Not long ago I wrote about the earmarks secured by the Iowa delegation in 2007. I commented,

I also get a little tired of self-appointed taxpayer watchdogs expressing righteous indignation about this or that project that got a few hundred thousand dollars from the federal government. The Pig Book shows that the more than 11,000 earmarks in 2007 accounted for about $17.2 billion in federal spending.

Meanwhile, the U.S. spent several times that amount on the continuing war in Iraq in 2007, with little to show for it besides more American casualties.

Today bonddad wrote a great piece called We Can’t Afford The War Anymore. Click through to see the graphics, but here is the key paragraph:

According to the Congressional Budget office, this war has cost $752 billion dollars.  Let that figure sink in — $752 billion dollars.  And it’s getting more expensive.  According to the same report, the yearly increase in costs are increasing at a high rate.  In 2003 total appropriations for the war were $76 billion.  In 2007 they were $165 billion.  And the increase in cost is largely from the ongoing operations.  Operation and Maintenance costs were $46 billion in 2003 and $92 billion in 2007 — a doubling of costs within 5 years.  In addition, procurement expenses over the same period of time increased from $10 billion to $51 billion.  So, the longer this war progresses, the more expensive it gets.

The Iraq War cost nearly ten times as much in 2007 as all earmarks secured by all members of Congress combined.

Remember that next time some Republican rubber-stamp for George Bush’s Iraq policy complains about wasteful government spending.

My husband and I both got direct-mail pieces from Congressman Leonard Boswell today.

I noticed that Boswell for Congress paid for this one, as opposed to the last three campaign-style mailers, which American taxpayers funded.

The front shows a large color photo of Boswell, with a smaller black-and-white photo of George W. Bush in the upper left corner. The text reads:

While Bush squandered a strong economy…

Leonard Boswell has been a

CHAMPION for Iowa’s middle class

When you open the mailer, page 2 consists of a large photo of Boswell standing next to a worker. The text at the bottom reads:

Congressman Leonard Boswell

DELIVERS for the middle class

Page three has three photos of Boswell talking with small groups of men and women. The text on the rest of the page reads:

Leonard Boswell is working to end the Bush recession

-Voted to increase the minimum wage and to support small business

-Helping reduce the cost of health insurance for small businesses through tax credits

-Working to balance the budget and provide tax relief to Iowa’s working families

-Creating thousands of future jobs for Iowans with new ethanol and renewable fuel standards

Leonard Boswell

Taking on George Bush for the Changes We Need

The back page has a photo of Boswell with his wife Dody. The text reads:

Congressman Boswell is working for Iowa’s new economy

-Making Iowa a leader in he green jobs revolution

-Creating high paying, new energy jobs

-Helping reduce the cost of health insurance for small businesses through tax credits

-Increasing the minimum wage

-Providing tax relief to Iowa’s working families

For more information: www.boswellforcongress.com

Democratic Primary – June 3rd

The bottom has contact information for the campaign as well as the notice, “Paid for by Boswell for Congress.”

I recently spoke with a former client colleague who I assisted in a hospital expansion project.  Although it’s been several years since I worked with this organization, the project stands out in my mind as a very gratifying professional experience.

The challenge for this hospital was to generate the philanthropic funding required to build a new and expanded Emergency Room.  They needed $3 million to make this happen.  As I recall, their capital campaign generated $3.3 million and a terrific new ER opened 18 months ago.  It’s a handsome facility… but more important, it brings a much higher level of emergency care to an entire community.

One reality of healthcare today is a significant number of people coming to an Emergency Room do so without insurance and without ability to pay, knowing (hoping?) they won’t be turned away.  To address this situation, hospitals expand their emergency facilities.  Often, additional space is NOT driven by an increase in medical emergencies but rather the need for a universal healthcare plan, one that covers every man, woman, and child in the United States. 

I’m proud of this hospital… for the care they provide, for their commitment to the community, and for their many dedicated employees.  It was a pleasure to work with them and a good example of the positive results that can be brought about through a community-wide collaboration. 

But expanded facilities won’t solve our nation’s healthcare dilemma.  This will require positive results coming out of Washington, which in turn is likely to require a Democratic President and increased Democratic margins in the House and the Senate. 

Like many 4^th district Iowans, I am committed to meaningful healthcare reform.  I anticipate working hard to generate the desired results when a new congress convenes next January.  Of course, other changes must take place in the next 9 months for me to have this opportunity, including a change in our congressional representation.  I’m committed to helping make this change too!

Until next time, 

Kurt Meyer         

Congressional Candidate for Iowa's 4th District

Friday, April 11, 7pm to 8 pm: House party for Ed Fallon at the home of Gene and Lucy Krauss, 3660 Grand Ave. apt. 240, Des Moines. RSVP to Jamie at (515) 822-4284.

Saturday, April 12, starting at 11 am: Young College Democrats Conference at Grinnell College. Ed Fallon will be speaking there, but I don’t know what else is on the program.

Saturday, April 12, 7 pm: “Clarence Darrow: The Search for Justice,” First Christian Church, 2500 University Ave. in Des Moines. “Gary Anderson, nationally renowned portrayer of Clarence Darrow, depicts the man many consider the most brilliant person ever to argue law.  Darrow was famous for his work in the Scopes “Monkey” Trial.  He fought against the death penalty, social injustice, racism, conspiracy laws, and civil liberties violations.” Co-sponsored by First Christian Church and the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa. Tickets are available at the door and cost $10 for students and $20 for other adults.

Also, if you are the parent of children under the age of 10, you may want to come hear Justin Roberts and his Not Ready for Naptime Players at 11 am on Saturday, April 12, at the Masonic temple in downtown Des Moines (on Park between 5th and 6th). Justin is a Des Moines native (Roosevelt High School class of 1988) and is one of the best children’s songwriters around. Really, even adults enjoy his music! The concert is a fundraiser for the Des Moines Symphony Academy–tickets cost $15.

