Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller kicked his New York counterpart Eric Schneiderman off the executive committee for the 50-state working group on foreclosure fraud yesterday. As leader of the working group created last October, Miller has drawn criticism for negotiating lenient terms for major lenders and not investigating some shady foreclosure practices. His latest move is another sign that Miller leans toward terms favored by banks and their Obama administration allies.  

President Barack Obama declared Monday that the regime of Colonel Moammar Gadhafi “is coming to an end” in Libya. Both rebel forces and Gadhafi loyalists claim to control most of Tripoli, the Libyan capital, but the rebels have made substantial gains during the past week. For the past five months, the U.S. has supported the Libyan rebels as part of a NATO military intervention. Obama said his team is “in close contact with NATO as well as the United Nations” to plan next steps in Libya.

The full text of the president’s statement is after the jump. I will update this post if I see any Iowa political reaction to the latest developments. Iowa’s Congressional delegation split on U.S. House votes regarding our military intervention in Libya and potential funding for ground troops there. Among Iowa elected officials, Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) has been the only consistent critic of the policy.

Any comments about U.S. policy toward Libya are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: This is a good summary of what happened in Libya during the past six months.

Senator Chuck Grassley made news last week by publicizing a whistleblower’s claims about widespread file destruction at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Thousands of preliminary investigation files no longer exist, which hampers the SEC’s ability to identify and prosecute financial crimes. The alleged practice goes back nearly two decades, despite a federal law that grants the National Archives and Records Administration authority over preserving government files.

President Barack Obama didn’t create this problem, but his cozy relationship with Wall Street helped keep law-breaking alive at the SEC.

President Barack Obama came to Iowa on the first two days of his bus tour through the Midwest, where he hopes to highlight economic issues. He bashed Congress for not being willing to compromise for “shared sacrifice” but didn’t reveal much about his forthcoming plan for improving the economy.

While Bleeding Heartland users discuss yesterday’s straw poll in this thread and Tim Pawlenty’s departure from the scene here, this thread is for any other news on your mind this weekend. Links to some disturbing stories that caught my eye are after the jump.

The volatile stock market, Wisconsin recall elections and run-up to the Ames straw poll have dominated political news coverage this week, overshadowing a story that may have more far-reaching implications. Starting in 2014, fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards will apply to medium and heavy-duty trucks for the first time in U.S. history.

Last week’s deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling in exchange for long-term deficit reduction wasn’t what the doctor ordered to reassure investors. Stock markets around the world dropped sharply today, reflecting fears about lousy economic prospects in the U.S. and abroad.  

The big story of the weekend is Standard & Poor’s downgrading U.S. sovereign debt. Political reaction to that news and other headlines that caught my eye are after the jump.

While in pro-forma session for 59 seconds today, Senate Democrats passed a six-week extension of the Federal Aviation Administration’s authorization. Since the bill had already passed the U.S. House, it went straight to President Barack Obama. He signed it right away, ending the partial shutdown of the FAA that began on July 22. Furloughed FAA employees can go back to work, and airport construction projects put on hold can resume.

The short-term extension contains some cuts to the Essential Air Service program subsidizing service to small airports (including three in Iowa). House Republicans want to phase out that program, while most Democrats want to preserve it. The bill passed today does not include Republican-backed language that would make it more difficult for airline workers to join a union.

LATE UPDATE: The FAA shutdown delayed planned upgrades at the Southeast Iowa Regional Airport in Burlington, possibly until after the winter.

The U.S. Senate approved the last-minute deal to raise the debt ceiling today by a vote of 74 to 26 (roll call). Iowa’s senators voted no for very different reasons. Democrat Tom Harkin reject the deal he called “a clear and present danger to the fragile, indeed faltering, economic recovery.” Republican Chuck Grassley said the plan “delays meaningful spending reductions, fails to address entitlement spending in a way that will save the programs for future generations of retirees, and leaves open the possibility of tax increases.” The complete statements from by Harkin and Grassley are after the jump.

Yesterday all five Iowans in the U.S. House voted against the debt deal as well. To my knowledge, no other state’s entire Congressional delegation rejected this national embarrassment.

