1980s (particularly around 1984) and see the same type of patterns, but with less severity.  We are certainly experiencing more severity with more frequency.  This is a result of global climate change.  We aren’t taking the threats seriously and we aren’t preparing ourselves for the future–either by accommodating the tragic effects that are likely or by acting to stop these events from happening in the first place.

The big debate in Iowa that is now emerging as the flood waters head downstream and leave the state is how to pay for all of the destruction and prepare for the reconstruction.  Some want to use the state’s rainy-day fund and others are looking at incurring state debt as an option.  In the end, the debate will be politically charged about fiscal issues and not the bigger picture.  Democrats and Progressives in Iowa have to think big picture or our meager political gains (and the state itself) will be washed away, no pun intended.

The non-profit organization 1000 Friends of Iowa gives out Best Development Awards every year to recognize “quality development and redevelopment projects in Iowa and leadership that upholds our mission.”

Here is the organization’s mission statement:

1000 Friends of Iowa promotes responsible development that

   *  Conserves and protects our agricultural and natural resources

   *  Revitalizes our neighborhoods, towns, and cities; and

   *  Improves the quality of life for future generations

The awards are given in six categories:

   * New Residential

   * Renovated Residential

   * Renovated Commercial/Civic

   * New Commercial/Civic

   * Mixed Use

   * Leadership

After the jump you can find more information about how to nominate a project, as well as the criteria used to judge nominees. That information can also be found here.

To see photos and read about the 2007 award-winners, click here.

The 2006 winners of the Best Development Awards can be seen on this page.

Click here to see which projects won in 2005.

The deadline for nominations is coming right up on June 25, so spread the word and act quickly if you know of a worthy project.

More details about the Best Development Awards are after the jump.

The House of Representatives may vote very soon on a bad compromise that would in effect grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies in the new version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

If you live in Iowa’s third district, please call Congressman Leonard Boswell TODAY at 202-225-3806 to tell him to stand up for civil liberties and oppose the Senate version of the FISA bill.

His staff will notice if they get a lot of calls on this issue.

Background: Boswell was one of the “Blue Dogs” who supported the Republican position on this bill in February.

He changed his position a month later and stood with the majority of House Democrats.

The New York Times blog has more on the FISA compromise here.

I don’t spend a lot of time reading conservative blogs, but my brief tour around Iowa’s Republican blogosphere yesterday revealed acute concern about the prospect of a special legislative session to address the recent historic flooding in much of the state.

We have thousands of Iowans needing assistance with housing, as well as huge clean-up and reconstruction tasks.

But the Flyover Country blog is convinced that the nasty Democrats are talking about a special session solely to reap political benefits. That blogger sees Democratic efforts to “politicize the floods” everywhere he looks. He names June 11 as the first day of this nefarious strategy, citing this story about Governor Chet Culver mobilizing National Guard units and talking about a possible special session of the legislature.

Side note: it seems like a distant memory, but back before George W. Bush was president, National Guard units were mostly used to deal with this kind of situation, rather than to fight foreign wars.

But I digress.

Why wouldn’t our elected officials convene to address such a huge catastrophe? The Iowa flooding has been dominating national news. I’ve gotten phone calls and e-mails from all over the country and even abroad, asking if we are ok and how bad the damage is.

Members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation (Republicans as well as Democrats) are working fast to get federal money to assist with cleanup and reconstruction efforts in flood-ravaged areas.

I expect representatives from other states to expedite this process, because the damage to Iowa’s infrastructure could have far-reaching economic effects. For more on that, read SlyDi’s piece, “How A Midwest Flood Can Drag Down A Nation.”

A different conservative blog, Battleground Iowa, thinks state officials and legislators should wait and see how much damage there is, how many people are insured, and what the federal government will do before getting the state involved.

In other words, “Don’t just do something–stand there!”

Do you think the public expects our elected officials to just wait and see who else will step in to deal with a historic natural disaster affecting tens of thousands of Iowans?

I would love to see Iowa Republicans come out against a special legislative session to focus on state flood relief and reconstruction efforts. Let them make the case for state government doing nothing.

The Real Sporer had a slightly different angle, taking offense mainly at the idea that Iowa might go into debt to pay for flood relief and reconstruction:

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal’s knee jerk reaction saw only the opportunity to outspend the State’s emergency fund and incur debt to finance the difference.

Here’s a thought; if the emergency fund isn’t adequate to cover the socialist’s blue sky list of flood relief start cutting other items. Start with a deep Dave Vaudt audit over at the Departments of Education and Human Services. At a time when Iowa will have thousands of real victims of tragic circumstance on our hands when would be a better time to ask why the cost of education is five times faster than the general rate of inflation in Iowa’s larger economy?

Please, Republicans, please tell Iowans that we should cut education spending if our state’s “rainy day fund” is not sufficient to cover the cost of flood relief.

Seriously, when even the notorious tax-hating deficit hawk David Yepsen says we need to “Borrow to bankroll massive rebuilding,” it’s time for Republicans to question their automatic distrust of every government effort to help people.