Please consider this an open thread for posting about any other interesting event coming up soon.

Not long ago I posted about a poorly-researched and poorly-written article by the Associated Press on the rising rate of cesarean births in Iowa.

Lisa Houchins, a mom in Des Moines who is also education director for the International Cesarean Awareness Network, responded to the same article with this letter to the editor that the Register published earlier this week:

Regarding, “More U.S. Women Delivering Babies by Caesarean Section” (March 29): According to the World Health Organization, more than half of all Caesareans in the United States could be avoided. When used properly, a Caesarean can be a life-saving procedure. When used indiscriminately, C-sections introduce unnecessary risks to mothers and infants.

Women who deliver by Caesarean are more likely to have complications, including increased pain and recovery time, infection or death. Babies delivered by Caesarean are also more likely to suffer complications.

Women with Caesareans are at increased risk for miscarriage, infertility and complications in later pregnancies. Also, their future birthing choices can be severely limited. Some hospitals (including many in Iowa) and doctors are attempting to ban vaginal births after Caesareans.

Caesareans may be safer than they were 20 years ago, but that does not make them safer than a vaginal birth. C-sections are major surgery, and they should be reserved for times when there is a true medical indication. I encourage all pregnant women to educate themselves on how to avoid a Caesarean and how to have the safest and most satisfying birth possible.

April is Cesarean Awareness Month, and the ICAN website notes:

What is Cesarean Awareness Month? An internationally recognized month of awareness about the impact of cesarean sections on mothers, babies, and families worldwide. It’s about educating yourself to the pros and cons of major abdominal surgery and the possibilities for healthy birth afterwards as well as educating yourself for prevention of cesarean section.

Cesarean awareness is for mothers who are expecting or who might choose to be in the future. It’s for daughters who don’t realize what choices are being taken away from them. It’s for scientists studying the effects of cesareans and how birth impacts our lives. It’s for grandmothers who won’t be having more children but are questioning the abdominal pains and adhesions causing damage 30 years after their cesareans.

CESAREANS are serious. There is no need for a ‘catchy phrase’ to tell us that this is a mainstream problem. It affects everyone. One in three American women every year have surgery to bring their babies into the world. These women have lifelong health effects, impacting the families that are helping them in their healing, impacting other families through healthcare costs and policies, and bringing back those same lifelong health effects to the children they bring into this world.

Be aware. Read. Learn. Ask questions. Get informed consent. Be your own advocate for the information you need to know.

There is lots of information on the ICAN website, so if you or your partner or your friend is pregnant, I encourage you to check it out. C-sections can be lifesaving procedures, but it makes sense to take reasonable steps to avoid having unnecessary surgery.

The ICAN of Central Iowa website has statistics comparing c-section rates in the largest Iowa counties and hospitals.

If you want to avoid a cesarean birth unless it is medically necessary, ask about c-section rates when you are choosing a provider.

Don’t induce labor without medical need (for instance, because you hit your due date, or because you don’t want to go into labor over a weekend), because trying to induce a cervix that isn’t ripe is more likely to lead to “failure to progress” and a resulting c-section.

Consider getting a certified doula to help with childbirth education during pregnancy and to support the mother during labor. The website of Doulas of North America explains the benefits of having a doula:

Women have complex needs during childbirth and the weeks that follow. In addition to medical care and the love and companionship provided by their partners, women need consistent, continuous reassurance, comfort, encouragement and respect. They need individualized care based on their circumstances and preferences.

DONA International doulas are educated and experienced in childbirth and the postpartum period. We are prepared to provide physical (non-medical), emotional and informational support to women and their partners during labor and birth, as well as to families in the weeks following childbirth. We offer a loving touch, positioning and comfort measures that make childbearing women and families feel nurtured and cared for.

Numerous clinical studies have found that a doula’s presence at birth

   * tends to result in shorter labors with fewer complications

   * reduces negative feelings about one’s childbirth experience

   * reduces the need for pitocin (a labor-inducing drug), forceps or vacuum extraction and cesareans

   * reduces the mother’s request for pain medication and/or epidurals

Research shows parents who receive support can:

   * Feel more secure and cared for

   * Are more successful in adapting to new family dynamics

   * Have greater success with breastfeeding

   * Have greater self-confidence

   * Have less postpartum depression

   * Have lower incidence of abuse

Click through to find links to some research. Dads, don’t worry about the doula trying to take your place during labor. My husband is a huge advocate for doulas. She doesn’t do your job–she just helps the mother with practical advice based on training and the experience of attending many births. She will not freak out to see the mother in pain, and she will be able to reassure both parents if panic sets in while labor is progressing normally.

I know women who would have ended up with c-sections if not for their doulas. In one case, the baby was presenting with the cheek rather than with the crown of the head. The medical staff were convinced a c-section was the only way to get that baby out, but the doula encouraged the mother to try leaning and squatting in some different positions during and between contractions. After a few tries, the baby shifted, and the rest of the labor was over in less than 20 minutes.

The usually-fascinating diarist poblano (see diary history here) has put up an interesting analysis of how a possible “unity bounce” for our nominee would affect the general election outcome.

Poblano cites a piece by Chuck Todd, who argues:

Currently polls show McCain either narrowly ahead or even with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is impressive considering how poorly the GOP, and specifically the president, are viewed by the public.

  But it is a faux lead. If the de facto Democratic nominee is clear within the next 4-6 weeks, that person will see a poll bounce. And according to GOP pollster Steve Lombardo, it could be one heck of a bounce, like post-convention. He anticipates the Democratic candidate will move up 10 points once the primary race is over.

