Governor Chet Culver and Republican challenger Terry Branstad will debate for the second time tonight at 7 pm. You can watch live online at KCRG in Cedar Rapids, or statewide on Iowa Public Television at 8 pm. I’ll put up a debate discussion thread here later, but first let’s preview each candidate’s message on the big issues likely to come up tonight. As was apparent during the first gubernatorial debate, these two are masters at answering the question they want to answer.
Jobs, flood recovery, tv ads and more are after the jump.
JOB CREATION
Both gubernatorial candidates are running television commercials about Branstad’s job creation promises. The Branstad spot called “Let’s Work” started running a couple of weeks ago:
Script provided by the Branstad campaign:
114,000 Iowans are out of work. It’s unacceptable.
Under Terry Branstad, unemployment was the lowest in state history. He created nearly 300,000 jobs.
Now, he has a new plan. It’s ambitious and aggressive.
Create 200,000 new jobs. Make it known Iowa is open for business again.
End job-killing red tape. Expand trade for our ag and manufactured goods.
Branstad’s back.
Let’s work.
Branstad has made deregulation a central part of his jobs proposal, and other GOP candidates like attorney general nominee Brenna Findley also promise to battle “job-killing regulations.” I expect Branstad to use this talking point frequently tonight. Culver should respond by exposing the hidden agenda behind that kind of “job creation.” His campaign released a good statement on this topic last week, and we’ll probably hear a version of this from the governor tonight:
Branstad proposes a scheme that would remove the currently balanced approach that weighs regulations’ impact on business, consumers, worker safety, public health and the environment. In addition, he proposes “legislation to create a staggered four-year rolling sunset of all state regulations.” The real goal of this plan is to end even common-sense rules that protect hard-working Iowans. Important time-tested consumer and worker protections would be put up to lobbyist-influenced partisan votes every four years. […]
“Terry Branstad’s underhanded deregulation plan would make it easier for his corporate cronies and lobbyist buddies to get rid of regulations that they don’t like, just because they are somewhat inconvenient. These regulations are here for a reason — to help protect the safety and security of Iowans,” [Culver/Judge campaign manager Donn] Stanley said.
“Now, Branstad wants to give his friends in business the opportunity to shirk their duties as good corporate citizens at the expense of all Iowans. This isn’t a job-creation plan for hard-working Iowans – it’s a full-employment program for corporate lobbyists.”
Branstad’s regulation-sunset plan builds on his agriculture deregulation plan at the height of a food safety crisis in the United States. Removing these rules would make it easier for producers to cut corners on quality and safety, and put Iowans in jeopardy. When goods and services produced in Iowa are sent throughout the country and all around the globe, the impact of Branstad’s dishonest and irresponsible behavior would stretch well beyond the confines of the state of Iowa.
Examples of the kind of common-sense rules Branstad wants to abolish include:
• Rules that protect older Iowans in assisted living facilities, such as requirements for emergency response systems, fire safety systems and employee standards.
• Child labor enforcement mechanisms.
• The adoption of food safety regulations from the USDA.
• Wage payment enforcement that ensures Iowans receive the pay they have earned from employers.
• Regulations that protect our water and air from pollution by companies and animal feeding operations.
Culver’s campaign launched a new television commercial over the weekend responding to the latest Branstad spot. Here is “Fooled Again”:
Script provided by the Culver campaign:
Male Announcer: The highest unemployment in modern Iowa history happened when Terry Branstad was Governor.
Female Announcer: He promised a hundred and eighty thousand jobs.
Male Announcer: It never happened.
Female Announcer: Then promised three hundred thousand jobs,
Male Announcer: Terry failed again.
Female Announcer: Branstad said his books were never balanced.
Male Announcer: Borrowed billions to pay bills,
Female Announcer: And raised the sales tax twice and gas tax four times.
Male Announcer: Yet gave himself eight pay raises.
Female Announcer: Now Branstad’s making the same empty promises,
Male Announcer: Hoping to fool us again.