Just to show that I don’t automatically distrust every comment by every Republican, State 29 raises some valid questions about government support for economic development in flood zones (even if I don’t share all of his conclusions).

Also, I agree with Krusty Konservative that it was inappropriate for Senator Wally Horn (who represents much of the Cedar Rapids area) to say, “These are good loyal Democrats, and they need our help.”

Residents of flood-ravaged areas deserve equal attention from the government, no matter what their voting patterns.

I was offended when the Bush administration was quicker to get post-Katrina aid to Mississippi than to the most devastated areas of New Orleans, and I would be offended if officials in Iowa seemed to favor certain towns or neighborhoods because of how their residents vote.

If you’ve ever attended a typical town hall meeting featuring a member of Congress in his or her district, you know that turnout tends to be low.

Congressman Bruce Braley held a telephone town hall meeting Tuesday evening to discuss high gas prices with interested constituents. Nearly 5,000 first-district residents who received an automated phone call inviting them to the meeting opted to listen.

That is a huge number. Obviously, the convenience of the telephone format helped, because people didn’t need to drive to a different town or county (which would burn gas and cost money).

Still, people have so many competing demands on their time that I am shocked by how many people spent part of a summer evening listening to a member of Congress talk about energy policy.

A lot of people hang up the second they realize the voice on the other end is a robocall.

In case it wasn’t already obvious, the high price of gas is of great concern to large numbers of Iowans. The overwhelming majority of us live in car-dependent neighborhoods.

A statement released tonight by Braley’s Congressional office is after the jump.  

There seem to be two distinct ideas emerging for financing the massive reconstruction project Iowa will have to enact to deal with the tragic and disastrous floods we’ve experienced this spring (on a quick side note, I sure hope that summer fares us better).  The first is to tap into the state’s so-called “rainy day” fund (no pun was intended, I’m sure) and the other is to borrow money and essentially create debt.  Both are the logical responses to a natural disaster of this magnitude.  I think it was a Johnson County emergency management official who said this was “our own Katrina.”  Whether he meant that in terms of sheer destruction or bad planning or reactions to the event, I’m not sure.  But the statement still leaves an impact.

Once we get beyond the human and emotional costs of the flooding, we will ultimately have to deal with the political ramifications of financing the reconstruction.  Governor Culver seems to prefer using the state’s rainy day fund.  Senate Majority Leader Gronstal says he’s open to incurring debt.  So what are we to do?

At first glance, Gov. Culver’s idea would seem to the most politically feasible and publicly attractive option on the table.  The state and taxpayers won’t have to incur debt or use their taxes to pay off the bills because they’ll just use the extra money they have right now to reconstruct Iowa.  But I think there should be serious consideration of incurring debt to finance the reconstruction.

To me, the root of the problem is whether we want to rebuild or reconstruct what has been destroyed.  Those mean different things.  Rebuilding implies we’ll bring things back to the status quo, maybe with some minor improvements.  Reconstruction implies a step forward and desire to plan and implement improvements and to change the way we do things.  Iowa needs the investment in the future and needs to show that the state has the ability and capability to plan effectively, plan efficiently, and act with speed to solve problems and fix what has broken.

Incurring debt isn’t such a bad thing, as David Yepsen told us yesterday.  There are reasons to consider it.  Tapping into the rainy day fund isn’t a bad idea either.  But will either one be enough?

The special legislative session to deal with this issue is going to happen; it has to.  But the debate will be a lengthy one.  And it will result in tough decisions.  Contrary to what others argue, waiting to see what the federal government will pay for is not an option.  If this truly is “our Katrina” then we all know that federal disaster response is horrid.  The state must act soon.

According to Hotline, AFSCME and MoveOn.org Political Action are spending $543,000 to run this ad in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and on CNN and MSNBC for a week, beginning on Wednesday:

What do you think?

McCain’s campaign will claim that he’s been taken out of context, and that he doesn’t want us to be at war in Iraq for 100 years. The bottom line, though, is that most Americans don’t want our troops bogged down in Iraq forever, staffing permanent bases, even if casualty rates declined considerably.

UPDATE: An e-mail I received from Moveon.Org says this ad is “the most effective TV ad we’ve ever created.” It says Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research surveyed viewers of this ad and found that a “61 percent majority describe the ad as convincing.”

The full text of the Moveon.Org e-mail is after the jump.

As always, please send me an e-mail or put up a comment if I have left out any significant event.

In many communities, this week will be dominated by flood clean-up activities. Stay safe if you are volunteering for any of those.

Note that First Lady Mari Culver’s Poverty Conference in Des Moines, which was originally scheduled for June 19, has been rescheduled for September 16. John Edwards was to be the keynote speaker for that event. It is not yet clear whether he will deliver the keynote in September.

If you already registered for this conference but won’t be able to attend in September, go here to update your registration:

http://www.iowaworkforce.org/p…

Tuesday, June 17:

Rob Hubler, Democratic candidate for Congress in Iowa’s fifth district, will be at a picnic with the Schaben family at Pleasant View Park in Dunlap 6:30pm. BBQ and an auction, including a signed copy of Obama’s book! Call (712) 352-2077 for details.