After hailing passage of an austerity plan that will deeply cut domestic spending, President Barack Obama said today, “We’ve got to do everything in our power to grow this economy and put America back to work.” He missed that chance.

LATE UPDATE: Richard Kogan posted a helpful summary on “How the Potential Across-the-Board Cuts in the Debt Limit Deal Would Occur.”

President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders announced a deal on raising the debt ceiling in exchange for at least $2 trillion in domestic spending cuts. The agreement is complicated in many respects, but the gist is that Republicans will get almost everything they have demanded throughout this process (if they are smart enough to accept total victory).

After the jump I’ve posted the ludicrous White House talking points on why this deal is “a win for the economy and budget discipline.” They brag about putting the U.S. “on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President,” as if that’s a good thing. No economist would endorse big domestic spending cuts, given the current state of the economy. The deal calls for many of those cuts to happen in 2013 or later, but unemployment is not going down in any significant way before 2013–more likely, it will increase. Some Democrats claim the president will hold the line on extending the Bush tax cuts in late 2012, but that is a sick joke. Obama has no credibility on these issues. Only two weeks ago he said he would reject a $2.4 trillion spending cut plan that did not include any tax increases. Look where he is now, serving up a “sugar-coated Satan sandwich” and thanking Republican leaders for doing their part.

House Speaker John Boehner is trying to sell the deal to the House Republican caucus with this slide show (pdf file). House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi hasn’t committed to supporting the deal, but I assume a significant number of House Democrats will be stupid enough to go along. Any Democrat who votes for this deal deserves to lose.

I will update this post with comments from the Iowans in Congress as those become available. Recent statements from most of the Iowa delegation are here, along with details on how our representatives in the U.S. House and Senate voted on the debt ceiling proposals offered since Friday.

UPDATE: The deal passed the House easily on August 1, but all of Iowa’s representatives voted against it.

The U.S. House on Friday evening approved Speaker John Boehner’s latest bill to sharply cut federal spending as a condition for raising the debt ceiling. The bill barely passed by a 218 to 210 vote (roll call). Every House Democrat present voted no, including Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03). The big surprise for me was that both Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) were among the 22 Republicans who voted against the bill. I expected King to oppose the measure, because many of his Tea Party Caucus colleagues believe Boehner isn’t cutting enough spending. But Latham is one of the speaker’s closest friends, and I thought he would be one of the votes putting the bill over the top. It was a tremendous struggle for Boehner to line up enough support for this bill; he had to delay Thursday’s scheduled vote in order to rewrite some provisions today.

Sometimes in situations like these, the House speaker gives some members in the majority caucus permission to vote no, if they are in tough districts. Latham will face Boswell in the new third Congressional district next year, and some of the spending cuts in this bill would affect popular programs. It’s possible Latham voted no with Boehner’s consent, once the speaker knew he had 218 yes votes lined up. That insulates Latham against some potential attack ads. However, Latham was on WHO radio this afternoon saying something must be done to ensure that the government pays its bills. If he acknowledges the need to raise the debt ceiling, when does he think a better deal will come around than Boehner’s bill?

Incidentally, House leaders don’t seem inclined to move on Latham’s bill to prioritize certain types of spending in case no debt ceiling deal is reached.

The U.S. Senate is expected to table the latest House bill on the debt ceiling later Friday evening. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been working on a new “compromise” that is depressingly similar to what Boehner proposed, so Congress is probably headed toward a total Republican victory–big spending cuts, no revenue increases. Notably, if the U.S. ever does pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, all the savings would go toward deficit reduction, rather than investing in our own infrastructure or social programs. Never mind that the U.S. economy is sputtering and will probably go back into recession under fiscal austerity. That serves Republican political interests as well, because President Barack Obama will be blamed for the downward spiral. Obama’s approval rating on the economy is already low, and most Americans think job creation is more important than deficit reduction right now.

For some reason, Obama prefers this outcome to Senator Tom Harkin’s advice: raise the debt ceiling by invoking the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

UPDATE: On Friday night six Senate Republicans voted with all 53 members of the Democratic caucus to table the motion on concurring with Boehner’s bill (roll call). Grassley was among the 41 Republicans who opposed the motion to table.