Click through to see how poblano calculates a bounce like that would affect Obama’s chances of winning key states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

I hope he’s right, although I am not convinced that such a large “unity bounce” would materialize.

Meanwhile, Daily Kos front-pager smintheus showed yesterday that the extended primary season has a lot of benefits for the Democratic Party as a whole. Look at Pennsylvania, where the primary is almost always meaningless. Democrats are registering enormous numbers of new voters as both Clinton and Obama mobilize supporters. Also, large numbers of people registered as independents or Republicans have switched to Democrat:

Perhaps the most remarkable news is that Democrats now hold a majority in two suburban Philadelphia counties that have been predominantly Republican for many years, Montgomery and Bucks.

[…]

And nearby in both Chester and Delaware, where four months ago Republicans had about 65,000 more registered voters per county, the deficit has been cut to 35,000.

[…]

All in all, there have been massive Democratic gains this winter in suburban Philly. Democrats also picked up another 50,000 registrations in Philadelphia.

[…]

What does it mean for the April 22 primary? Philadelphia and suburbs have added about 140,000 new Democrats this year, the rest of the state another 167,000.

Even if some of these people are Democrats-for-a-day who want to vote for Obama in the primary just to dispense with Hillary, the majority are likely to vote again for Democrats in the general election.

Keep in mind that Gore won Pennsylvania by about 200,000 votes, but Kerry only won by about 100,000 votes. The people mobilized to participate in this exciting primary season could make the difference between us or McCain winning that crucial state in November.

Relax, Obama supporters. Let the primaries play out and stop screaming for Hillary to drop out now.

If you still don’t believe that the idea of Barack Obama as a consistent opponent of the Iraq War is a “fairy tale,” read this diary by Marcy Winograd:

By dusk on Wednesday, the California Obama campaign had purged almost all progressive anti-war activists from its delegate candidate lists.  Names of candidates, people who had filed to run to represent Obama at the August Democratic Party National Convention, disappeared, not one by one, but hundreds at a time, from the Party web site listing the eligibles.  The list of Obama delegate hopefuls in one northern California congressional district went from a robust 100 to an anemic 23, while in southern California, the list in Congressman Waxman’s district almost slipped out of sight, plunging from a high of 91 candidates to 17.  Gone were strong women with independent political bases.  

Who was left standing, still in the running for the Sunday delegate caucuses? The bundlers and their girlfriends, the men and women who skirt campaign finance laws by bundling cash, a bundle of $2,000 here and a bundle of $2,000 there — and some, though certainly not all, of the Obama precinct captains, loyalists from day one.

If CA is any example, progressive leaders in Penn better watch their back.

In anticipation of Sunday’s populist delegate caucuses, the Obama campaign deleted 950 from its list of 1700 delegate hopefuls. The Clinton campaign only knocked off 50 of their 950 delegate candidats.

[…]

Who did the Obama campaign kick to the curb?  Brian Leubitz, a Calitics blogger with a mighty pen, Tad Daley, former policy advisor to Cranston and Kucinich and a career fellow with the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Alan Toy, a disabled rights activist and Chair of the American Civil Liberties Union chapter in Santa Monica, and a nameless, yet tireless grassroots volunteer who toiled nights making precinct maps …. and me.

Marcy Winograd.

In case you’re wondering where you’ve heard Winograd’s name before, she was the peace activist who challenged Congresswoman Jane Harman in the Democratic primary for her district in 2006. Harman won that primary by a 2-1 margin, but the challenge did seem to improve her voting behavior.

As Winograd mentioned, one of the bloggers at the California progressive community blog Calitics was among those purged from the delegate candidate list. Calitics already put up a bunch of links to news reports about the purge of anti-war activists from the Obama delegate lists:

I just spent about 40 minutes at a bar in Oakland talking with two absolutely crushed Obama supporters who got cut from the delegate list in CA-9. They couldn’t believe what happened. And they want answers.

I guess they weren’t the change they’ve been waiting for after all.

When will the Obama campaign remove Colin Kahl, the guy who wants to keep 60,000 to 80,000 U.S. troops in Iraq at least through the end of 2010, from his position as coordinator of Obama’s working group on Iraq?

UPDATE: The Obama campaign caved after a public outcry:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

It still worries me that their instinct was to get peace activists off the Obama delegate lists.

Welcome to the latest installment of my series about efforts by Leonard Boswell’s campaign and its supporters to make the third district primary about Ed Fallon’s faults rather than the incumbent’s record of service.

Boswell’s staffers and supporters have criticized Fallon for the following four alleged ethical problems:

1. his work and fundraising for the Independence Movement for Iowa (I’M for Iowa)

2. the salary Fallon drew from unspent campaign funds following the 2006 gubernatorial primary

3. allegations that Fallon pondered running for governor as an independent after losing that primary

4. Fallon’s stand against taking contributions from PACs while allowing PACs to encourage their individual members to donate to his campaign.

For my take on the I’M for Iowa allegations, see this diary and this follow-up piece.

I addressed the controversy over Fallon’s salary from his gubernatorial campaign in this post.

Today I’m covering the Boswell campaign’s claim that Fallon considered running for governor as an independent after losing the 2006 primary to Chet Culver. Join me after the jump for more.

Thursday’s Des Moines Register contains a lengthy report on Governor Chet Culver’s recent vacation stay at a Florida condominium owned by Bill Knapp, a leading donor to Democrats in Iowa.

Knapp has been a friend to the Culver family for decades and “was the biggest individual contributor to Culver’s gubernatorial campaign in 2006, donating $112,500.”

The article quotes Knapp as saying Culver pays $1,000 per week in advance when his family stays at the condo. It then quotes a real estate broker in Florida as estimating a comparable condo would rent for $2,700 per week.

Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board, said he didn’t have enough information to say whether Knapp is a restricted donor or whether ethics rules were broken. “Ultimately, that’s the board’s decision to make,” Smithson said.

Smithson said no one has complained about the condo deal, but the board would have to look into it if someone did.

I doubt there will be any formal complaint regarding this issue, because the Register also reports that State Representative John Putney, a Republican and personal friend to Knapp, stayed at the condo during this year’s legislative session as well.

Unlike Culver, Putney did not pay up front for the use of the condo. Instead, he says that he treated members of the Knapp family to expensive dinners (costing about $600 per evening) in exchange for the use of the condo.

The Register quotes Putney as saying Knapp “has never asked me for one thing legislatively,” and quotes Knapp as saying he doesn’t ask Culver for anything or offer him gifts.

Although it’s natural to stay at the home of a close family friend, it would be prudent for elected officials or appointees to pay market rates for those vacation stays, so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety–especially when the owner of the vacation home is a large campaign donor.

State Senator Dick Dearden on Wednesday announced plans to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission over Ed Fallon’s alleged use of the I’M for Iowa movement to promote his Congressional campaign:

Dearden, also a Democrat, alleged that Fallon’s group violated federal campaign law by promoting his campaign for Congress without disclosing its source of money.

Dearden supports U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, the Democrat Fallon is challenging in Iowa’s 3rd District primary on June 3.

[…]

Boswell and his campaign aides have raised questions about the relationship between I’M for Iowa and Fallon’s campaign for Congress, but have not formally alleged wrongdoing. Dearden said he took the action without consulting Boswell or his campaign.

“He collects money and he’s using the Web site – undisclosed money – to further his campaign,” Dearden, of Des Moines, told reporters at a Capitol press conference.

Dearden was referring to at least three e-mail messages sent from I’M for Iowa to the group’s supporters, in which Fallon’s candidacy was mentioned. Federal campaign law forbids corporate money from being spent in a campaign for federal office. Dearden’s argument is that the e-mail constitutes promoting Fallon’s campaign by a group that is not required to disclose its source of money.

Since the FEC does not currently have enough members to take official action, this complaint will almost certainly not be resolved in time for the June 3 primary. By filing the complaint, however, Dearden is assisting the Boswell campaign’s efforts to keep the media narrative about Fallon’s alleged ethical problems.

Fallon issued a press release trying to shift the focus back to his differences with Boswell over the issues:

Des Moines, March 9, 4:00 pm CDT – “I live simply.  I’ve always been a voice for ethics in government, and I have never taken a penny from a PAC or lobbyist.  Clearly, Boswell’s people are trying to discredit me on my strengths instead of discussing the real challenges facing America.  Voters deserve better than this.  I welcome the FEC’s investigation and I am eager for a debate with Congressman Boswell on the important issues, including campaign finance reform.”

Meanwhile, Fallon and the Boswell campaign sparred over the incumbent’s voting record on withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

The Boswell campaign points to five votes in support of a timetable for ending combat in Iraq. I think that the issue, though, is whether Boswell (like many Congressional Democrats), voted for some bills that called for bringing troops home by X date, yet were willing to support Iraq War supplemental funding bills that did not contain timetables for withdrawal.

It’s great to be on record calling for an end to combat operations in Iraq, but as long as Congress continues to sign blank checks to fund Bush’s war, the policy won’t change.

Leonard Boswell continues to line up union endorsements in his re-election campaign against Ed Fallon. This came today from the Boswell press office:

Des Moines Firefighters Endorse Congressman Leonard Boswell

Des Moines, IA – The Des Moines Association of Professional Firefighters (IAFF 4) announced their endorsement of Congressman Leonard Boswell today.  They cited Boswell’s support of the FIRE Act grant program, which has provided funding to local, county and state agencies to provide fire and rescue protection for Iowans.  Boswell has also supported the SAFER Act program, which helps local fire departments recruit and hire both full-time and volunteer firefighters.  The Windsor Heights fire department has recently benefitted from this program.

“I’m grateful for the support of career firefighters in Des Moines and Urbandale,” said Congressman Boswell.  “I am committed to providing all I can to ensure our first responders are appropriately equipped to respond to any type of emergency, including terrorism.  Our firefighters are the first to arrive on the scene of these emergencies and I will continue to work toward enabling them to do the job.”

“We count on Congressman Boswell as a knowledgeable and skilled leader.  He continues to provide analysis of vital intelligence information that keeps America prepared to respond to emergencies and threats.  Firefighters rely upon and deeply trust Leonard Boswell,” said John TeKippe, President of IAFF 4.

IAFF, Local 4 represents approximately 300 firefighters in Des Moines and Urbandale.

Mary Mascher put up a post at Blog for Iowa a few days ago detailing action on several bills last week at the legislature. I recommend keeping an eye on that blog for legislative news as we get closer to the end of the session.

I read in the Des Moines Register that yesterday both chambers passed a compromise smoking ban bill, which covers almost all public places:

Iowans will still be able to smoke in the gambling areas of casinos, although smoke would be prohibited in casino restaurants, gift shops, bars and employee areas.

They can smoke in the outdoor areas of bars, the outdoors areas of county fairs and the State Fair except the grandstands, in limousines and in retail tobacco stores.

Other exemptions are designated areas of correctional facilities, the state veterans home in Marshalltown and Iowa National Guard facilities.

I’m pleased that restaurants and bars will be smoke-free. That will protect a lot of employees from second-hand smoke, and I doubt it will hurt business. The Waveland Cafe in Des Moines has no seen business drop off since it went smoke free last fall, because people like me, who had avoided bringing their families, are now eating there more often.