Jason Hancock wrote a good piece at Iowa Independent on how job creation numbers can be misleading. Excerpt:
When contacted about Branstad’s claim in his commercial to have created 300,000 jobs during his tenure, Iowa Workforce Development Communications Director Kerry Koonce said the number of jobs in Iowa actually increased from 996,800 jobs in 1983, when Branstad took office, to 1,455,900 in 1999, when he left office. That’s an increase of 459,100 jobs.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Iowa saw a 282,594 increase in jobs from 1989 to 1999.
But that figure doesn’t represent how many people are employed in Iowa, just the number of jobs, Koonce said. People can have more than one job.
“There are more jobs in the economy than there are employed persons,” Swenson said. “I, for example, have three jobs. I do research at ISU, I am separately employed at the University of Iowa, and I do private research activities as a nonfarm proprietor. But, I am merely one employed person.”
In 1983, around 53.5 jobs supported 100 Iowa persons, Swenson said. By 2008 that number had grown to 68 Iowa jobs to support 100 persons.
“The implication of this is that we indeed are adding jobs, but we are adding a disproportionate number of jobs that are likely part time or seasonal, or the nature of the job growth is not sufficient to sustain a household necessitating higher rates of multiple job holders,” Swenson said. “These numbers are implicitly worse because the state has a much higher fraction of elderly (and therefore much less likely to be working) than the nation.”
As in the first debate, Culver will talk about how Iowa has a relatively low unemployment rate and has emerged from the recession stronger than most other states. He’ll also probably face questions about his own job-creation initiatives, especially the I-JOBS infrastructure bonding program.
I-JOBS
Branstad has consistently criticized I-JOBS. I expect him to keep exaggerating the I-JOBS repayment costs and claiming “taxpayers” are on the hook for the bonds. I’m curious to see whether he will explain tonight how he would have rebuilt Cedar Rapids and Linn County on a “pay as you go” basis. I-JOBS included about $45 million earmarked for flood recovery projects in the Cedar Rapids area. I also wonder whether any of the panelists will ask him why he’s ok with borrowing to build schools in New Jersey but not to fix roads, sewers and public facilities in Iowa.
Culver will relish the chance to talk about I-JOBS in Cedar Rapids. On Tuesday he accepted the endorsement of the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City Building and Construction Trades Council. Republicans have dismissed I-JOBS programs as temporary make-work, but Building and Construction Trades Council President Scott Smith said, “The I-JOBS program has helped keep building and constructions trades workers on the job all summer while other states struggled with much higher unemployment.”
Yesterday the Iowa Professional Fire Fighters endorsed Culver, largely because of the I-JOBS program. The governor will surely mention this during tonight’s debate:
IPFF President Rick Scofield said endorsing Governor Culver was “an obvious choice.”
“We think Governor Culver is the best for the working class and the labor movement,” Scofield said. “We appreciate the things he’s done with I-JOBS, which is allowing cities to build and remodel their fire stations, and creating new jobs.”
I-JOBS has been instrumental in rebuilding critical infrastructure after the 2008 floods, like fire stations, public safety buildings, and emergency operation centers, as well as mitigating future flooding at these facilities. The program is investing in Iowans’ safety by making sure communities are equipped to respond to emergencies and disasters.
Governor Culver’s I-JOBS program is providing $6.6 million for the new Central Fire Station in Cedar Rapids. The new station, which is now in the site-selection stage, would not be possible without I-JOBS.
Terry Branstad opposes I-JOBS. He has said he prefers a “pay-as-you-go” approach to flood recovery that would leave Iowa communities waiting 10 or 20 years for help to rebuild critical services like fire stations.
“Communities like Cedar Rapids, Palo, Elkader and Charles City could not wait decades to rebuild their fire stations that were damaged or destroyed in the floods,” Culver said. “These were essential facilities that needed to be rebuilt now. I-JOBS is making the investments necessary to make sure our emergency response professionals have the tools they need to keep people safe.”