Congressman Bruce Braley will hold a first-ever telephone town hall meeting at 7 pm “to discuss gas prices and the need for a new direction in our energy policies.” Iowans who wish to call in to the town hall themselves should contact one of Rep. Braley’s district offices for a call-in number and passcode.

Thursday, June 19:

Johnston’s Green Days weekend begins on Thursday evening and runs through Sunday with a long list of events and activities:

http://johnstongreendays.org/s…

Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa is holding its annual event from 5:30 to 9:00 pm at the Marriott Hotel in West Des Moines. The special guest will be the “Shoe Lady,” Miss Meghan Cleary. Miss Meghan, author of The Perfect Fit: What Your Shoes Say About You, can tell your personality just by looking at your shoes. How fun! Plan on kicking up your heels at Celebrate Shoes! Tickets cost $125/person or $75/person for 35 years old and under. To reserve your seat at the event, call 515-235-0406 or e-mail JGood AT ppgi.org.

Friday, June 20:

Ankeny Area Democrats annual Garage and Bake Sale will be held at the home of Arvid and Mary Oliver 1709 NE Lowell Court, on June 20 and 21. Start gathering the items you would like to donate to the sale. These items can be delivered the any time during the week of the sale. Your help is invaluable to a successful sale. We will be setting up and pricing on Thursday the 19h.  For further information either email Ankenyareadems@msn.com or, call Arvid or Mary at 964-1227.

Johnston Green Days events begin on Friday at 5 pm. More details are here:

http://johnstongreendays.org/s…

Saturday, June 21:

Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa and the Healthy Families project will be at the Des Moines Farmer’s Market this Saturday, June 21st. Volunteers will represent the Planned Parenthood mission, and help educate people about the need to reduce unintended pregnancies in Iowa.  Of course we’ll be handing out lots of goodies as well! Past Farmer’s market volunteers have had a lot of fun, and say it’s one of the best volunteer opportunities available. Help educate the public and have fun too. Any time you can give is much appreciated: work for a couple of hours, or the whole time. Shifts are available from 8am – Noon. Click here to e-mail Chelsea Hammond to volunteer or call (515) 235-0415

Congressional candidate Rob Hubler, Council Bluffs Mayor Hanafan, Senator Gronstal, Representative Shomshor, Kurt Hubler (house district 99 challenger), other local candidates, and the Pottawattamie county democrats will be at the grand opening party of the county office at 722 Creek Top in Council Bluffs. Rob Hubler will be speaking and answering questions from 5-7pm. Details 712-352-1192.

As part of the Juneteenth celebration in Des Moines, Neighbors Day will run from noon to 7:00 pm on Saturday at Evelyn Davis Park, 14th and Forest Avenue in Des Moines. Come out, enjoy some tasty food and listen to some great performances from the Ambassadors of Praise Choir of Cornerstone Family Church(directed by Rev. Tina Williams), Big Bang!, Comfort Zone, Des Moines Boyz, Sumpin’ Doo and more.

Johnston Green Days event schedule:

http://johnstongreendays.org/s…

Sunday, June 22:

Last day for carnival at Johnston Green Days event from 1 pm to 5 pm at the Johnston Commons.

Steve King likes nothing better than to stake out a conservative position on a hot-button social issue. I learned yesterday from the One Iowa advocacy group that this week Congressman King “has introduced a Federal Constitutional Amendment to codify discrimination and ban same sex marriages nationwide.”

Please consider donating to Democrat Rob Hubler’s Congressional campaign. Even though Iowa’s fifth district has a partisan index of R+8, turnout among hard-line conservatives may be depressed this November. John McCain has little organization in Iowa, and he is not popular with the anti-immigration wingnuts. Many moderate Republicans are embarrassed by King, so perhaps they would be open to ticket-splitting.

It’s not as if King has been effective in bringing money home to his district, which would give people a reason to vote for him even if they disagreed with some of his antics.

Need more reasons to support a good Democrat taking on this horrible Republican?

King received a perfect 100 rating from the American Conservative Union in 2007, and has a near-perfect 98 rating from that organization during his three terms in Congress.

King wrote Iowa’s English-only law when he was in the legislature and successfully filed suit to prevent the Secretary of State’s office from providing voter information in languages other than English.

He thinks it’s fine for pharmacists to refuse to prescribe the morning-after pill.

He has sponsored a constitutional amendment to ban the federal income tax and has warned against creating a “condom culture” in Africa.

And of course, he said a few months ago that terrorists would be dancing in the streets if Obama were elected president.

Click that last link for more of King’s “greatest hits,” including his defense of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his characterization of torture at Abu Ghraib as “hazing.”

Hubler deserves our support for taking on this challenge. I’ll be writing more about this race in the coming months. Click here to get involved in his campaign.

The full text of the e-mail I received from One Iowa about the newly proposed federal constitutional amendment is after the jump. You can donate to that organization’s Fairness Fund PAC at this ActBlue page. They have a matching gift pledge that runs through July 14.