I was interested to read that the smoking ban did not have enough Democratic votes to pass either the House or the Senate. In both chambers, a majority of Democrats were joined by a small number of Republicans. The Register has the roll-call vote on this bill, in case you want to see how your representatives voted.

Governor Culver’s office indicated that he “looks forward” to signing the bill.

The Senate on Monday passed a bill expanding health insurance coverage for children, including some young adult children. According to the Des Moines Register,

The bill now returns to the House, which passed a less specific version last month.

A children’s welfare advocate who expressed doubts about the original House bill praised the version that passed in the Senate Monday.

“I think we’re getting there. We’re getting there,” said Carrie Fitzgerald, senior health policy associate for the Child and Family Policy Center. She said the new bill includes more specifics, such as measures to prevent eligible children from being taken off public programs.

As my husband and I have learned during the past five years, the cost of health insurance for young, healthy adults increases once you have a child, and with every additional child. If a parent’s employer does not provide your health insurance, the cost of a private plan can easily be out of reach for middle-income families.

It’s short of the universal access to health care we need in this country, but making more children eligible for low-cost state insurance plans is a step in the right direction.

David Mizner has written a diary I recommend to all supporters of Barack Obama. It highlights behavior that inadvertently harms Obama’s campaign by driving away some Democrats who otherwise lean toward him.

Mizner was an active supporter of John Edwards for president, as his diary history shows. Like me, he wrote regular front-page posts advocating for Edwards at MyDD. But after Edwards dropped out, Mizner voted for Obama in the New York primary on February 5.

On its surface, Mizner’s latest piece is an inside-baseball critique of editorial bias at the Daily Kos. He demonstrates how Markos Moulitsas has in recent months become an uncritical cheerleader for Obama, after being skeptical toward all the Democratic candidates in 2007.

But I recommend this diary not because you should care about what some blogger thinks of Markos. Rather, I think Mizner has touched on the alienation many Democrats feel when they encounter the overheated Hillary-hating and Obama-loving rhetoric from Obama fans:

It’s no coincidence that in the last two months the site has devolved into a propaganda organ for the Obama campaign. Although it’s aggravating to come across Drudgery at the top of the rec list and casual claims that Hillary is a sociopath, it’s not the nastiness that’s worrisome (freedom is untidy); it’s the laziness, the unquestioning partisanship, the lack of brainwork. These days at Daily Kos there’s no exchange of ideas, no debate. Obama is good, Hillary is bad, case closed.

It’s probably not wise to go looking to Daily Kos or any other political blog for Truth, but the progressive blogosphere fancies itself the reality-based community, and that commodity is in short supply at the mothership. If you’re a progressive untouched by enthusiasm for Obama or hatred for Hillary, you must be wondering what race Kossacks are watching. In the race I’ve watched, Obama has not campaigned as a transformative progressive. In the race I’ve watched, he has failed to offer a single bold policy initiative, coddled a virulent homophobe for political purposes, voted to fund the war in Iraq and justified doing so by parroting a disgusting rightwing talking point, echoed the GOP claim that the Social Security system is in crisis, refused to join Edwards in opposing the Global War on Terror framework, joined George Bush in seeking to expand the size of the military by 92,000 troops, said he would increase the military budget, supported corporate free trade, enlisted Tom Daschle to assemble a base of support on K-Street, raised buckets of cash fromlobbyist-law firms, and bashed unions for helping Edwards until he himself was the beneficiary of labor’s largesse. Et Cetera.

A dozen links in that passage didn’t come through when I copied and pasted, but click to the original diary and you’ll see that Mizner has the links to back up what he is saying.

This passage also made a crucial point that Obama supporters rarely acknowledge:

I’m not going to defend the Clinton campaign’s race-baiting or its praising of McCain at Obama’s expense. Nor, though, will I defend the Obama’s campaign sexism, or its willingness to claim race-baiting where there is none. I believe history will show both that the Clnton campaign wanted to turn Barack into the “black candidate” and that the Obama campaign wanted to turn Hillary into the racist candidate. They both exploited racial resentment.

Several links in that paragraph didn’t come through. The most important one is to the memo that the Obama campaign distributed in South Carolina, which sought to portray the Clintons as using racially divisive rhetoric. That memo was designed to give Obama an edge among blacks and white liberals, and it worked, but it also distorted Hillary’s comments about Lyndon Johnson and Bill’s comments about the “fairy tale.”

My impression is that intense Obama supporters can’t understand why everyone isn’t as outraged as they are over the latest stupid comment by some Clinton supporter. First, the Obama campaign has crossed lines too, as Mizner points out. Second, many progressives have, according to Mizner,

abdicated the job of trying to hold Obama accountable. Both Move On and Blue Majority gave him endorsements without offering so much as constructive criticism. Kos himself hasn’t written one word critical of Obama in several weeks, during which time Obama has sent nothing but alarming signals on the sphere’s signature issue: Iraq. Unlike Hillary, he wouldn’t ban corporate mercenaries and his advisors are describing his modest withdrawal plan as a “best case scenario” and calling for a large residual force. Also unmentioned by Kos and the other Daily Kos front page bloggers is Obama’s attempt to denythat he once held certain liberal positions.

Again, the links did not come through, but you can find many in the diary.

When Obama puts up red flags, and onetime reasonable progressives have nothing but praise for him and condemnation for Hillary, it turns off a lot of Democrats.

Speaking of the devolution of political discourse lately, I can’t resist linking to a diary Mizner wrote last month: “Do You Miss Edwards Yet?” The opening paragraph was a classic:

Ah, 2007. How I long for those halcyon, pre-Ferraro days when a major issue in the primary was the dangerous influence of corporate power. Thanks to Edwards, the Big Three battled over who would be more willing and able to take on corporations. There was reason to doubt that the policies proposed by Obama and Clinton–and even by Edwards, perhaps–would deliver the bold change they promised, but at least the issue of corporate power was front and center. Now, though, with Edwards gone, the issue is barely an issue, and somewhere CEOs and Wall Street execs are laughing.

