Few members of Congress have done more to link themselves with the “No Labels” movement than U.S. Representative Bruce Braley. He spoke at the group’s launch event in December 2010. He participated in the group’s December 2011 release of a 12-point action plan to “Make Congress Work.” In 2012, Braley co-sponsored “No Budget, No Pay” legislation supported by No Labels; similar language was included in a budget bill President Barack Obama signed the following year. A review of Braley’s voting record on a wide range of issues shows many examples of the Democrat voting with the majority of House Republicans and against most members of his own caucus.

When Braley received the No Labels “Problem Solver Seal of Approval” this July, his U.S. Senate campaign enthusiastically spread the news along with a long list of his bipartisan accomplishments in the House.

It must have come as a shock when No Labels turned around and gave Republican State Senator Joni Ernst the same “Problem Solver Seal of Approval” a few days ago. Just in time for the Senate nominees’ first debate on Sunday, without any bipartisan legislative accomplishments to speak of, Ernst got outside validation for her campaign’s otherwise laughable pivot from the “mother, soldier, conservative” tag line to “mother, soldier, independent leader.” All she had to do to gain equal status with Braley was pay lip service to the No Labels “National Strategic Agenda.”

I’ve long believed that No Labels is an “astroturf” (fake grassroots) movement founded on false premises, and that Democrats who got mixed up with the latest incarnation of Beltway “centrists” were making a mistake. Braley may not be the last to learn this lesson the hard way. Follow me after the jump for more thoughts on No Labels’ wrong-headed policy stands and political choices.  

To gain the No Labels “problem solver” designation, one might think an elected official would have to demonstrate some experience working toward bipartisan compromises. Unlike Iowa Senate GOP moderates of the past (say, Mary Lundby or Gene Maddox), Ernst isn’t known as a lawmaker who will seriously consider the other side’s legislative proposals. She hasn’t been one of the key senators who hammered out deals on the state budget, commercial property tax cuts, education reform, or Medicaid expansion. She abandoned a bipartisan effort to raise Iowa’s gasoline tax for brazen political reasons after deciding to run for U.S. Senate. She joined the bipartisan call to protect the Renewable Fuels Standard only after realizing that her prior stance would be politically costly.

Ernst’s campaign has depicted her as an independent voice based on one bill she co-sponsored and a handful of votes that went against the tide in her caucus (for more mental health funding, radon testing in school buildings and access to cannabis oil for Iowans with seizure disorders). I agreed with those votes, but they were few and far between during her four years in the Iowa Senate. The totality of her record is that of a loyal backbencher.

Fortunately for Ernst, No Labels doesn’t care whether its designated “problem solvers” have reached across the aisle to solve public policy problems. All a candidate has to do is “endorse the process to build a National Strategic Agenda – where leaders agree to a number of key goals and commit to trying to find policy options to meet them.”

No Labels is calling for America’s leaders to support a new governing process to build a National Strategic Agenda centered on four goals. These goals – chosen with input from a nationwide survey that No Labels conducted last fall – are:

•    Create 25 million new jobs over the next 10 years;

•    Balance the federal budget by 2030;

•    Secure Medicare and Social Security for the next 75 years; and

•    Make America energy secure by 2024.

The process to build the National Strategic Agenda will be created with input from people across America at a series of Ideas meetings. The first of these meetings was held in Washington, D.C. on September 17. Subsequent events in New Hampshire, Iowa and elsewhere will enable No Labels to take the pulse of people nationwide and to ultimately forge agreement on a full policy plan to achieve the goals of the National Strategic Agenda.

About that “National Strategic Agenda”: Suzy Khimm recently reported, “budget experts on both left and right are skeptical that the group’s core fiscal goals are the best policy prescriptions, or are even smart politically when the details are finally worked out.” There’s no way Social Security and Medicare can be shored up for 75 years in conjunction with the federal government making the huge tax and spending changes that would be required to balance the budget by 2030.

Stan Collender explains here why the No Labels budget plan is “exceptionally misguided,” “overly simplistic,” and based on no real consideration of how the federal budget could be balanced by the “arbitrary” date of 2030.

The spokesman admitted, however, that 2030 was chosen without the members knowing what it actually would take to balance revenues and spending by then. He admitted that those surveyed not only were not budget experts, most were not even budget knowledgeable.

Most economists would call for policies to shrink the federal deficit and/or debt to a certain percentage of gross domestic product, rather than a goal to balance the budget every year. The government needs to have flexibility in order to respond when private sector demand slows in a down economy.

Speaking of using limited resources wisely, No Labels gets remarkably little bang for its annual budget of 4.5 million bucks. Meredith Shiner reported in July,

Like many other outside political groups, No Labels spends a disproportionate part of its budget maintaining and promoting its own organization, trying to keep its profile high while ensuring a steady flow of fundraising dollars, whose donors they keep secret, in a cluttered nonprofit environment. […]

And though No Labels has positioned itself as a warrior against gridlock, an internal document obtained by Yahoo News suggests the group is banking on more political dysfunction in an attempt to find “opportunity” and relevance for itself.

The official No Labels response to Shiner’s article decried her cynicism (I’ve heard that song and dance too). Yet most of the “accomplishments” No Labels touted as a rebuttal to Shiner’s reporting are indeed about promoting the organization.

Shiner speculated that No Labels may view a fully Republican-controlled Congress as a strategic opportunity. That could explain why the group handed Ernst a perfect talking point for her campaign against one of the earliest promoters of No Labels within Congress.