Statements released by Latham, King, Loebsack and Braley are now after the jump.

SATURDAY UPDATE: The House rejected Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bill on July 30; it was a symbolic vote because Reid is still revising the proposal, which so far doesn’t have enough support to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

Most House Democrats voted for the Reid bill, including Boswell. However, Braley and Loebsack were among the 11 Democrats who voted with all Republicans present against that bill (roll call). I am seeking comment from Braley and Loebsack offices on why they voted against the Reid proposal. It’s worth noting that like Boehner’s bill, Reid’s plan would cut more than $2 trillion in spending over the next decade, with no revenue increases. A total disgrace.

UPDATE: Loebsack released this statement about Saturday’s vote: “We must get Iowa’s economy moving forward.  Today’s vote was not about a solution, it was about political leverage in Washington.”

FURTHER UPDATE: Here’s Harkin speaking on July 30:

“I’m talking about that there’s precedents for presidents to do things where the Constitution doesn’t give the president explicit authority but it doesn’t prohibit the president from doing it, and I believe there’s a basis in the 14th amendment as decided in Perry v. United States,” Sen Tom Harkin (D-IA) said on the Senate floor. “I think the president – barring action from the Congress – not only has the authority to do so, he has the responsibility to not let this country default.”

SUNDAY UPDATE: Senate Majority Leader Reid called a cloture motion on his horrendous compromise proposal Sunday afternoon. It needed 60 votes to pass but only received 50, mostly from Democrats (roll call). I don’t understand Harkin voting for cloture here, when the bill has none of the balance he has advocated. Maybe he planned to vote against the bill itself later–who knows? Grassley voted against cloture, as did every Republican present besides Scott Brown. I’ve added Grassley’s statement below.

Yesterday’s heartbreaking attacks in Norway are the big global news story this weekend. This man, Anders Behring Breivik, is suspected of setting off a bomb in downtown Oslo on July 22. The explosion killed seven people and destroyed the prime minister’s office building. The suspect then reportedly dressed in a policeman’s uniform and shot to death at least 85 people at a youth camp run by Norway’s governing Labor Party. Breivik has “confessed to the factual circumstances,” according to his attorney, who said his client planned the crimes long in advance. Police are trying to determine the motive for the attacks. The suspect reportedly had right-wing and anti-Muslim views, but why would anyone attack teenagers at a summer camp?

The big U.S. news story is that House Speaker John Boehner was too stupid to take the deficit reduction deal President Barack Obama offered:

Obama said he had demanded $1.2 trillion in additional revenues over 10 years, in exchange for spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare and Social Security. He said the revenues had been structured in a way that marginal tax rates would not be increased, and no Republicans would be forced to cast a vote that would violate the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which most Republicans in Congress have signed.

You read that right. While agreeing to cuts in programs that tens of millions of Americans rely on, Obama was ready to guarantee no increases in any tax rates, even at the highest income levels, for the next decade. Not only that, he bent over backwards to give Republicans political cover, so they could accept his offer without facing blowback from Grover Norquist. The same Grover Norquist who now wants Congress to stop playing chicken with the debt ceiling. And Obama was angry Boehner walked out on negotiations, saying he felt “left at the altar”! I don’t see how this so-called Democrat could be handling the budget negotiations any worse. For the first time, I am seriously thinking about writing in a candidate for president in November 2012.

The Iowa Policy Project analyzed the latest state jobs numbers here. Iowa has more than a billion dollars in various state reserves, but Governor Terry Branstad and Iowa House Republicans insisted on an extremely tight budget for fiscal year 2012. The predictable result was a “sharp drop in government jobs” in June, which “fully accounted for the first net drop in Iowa nonfarm jobs in the last six months.” Shrinking government does not help the private economy create more jobs. On the contrary, government job losses contribute to our unemployment problem. Iowa’s unemployment rate is 6 percent, still well below the national average, but that’s no excuse for unwarranted austerity policies.