Ain’t that the truth.

Last week Elizabeth Edwards wrote a fantastic guest post for the Think Progress blog asking why people like her (who have had cancer in the past) are left out of John McCain’s health care reform plan. A great video clip of her slamming McCain’s health plan can be found in this diary by NCDem Amy

McCain has ignored her comments, while one of his fund-raisers tried to pretend her concern about cancer patients being excluded from coverage was not a legitimate issue for political discussion.

But at some point, I think McCain will have to address the issues raised by Edwards. This week it emerged that she has joined the Center for American Progress as a senior fellow.

Already on Tuesday she appeared on NPR to explain how McCain’s plan “falls short in every conceivable way.” NCDem Amy’s diary includes a link to the podcast of that NPR interview, if you’d like to listen.

Elizabeth Edwards has been active intermittently on political blogs since the last presidential campaign, and she will be blogging more regularly in her new position.

Health care will be her main focus at the Center for American Progress:

“As many can attest, I have an opinion on everything,” Edwards said tonight about her new role. “But I am particularly concerned about the state of health care in America and I am grateful to CAP for giving me the chance to continue to advocate for universal and quality health care coverage for all.”

I can’t wait.

Oh, by the way, Edwards confirmed in an interview for Wednesday’s edition of Good Morning America that she prefers Clinton’s health-care plan to Obama’s. I am not at all surprised, since the Clinton plan was closer to that proposed by John Edwards during the presidential campaign.

In fact, while I have no inside information, my hunch is that if not for Obama’s inferior health care reform proposal and his use of Republican talking points to attack Hillary’s proposal, John and Elizabeth Edwards would have endorsed Obama for president by now.  

This is part of a series I’m writing about efforts by Leonard Boswell’s campaign and its supporters to make the third district primary about Ed Fallon’s faults rather than the incumbent’s record of service.

Boswell’s staffers and supporters have criticized Fallon for the following four alleged ethical problems:

1. his work and fundraising for the Independence Movement for Iowa (I’M for Iowa)

2. the salary Fallon drew from unspent campaign funds following the 2006 gubernatorial primary

3. allegations that Fallon pondered running for governor as an independent after losing that primary

4. Fallon’s stand against taking contributions from PACs while allowing PACs to encourage their individual members to donate to his campaign.

For my take on the I’M for Iowa allegations, see this diary and this follow-up piece.

Today I will focus on the controversy surrounding the salary Fallon’s gubernatorial campaign paid him following his loss in the June 2006 primary.

Campaigns routinely pay staffers for weeks or months after the race is over. Just last week I spoke to someone who is still working at John Edwards’ headquarters in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, more than two months after Edwards suspended his presidential campaign.

It is more unusual for the candidate to be paid for doing campaign work after the election. No one disputes that Fallon received $13,750 from his gubernatorial campaign between June and November of 2006. The payments are allowed under Iowa law “as long as the candidate is doing work related to the campaign.”

Before drawing any salary from unspent campaign funds, Fallon checked with Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board. According to Fallon, Smithson “assured me that I, along with other staff, could be paid to work on campaign related tasks.” What were those tasks?

Though the campaign was over, there was still plenty of work to do with data entry, file drawers, computer files, and office equipment.  I also wanted to make sure the key issues in my campaign continued to receive attention through the general election.  So, three staff and I stayed on part-time.

Now that this has become an issue in the Boswell-Fallon race, Iowa House representative Rick Olson is leading a charge to ban politicians from taking salaries from campaign funds:

Rep. Rick Olson, a Des Moines Democrat, criticized candidates taking salaries from campaign money. In remarks on the floor of the Iowa House today, he vowed to work with Democratic leaders to introduce legislation known as the “Ed Fallon loophole” to make the payments illegal.

“I find that unbelievable,” Olson said. “If that’s what the law is in the state, that we can pay ourselves salaries after we’ve been defeated. I think that’s a hoax and a sham.”

Smithson declined to comment on the specific situation when contacted by the Des Moines Register, but said that legislators should

take a broader look at the issue. Lawmakers should question if candidates – at any stage during or after their elections – should be able to pay themselves for running for public office, Smithson said.

The Iowa legislature has two “funnel” deadlines for bills, and both have passed this session. In theory, that means that new bills, which have not already been approved by at least one committee, may not be introduced until the 2009 legislative session.

However, the leadership in the Democratic-controlled Iowa House and Senate may try to get Olson’s proposal through this month:

Democratic leaders in the Iowa House and Senate agreed Tuesday to work on a proposal that would make it illegal for political candidates to pay themselves a salary out of campaign contributions.

Brian Meyer, an assistant for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, said Tuesday that the Democratic leader, along with Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, a Council Bluffs Democrat, have agreed to draft legislation to halt such payments. The proposal could be introduced as soon as Thursday, Meyer said.

A deadline has passed for most lawmakers to sponsor new legislation, but bills sponsored by legislative leaders can be introduced at any time and remain eligible for debate.

If legislators push this bill through, I will have written my last check to the House and Senate Democratic leadership funds. It is totally inappropriate to make the Iowa legislature an arm of Leonard Boswell’s re-election campaign.

It is also absurd to treat the so-called “Fallon loophole” as a five-alarm fire when Iowa has no limits on the size of contributions candidates for the legislature or statewide office may accept. That’s right, a wealthy person can write a check of any size to any state legislator’s campaign.

Also, legislative leaders refuse to allow the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections Act (which would create a voluntary public-financing system similar to those used in Maine and Arizona) to move forward.