Culver visited an I-JOBS work site in Davenport yesterday and will probably mention it in tonight’s debate. This sewer project will make future economic development possible in an area of the city’s west side. From a Culver campaign press release on October 6:
“Terry Branstad likes to say that I-JOBS is not creating any ‘real’ jobs. Well, just look at the folks working right here today, building the infrastructure that will move this city forward,” Culver said. “This project is a prime example of how I-JOBS is creating the conditions for long-term economic growth. Here in Davenport, it is providing the critical infrastructure that will allow businesses to locate here and provide permanent jobs.”
FLOOD RECOVERY
Some debate question about flood response is almost inevitable given the Cedar Rapids venue. State Senator Rob Hogg, a Democrat who represents a Cedar Rapids district, has been relentless in charging that Branstad failed Iowans after the 1993 floods. Hogg says better floodplain mapping and management might have reduced the damage done in 2008. Bleeding Heartland discussed Branstad’s stance on flood recovery here. I expect Culver to work in some facts and figures from Hogg’s October 6 press release:
CEDAR RAPIDS/WATERLOO – Black Hawk County Supervisor John Miller, former regional director for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), said Wednesday that former Governor Terry Branstad was inattentive to hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness after the Flood of 1993.
“One of my biggest disappointments during my tenure as regional director of FEMA was the lack of attention the Branstad Administration gave to hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness in my home state,” Miller said. “For Mr. Branstad to criticize Governor Culver for his management of the largest disaster in Iowa history, given his record, is disingenuous to say the least.”
Miller, who was regional director of FEMA from 1994 through 2000, said that Governor Culver has done a “masterful job” of managing the Disasters of 2008 and 2010. By contrast, “Branstad’s method of dealing with disasters during his term in office was to blame everything on FEMA rather than work as a partner in reducing the risks of future disasters,” Miller said. “I have to wonder what his plan will be, should he be elected in November.”
State Senator Rob Hogg (D-Cedar Rapids), who has pointed out that Branstad failed to implement any of the floodplain or watershed recommendations of his own flood recovery task force in May, 1994, said that Miller’s comments are supported by the findings of a 1999 academic study by Prof. David Godschalk and others showing that Branstad failed to fund the state’s responsibilities for hazard mitigation after the Flood of 1993.
“What the history shows us is that Iowa prepared good plans for reducing future flood damage, but Terry Branstad did not implement those plans,” Hogg said. “His inaction in response to plans from his own state agencies cost Iowans unnecessary flood damage and millions of dollars in taxpayer costs, and calls into question his competence to lead this state.”
In a 1999 book, Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning, lead author David Godschalk, now emeritus professor of city and regional planning at the University of North Carolina, reported that Iowa’s hazard mitigation planning after the Flood of 1993 was generally good, but there were not enough state resources to implement the plan recommendations.
Specifically, Prof. Godschalk and his co-authors reported:
• The “realities of state funding priorities have limited [the] implementation” of state actions planned in the 1994 Iowa Hazard Mitigation Plan (p. 196).
• “Implementation of recommendations of the Section 409 plan proceeded slowly [after FEMA approval in 1994] due to lack of state funding” (p. 198).
• FEMA said Iowa got a “slow start” in its buyout program and did not prioritize buyouts, resulting in a “scattered pattern of vacant lots” (p. 205).
• “[T]he state floodplain coordinator indicated that reductions in state staff and funding had diminished the state’s effectiveness in enforcing [state and federal] floodplain management requirements” (p. 214).
• “FEMA personnel complained that the state was not responsible enough in screening Section 404 applications, meeting Section 409 plan preparation deadlines, setting priorities, and so forth. They said, ‘It’s been a war in Iowa'” (p. 218).
• The state did not put any state funding into the hazard mitigation program, which resulted in less scrutiny of projects funded solely by the federal government and less effort to “ensure that the funded projects were carried out successfully” (p. 219).
• Because of lack of state implementation, only two-thirds of eligible communities had joined the National Flood Insurance Program (p. 214).