Here’s one good thing that happened this week: Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Admiral Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all certified “that the U.S. military is prepared to accept openly gay and lesbian service members, and that doing so will not harm military readiness.” As a result, the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy will officially end 60 days from July 22.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: Iowa native Chuck Manatt passed away this week at age 75. He chaired the Democratic National Committee from 1981 to 1985 and co-chair Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992. The Los Angeles Times published a good obituary of Manatt. He will be buried this week in Audubon, near the farm where he grew up.

Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative Steve King (IA-05) spoke out this week for preserving the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which states that the federal government recognizes only marriages between one man and one woman. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a July 20 hearing on S. 598, the Respect for Marriage Act. That bill would repeal part of the DOMA so that for purposes of federal law, “an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the state where the marriage was entered into.” Six states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages.

Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and his opening statement in yesterday’s hearing asserted that “George Orwell would have marveled” at calling S. 598 the “Respect for Marriage Act.” In Grassley’s view, the bill would undermine the institution of marriage. He denied that Congress passed DOMA in 1996 “to express disapproval of gay and lesbian people.” He asserted that supporters of DOMA now face threats and intimidation that amount to an “unacceptable” “chilling of First Amendment rights.”

Grassley invited King to testify before the committee, and in his statement, King asserted that recognizing same-sex marriages would devalue the institution of marriage. Saying “you can’t choose who you love” could be used to justify incestuous or polygamous unions, King told the senators. He also argued that the DOMA is consistent with the will of the American people, who have voted in 31 states to restrict legal marriage to one man and one woman. (More recent opinion polling has shown growing support for same-sex marriage rights.)

After the jump I’ve posted the full texts of Grassley’s opening remarks and King’s testimony. Both Iowa Republicans described the government’s interest in protecting marriage as an institution that promotes procreation. King cited a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said, “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” During the past decade, several state Supreme Courts have rejected that argument as a reason to deny same-sex couples the benefits of marriage.

Multiple plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of the federal DOMA. Click here for a brief summary of six lawsuits working their way through federal courts. In July 2010, a U.S. District Court judge hearing two of those cases in Massachusetts struck down section 3 of the DOMA. In February of this year, President Barack Obama instructed the U.S. Department of Justice not to defend “the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples” as applied in those two court cases. This week, White House spokesman Jay Carney affirmed that the president supports repealing DOMA. King claimed in his testimony that President Obama said DOMA is unconstitutional “despite no court ever reaching that conclusion.” He may be unaware of U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro’s ruling from last summer.

While I support repealing DOMA, I view the current debate over S. 598 as a somewhat cynical public relations exercise. Everyone knows that the Republican-controlled U.S. House would never approve a DOMA repeal bill. Had Democrats tried to move this legislation when they held majorities in both houses of Congress, I would give them more credit. It’s notable that Obama publicly voiced his opinion about DOMA only after its repeal was a dead letter in the House.

Any comments about marriage equality are welcome in this thread.

“Underwhelming” is the best way to describe the Republican presidential candidates’ latest reports to the Federal Election Commission. During the second quarter of the year, the GOP presidential field collectively raised less than $40 million. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama raised $47 million for his campaign committee from April through June, plus another $38 million for the Democratic National Committee.

Details from the FEC reports are after the jump.  

For months, the Des Moines rumor mill has said former Governor Chet Culver was under consideration for some federal government position. The speculation was confirmed this week when President Barack Obama named Culver to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation board of directors. An excerpt from the White House press release is after the jump.

Better known as “Farmer Mac,” the corporation purchases agricultural loans, in theory freeing up credit to “improve the ability of agricultural lenders to provide credit to America’s farmers, ranchers and rural homeowners, businesses and communities.” Farmer Mac also “finances rural electric and telephone cooperatives.”

Many Iowa politics-watchers will recognize the name of the Farmer Mac board chairman: Lowell Junkins. He served 12 years in the Iowa Senate, rising to the position of majority leader, before he ran for governor against Terry Branstad in 1986. President Bill Clinton appointed Junkins to the Farmer Mac board in 1996.

In April of this year, Culver formed a consulting firm “to work with individuals and public and private sector entities to provide strategic consulting, cut through red tape and promote cutting-edge ideas that will move the country forward.” He also became “co-champion” of the national popular vote movement, an effort to ensure that the winner of the presidential election is the candidate who wins the most popular votes.