Fallon responded to this legislative effort in his campaign website blog on April 2. Among other things, he claims lawmakers are getting back at him because his political advocacy organization, I’M for Iowa, has been highly critical of the Democratic leadership in the legislature. He also notes that statehouse Democrats are content to ignore far more serious loopholes in our campaign finance rules.

I’ve put the full text of that blog post after the jump, but here is a relevant excerpt:

The real loophole that needs closing is the one that allows legislative leaders to take hundreds of thousands of dollars from PACs and lobbyists, funnel it to special funds, and then ship it to targeted candidates.  Successful candidates are then reminded by leaders that they won because of the money funneled into their campaigns.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board on April 6 criticized the proposed legislation on different grounds:

A thistle to Democratic legislators who would bar candidates from drawing a salary from campaign donors. This bill (aimed at Ed Fallon, who is challenging Leonard Boswell) is an Incumbent Protection Act. Challengers who give up day jobs to run for office must fend for themselves or be independently wealthy. Meanwhile, the taxpayers support or subsidize incumbents. If contributors want to spend their own money for the care and feeding of a candidate, it is no business of the Iowa Legislature.

Incidentally, Fallon gave up two paying jobs in order to run for governor: his seat in the Iowa House (in a safe Democratic district), and his part-time position as executive director of the non-profit organization 1000 Friends of Iowa (a group I am involved with).

To my mind, the controversy over Fallon’s salary in 2006 is just another facet of Boswell’s effort to direct third district voters’ attention toward anything but how the incumbent has voted during his six terms in Congress.

The Republican presidential candidate is at a big financial disadvantage compared to the likely Democratic nominee.

John Kerry raised over $40 million in March 2004 after clinching the Democratic nomination. He was still far behind George W. Bush in the money race, because the president had not had to compete in the primaries and could devote a lot of time to big-ticket fundraisers.

John McCain clinched the Republican nomination on February 5 and formally won enough delegates to be the nominee on March 4. But he only managed to raise $15 million in March. According to Marc Ambinder, Mitt Romney has promised to help McCain raise another $15 million or so from Romney supporters.

To put that in perspective, Barack Obama raised more than $40 million in March, and Hillary Clinton, who is quite the longshot for the Democratic nomination, managed to raise about $20 million that month.

At MyDD, Jonathan Singer noted that Obama raised more money in March alone than McCain raised in the entire first quarter.

I know a lot of you are worried about the continuing Democratic contest, but I think we should relax and let the rest of the primaries play out. The likelihood is that after Puerto Rico votes on June 7, Obama will be far enough ahead that the superdelegates will move decisively in his direction.

Meanwhile, McCain isn’t going to be building any kind of warchest that Obama can’t match.

The Boswell campaign put out this press release today:

CONTACT: Betsy Shelton

                                                                                            515-238-3356

Congressman Leonard Boswell Receives Endorsement of Building Trades Council

Des Moines, IA – Congressman Leonard Boswell received the endorsement of the Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council today.  Congressman Boswell continues to fight for issues important to the Building Trades, including building and maintaining infrastructure, and focusing on issues relating to working families.

“I am honored to receive the support of the Building Trades,” said Boswell.  “These hard working men and women share my commitment to protecting working families.”

“As a member of the United States Congress, Leonard Boswell has consistently fought for issues important to the working families of Iowa.  The Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council is proud to endorse Congressman Boswell because we know his re-election will send a strong advocate for working Iowans back to Washington,” said Bill Gerhard, State Building Trades president.

The Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council has approximately 35,000 members in Iowa.  The Council represents 15 building trades unions engaged in the construction industry.

It’s not clear from the release how many of those 35,000 members live in the third district.

This endorsement isn’t surprising, in that unions typically back incumbents, and Boswell has gotten all of the trade union endorsements so far in this race.

Additionally, though Fallon was a strong and consistent supporter of organized labor in the Iowa legislature, he has been outspoken against certain new road projects in the state. The Building Trades Council presumably supports all new road projects.

To cite one example that applies to residents of the third district, supporters of a proposed four-lane beltway in northeast Polk County are counting on Boswell, who serves on the House Transportation Committee, to secure substantial federal funding. Fallon opposes building this road, which would be a poor use of transportation funding and would be environmentally harmful as well.

I have seen research showing that maintaining existing infrastructure supports more jobs than building new roads, but I can’t find the link right now. If I can find it tonight, I will add it to this post.

Over at Century of the Common Iowan, noneed4thneed put up a link to the latest Rasmussen poll of Iowa. Holy cow–Obama beats McCain here 46 percent to 42 percent, but Hillary loses to McCain 51 percent to 36 percent. McCain has hardly ever campaigned here and finished fourth in the Republican caucuses. Noneed4thneed noted that Rasmussen found

McCain leads Clinton by a two-to-one margin among unaffiliated voters. However, Obama leads McCain 46% to 37% among those same voters.

The latest round of Survey USA polls had a similar finding (sorry, no link). Obama and Hillary look poised to win a comparable number of electoral votes against McCain, but they do it in different ways. Obama was ahead in Iowa against McCain, but Hillary was trailing the Republican. Assuming Obama is the Democratic nominee, I have to believe he would be heavily favored to win Iowa. Rasmussen's poll may show his lead within the margin of error, but Obama has a huge volunteer army to draw on here from the caucuses, while McCain didn't build any kind of organization in Iowa.

the ad for John McCain you may see on the lower left-hand side of your screen does not in any way, shape or form constitute an endorsement of McCain by this blog.

Bleeding Heartland will strongly support the Democratic nominee this fall.

We are part of the liberal Blogads Network, which is how the ad found its way to this page. If McCain’s campaign wants to throw away its money advertising on liberal blogs, I’m not going to complain.