Other factors could be in play too. Perhaps No Labels doesn’t actively want Ernst to beat Braley, but merely wants to ensure it has a connection to the winner of a race that could go either way.

Or, No Labels saw validating Ernst as a way to boost its role in deciding who the “serious” politicians are in Washington. In a blog post for The Hill, No Labels executive director Margaret Kimbrell and co-founder Mark MacKinnon spun approval-seeking by Braley and Ernst as a sign of real leadership.

But in spite of the fact that both Ernst and Braley are fighting, hard, to win and to show the people of Iowa why they are different – it’s clear that they share some key goals. In endorsing the process of creating No Labels’ National Strategic Agenda, they are both displaying leadership. Instead of trying to win another political point, Braley and Ernst stand united in a commitment to common sense and problem solving. […]

In five weeks, the voters of Iowa will decide whether Bruce Braley or Joni Ernst will represent them in the U.S. Senate. Either way, this problem-solving state will have a senator who knows how to put partisan politics aside – without compromising their strongly-held beliefs – to agree on things that make common sense. That’s something Iowa can be proud of, and something other states should aspire to for the good of the country.

You heard them: “for the good of the country,” candidates from other states should seek out No Labels’ blessing. Who cares if the No Labels strategic agenda is poorly conceived?  

My sympathy for Braley is limited, because he should have known better than to pander to this group. In tomorrow’s debate, he will try to portray Ernst as a right-wing ideologue, and she’ll be able to quote from No Labels’ assessment of her non-partisanship and leadership qualities.

If I were Mariannette Miller-Meeks, I’d be on the phone with No Labels on Monday. She only has to say she’s for creating jobs, energy independence, balancing the budget and shoring up entitlement programs. She can get the “seal of approval” to use in her campaign against Representative Dave Loebsack (also a member of the No Labels “problem solver caucus” in the U.S. House). When Loebsack criticizes her for backing policies that would undermine Medicare and Social Security, she can say, “No I don’t, and this independent group can vouch for my commitment to those programs.”

Before I open the floor for comments, I want to say a few words about State Senator Jeff Danielson. On September 23, Kathie Obradovich wrote for the Des Moines Register about Danielson’s work for No Labels, and his trouble getting a high-profile Republican to sign on:

“What’s new is that the leaders and founders of No Labels recognize it can’t just be focused on Congress,” Danielson said. The group is trying to recruit state and local leaders who know how to work across the aisle, as well as develop a “support network” for members of Congress who want to “be problem-solvers instead of just partisan flame-throwers,” he said. […]

The group has yet to sign up a Republican officeholder in Iowa, however. “It’s been harder to find a willing partner who’s also an elected official,” Danielson said.

The next day, Danielson was quoted in the No Labels press release about Ernst:

State Sen. Jeff Danielson, of District 30, states that “Iowa has the same legislative split as the current U.S. Congress – a Democrat-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House – and we’ve proven that divided we can govern. Both Joni Ernst and Bruce Braley understand that and embody the idea that governing together is not only possible; it’s preferable. I’m proud to share a home state with both of these excellent candidates who believe in problem solving.”

I wrote earlier this year Danielson was foolish to hitch his wagon to No Labels, and my opinion hasn’t changed. On Wednesday, I encouraged him to wake up and stop associating with this group. He responded,

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Here’s my take:No Labels is focused on the future and the four goals of the National Strategic Agenda. I am supportive of both Rep. Braley & Sen Ernst being a part of the No Labels effort. Both have pledged to work on the four goals in the interest of moving our country forward. This is good for Iowa and our country. This is different than partisan arguments during campaign season. They both can and should make their case to Iowans for why they want to be the next U.S. Senator from Iowa. No Labels is focused on the longer term goal of governing, after the elections are over. I am supporting Bruce in this election, others will chose to support Joni, but the overriding goal of No Labels is to get voters and candidates to focus on the issues of job creation, energy security, sustaining Social Security & Medicare and a balanced budget.

I replied that I have doubts Ernst would be part of a “problem-solvers” group if elected, having seen no evidence that she works toward legislative compromises. Danielson responded,

I am not naive, some will find this concept difficult because everything is seen through the partisan lense of winning campaigns, and then we wonder why no one wants to work together after the elections. No Labels offers a both candidates and voters a chance to focus on issues and problem solving, rather than the politics of partisanship and personalities. Iowa should be proud we have the opportunity.

As much as I dislike the bloggers’ cliche about “Kool-Aid drinkers,” I struggle to find a more apt metaphor here. So many non-profit groups are doing solid work on public policy, while No Labels raises a ton of money to promote itself. Bruce Braley has worked with Republicans to advance concrete federal policies. He has shown dozens of times (too often in my opinion) that he will vote for some Republican bills. Yet No Labels gives Ernst equal status as a “problem solver,” based on her promise to support unrealistic goals in a process to be determined. In Danielson’s view, Iowans should be “proud” to see this happening.

Danielson was barely re-elected to the Iowa Senate in 2008 by 22 votes out of more than 33,000 cast. He won in 2012 by a slightly more comfortable margin of just under 700 votes, amid highly effective Obama campaign GOTV in Black Hawk County. Good luck to Danielson getting help from Democratic colleagues for his 2016 re-election bid if Braley loses the IA-Sen race. He may even find himself facing a GOP challenger who can brag about the No Labels “seal of approval.”

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.