• Because of lack of state implementation, the number of flood insurance policies in Iowa, which had increased immediately after the flood of 1993, fell 7.3% between June 30 and November 30 of 1994 (p. 204)
Excerpts of the book are available on the internet at Google Books.
“This book is further evidence that Terry Branstad just does not understand the essential role that state government must play in reducing future flood damage,” Hogg said. “It is long past time for Terry Branstad to present his plan for preventing future flood damage in Iowa if he wants to be Governor again.”
Branstad will pivot away from his record on flood recovery if possible. In her piece on the ideological differences between Culver and Branstad on this issue, Lynda Waddington noted that Branstad “has said little in relation to these allegations, choosing instead to allow a campaign spokesman to deflect the charges and redirect media questions to issues the campaign views as more favorable.” That’s exactly how Branstad’s campaign responded yesterday to Hogg’s latest press release:
Branstad spokesman Tim Albrecht called [former FEMA regional director John] Miller a “liberal, partisan Democrat” who is failing to tell voters the truth about Iowa’s recovery from the 1993 floods.
“This is another attempt to distract Iowans from his failed job creation policies,” Albrecht said of Culver. “He’s launching angry, desperate and negative attacks.”
STATE BUDGET
I doubt any new ground will be covered when Culver and Branstad clash over the state budget tonight. Culver will emphasize the larger than expected surplus at the end of fiscal year 2010, while Branstad will blame Culver for property tax increases and decry so-called “overspending,” as well as a projected Medicaid shortfall in fiscal year 2012. Culver’s response to those accusations will probably echo his comments during a meeting with the Cedar Rapids Gazette editorial board this week: Iowa leaders have and will continue to balance the budget; independent analysts validate our success in this area; the government reorganization passed in 2010 will save money in the future; we will fully fund Medicaid, even if the federal government reduces its funding level; and by the way, Branstad’s promised budget cuts would devastate services that vulnerable Iowans rely on.
I’ll be watching to see whether Branstad offers any more details about how he would reduce the size of government by 15 percent over five years. Speaking to the Des Moines Register this week, Branstad advocated “requiring state workers to contribute to their health insurance costs” and “restructuring the public-employee salary system to slow automatic pay increases that are awarded based on longevity.”
I recommend reading Lynda Waddington’s post about an Iowa Fiscal Partnership report on state budgeting. A revealing graph shows that “general fund appropriations as a percent of personal income has been significantly lower in the past decade than it was during the 1990s.”
“When historical levels of funding and staffing are compared to recent levels, it is apparent that funding and staffing of state services and structures has not grown excessively, as some claim,” said [Iowa Fiscal Partnership research associate Andrew] Cannon. “In fact, when population growth is taken into account, funding and staffing for many public services and structures has held steady and in many cases, actually decreased.”
RUNNING-MATE DEBATE?
In August, the Culver and Branstad campaigns agreed to three debates, plus one featuring the candidates for lieutenant governor. However, the Branstad campaign backed out of one possible date for Republican Kim Reynolds to debate Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge and won’t agree to another. Judge says the Branstad campaign “don’t have confidence in her ability to articulate her ideas or the campaign’s ideas.” Branstad has led all public polling, so why should he roll the dice on pitting his inexperienced running mate against Judge on television? Branstad may worry that Reynolds might say the wrong thing about social issues. In July, Reynolds caused a stir by suggesting she was open to civil unions for same-sex couples. Others have suggested that Reynolds doesn’t want to deal with questions about her drunk driving arrests more than ten years ago.
I’d be surprised if no one on the panel asks Branstad why his campaign won’t allow Reynolds to debate Judge. If the question doesn’t come up, Culver would be foolish not to mention the debate-dodging. It’s pretty ridiculous for the Branstad camp to claim Reynolds can’t squeeze in 90 minutes to discuss the issues because she’s too busy trying to visit all 99 counties before election day. The Culver campaign released a statement from Judge today, offering to meet Reynolds anywhere, anytime between now and the election.
Any thoughts about the governor’s race are welcome in this thread.