(UPDATE and correction: Bleeding Heartland founder Drew Miller informs me that the McCain ad was being served by Google, not Blogads. Apparently Drew put up some kind of filter to block johnmccain.com, so the ad will no longer show up on this page.)

My share of all advertising revenues generated by Bleeding Heartland will be donated to BlogPAC, a political action committee run by the bloggers Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers, Mike Stark and Natasha Chart:

http://www.blogpac.com/core

Blogpac funds progressive leadership and experiments with injecting new voices in the political process using internet activism. We give grants, no strings attached, to activists on the internet who have a demonstrated record of success in either creating progressive change or creating the space for progressives to make change. We also seek moments to inject progressive power into the political system through focused internet and new media activism.

Stoller and Bowers used to blog at MyDD and now run the shop at Open Left.

Chart posts on several liberal blogs, including MyDD and Open Left.

Stark is most famous for asking Virginia Senator George Allen (shortly after the “macaca” incident) if he had ever used the n-word. It was a question no mainstream journalist would ever have asked Allen, but the senator’s dishonest reply opened the door to a stream of stories about how Allen had casually used racial slurs in the past.

One of my favorite bloggers, Steve Gilliard, later wrote that Jim Webb owes his Senate seat to Stark, because Stark helped drive a media narrative that was devastating to Allen.

A few days ago, Des Moines Register reporter Jane Norman wrote a story about earmarks Iowa’s members of Congress obtained for projects in 2007. The article was based on the 2008 “Congressional Pig Book,” published by Citizens against Government Waste.

The Register notes:

Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that takes aim at waste and fraud in government.

To qualify as pork, projects must meet one of seven criteria: a request by just one member of Congress; no specific authorization; no competitive award; no presidential request; a greatly increased budget amount compared with the previous year; serving only a local or special interest; or no congressional hearing.

Norman’s main point was that Iowa’s members of Congress obtained far more earmarks in 2007 than they had the previous year, totaling

$184.6 million in earmarks, or $61.79 in Iowa pork for every man, woman and child in the state.

It’s a major rebound for Iowa, which languished in 37th place in a similar study in 2006. That year, lawmakers obtained $72.2 million in earmarks, or $24.34 per Iowan.

(Note: Earlier this year, the group Taxpayers for Common Sense did its own analysis and came up with somewhat different numbers for 2007: the Iowa delegation was calculated to have obtained about “$152 million in earmarked money from Congress – or $51.10 for every man, woman and child in the state.”)

Norman noted that since Democrats took control of Congress in he 2006 elections, Senator Tom Harkin now chairs a “key appropriations subcommittee.” The “Congressional Pig Book” apparently singled him out for getting “$40 million for 44 projects in his own bill,” according to Norman.

I don’t know why the authors would single out Harkin, when their own book shows that Senator Chuck Grassley obtained more pork for Iowa in terms of total dollar value. Grassley collaborated with Harkin on a large number of earmarks for Iowa projects.

I also get a little tired of self-appointed taxpayer watchdogs expressing righteous indignation about this or that project that got a few hundred thousand dollars from the federal government. The Pig Book shows that the more than 11,000 earmarks in 2007 accounted for about $17.2 billion in federal spending.

Meanwhile, the U.S. spent several times that amount on the continuing war in Iraq in 2007, with little to show for it besides more American casualties.

That said, there’s no doubt that a lot of earmarks are wasteful appropriations for projects of limited benefit to the broader community. The Pig Book contains a ton of information about the earmarks each member of Congress has obtained. You can search all the Iowa earmarks from 2007 on this page of the Des Moines Register’s website, or search for earmarks by any member of Congress at the Citizens Against Government Waste site.

I used that search engine to find the total number of earmarks that each Iowa member of Congress obtained last year. The total dollar amount for each member comes from a table published in the Des Moines Register on April 3 (no link, because I could only find this table in the print version). Note that not every dollar earmarked by an Iowan ends up in Iowa, because some of these projects operate in many states.

Chuck Grassley (R), 155 earmarks, $321.4 million

Tom Harkin (D), 194 earmarks, $302.8 million

Tom Latham (R, IA-04), 63 earmarks, $67 million

Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02), 27 earmarks, $53.5 million

Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03), 27 earmarks, $33.1 million

Bruce Braley (D, IA-01), 26 earmarks, $27.5 million

Steve King (R, IA-05), 13 earmarks, $9.8 million

Why does Latham, a Republican, lead our House delegation in terms of earmarks? He is the longest-serving Iowan in the House (having been first elected in 1994) and serves on several subcommittees of the House Appropriations Committee. Also, his district includes Iowa State University, and a lot of federal funding goes to major research universities.

The data for the Democrats surprised me. How did the freshman Dave Loebsack secure so much more than Leonard Boswell? At first I thought it must be because Loebsack’s district includes the University of Iowa, but only two of Loebsack’s 27 earmarks were for the university.

Looking down the list more carefully, I realized that the dollar amount credited to Loebsack is inflated because he was one of 13 House members to earmark $24 million for the Department of Education’s National Writing Project. Most of that money will not go to Iowa.

Even if we remove that one from Loebsack’s list, he is still left with 26 earmarks (almost as many as Boswell), totaling $29.5 million (almost as much as Boswell). Keep in mind that Loebsack is only halfway through his first term, while Boswell was elected to Congress in 1996.

Braley is not far behind, despite being a freshman as well.

It’s no surprise that King is at the bottom of the list. Not only is he a Republican in a Democratic-controlled chamber, his idea of constituent service seems to revolve around making outrageous statements. Oh, and also suing to prevent non-native English speakers from receiving voter information in other languages. He has no major universities in his district either.

If you dig around in the database and find anything particularly noteworthy, please put a comment in this thread.