There was bad news for travelers in north central Iowa this week. Delta Airlines announced plans to drop service to 24 unprofitable small markets across the country, including Fort Dodge and Mason City. According to KSCG radio, “Delta flights in Mason City have a 46-percent load factor, with Fort Dodge flights having a 39-percent load factor.” Senator Tom Harkin warned in a statement that Delta’s decision “could disrupt air service across the state, forcing Iowans to drive farther and travel for longer periods of time to meet their destination.  It will also negatively impact business operations in these areas.” Harkin noted that Delta is also seeking aid to continue serving Sioux City and Waterloo. The whole statement from Harkin’s office is after the jump. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill this year eliminating the Essential Air Service program, which subsidizes air travel to smaller communities. The Senate is trying to preserve the program, but House and Senate negotiators haven’t reached a compromise on that provision, which is part of a larger Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill.

By the way, that FAA bill passed the House on a mostly party-line vote (roll call). Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted for the bill, while Democrats Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Bruce Braley (IA-01) voted against it. Currently Burlington, Mason City and Fort Dodge are the only Iowa communities receiving support through the Essential Air Service program. Loebsack represents the Burlington area, while Latham represents Mason City and Fort Dodge. Both of those cities are part of the new fourth Congressional district, where King will be running against former First Lady Christie Vilsack in 2012.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: Someone tried to break into Representative Leonard Boswell’s farm outside Lamoni on Saturday night. Boswell was there with members of his family at the time. No one was seriously injured; a statement from Boswell’s office Sunday morning suggests that the intruder hasn’t been apprehended. That statement is after the jump.

If Barack Obama doesn’t want to be a one-term president, he has a funny way of showing it. I can’t imagine how the president could come out of the debt ceiling negotiations in a worse political position.  

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Yesterday’s employment report was so awful (1 on a scale of 1 to 10) that a double-dip recession seems more likely than ever. At the Naked Capitalism blog, Edward Harrison reposted a piece from November 2009 on why Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and economic adviser Larry Summers would be President Barack Obama’s Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. It’s worth a read. At the Bonddad blog, New Deal Democrat went over lots of weekly indicators and found more evidence of an economic “stall” than a contraction (so far).

I’m still surprised by some of the bills that didn’t get through the Iowa legislature during this year’s extra-long session. I learned this week that Iowa wasn’t the only state where pro-nuclear legislation faltered. The nuclear industry failed to persuade lawmakers in five other state legislatures to advance favored bills. After the jump I’ve posted a press release from Nuclear Bailout, a project of Physicians for Social Responsibility. The Iowa chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility lobbied hard against the bill written exclusively for the benefit of MidAmerican Energy.

In case you missed it, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Minority Leader Paul McKinley reflected on the 2011 session during the July 1 edition of Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program. Click the link to read the transcript or watch the video. Both of them expect some progress on property tax reform next year, though they may get a crack at that sooner if Governor Terry Branstad calls a special legislative session later this year.

I’ll post Bleeding Heartland’s final news roundup on what passed and didn’t pass during the 2011 session after Branstad signs or vetoes the bills that reached his desk during the last week of June.

This is an open thread.

UPDATE: Best slip of the tongue I’ve heard this year: while phone-banking for Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, State Senator Brad Zaun says he’s calling on behalf of “Congressman Boswell.” Democrat Leonard Boswell beat Zaun during the 2010 Congressional race in Iowa’s third district.

Conventional wisdom says President Barack Obama would love to run against an “extreme” Republican candidate, such as Representative Michele Bachmann. With unemployment up again and likely to rise further as Obama tries to outdo Republicans on government spending cuts, I’m not convinced that a big campaign war chest will be enough to get the president re-elected.

Watching Bachmann’s solid introductory television commercial and highlights from her recent Iowa tour, I challenge those who write her off as “unelectable,” especially in this economy. Ad video, transcipt, analysis and more Bachmann campaign news are after the jump.

President Barack Obama visited the Alcoa Davenport Works on Tuesday to tout his economic policies. One of the largest employers in the Quad Cities area, the Alcoa plant “returned to its pre-recession employment numbers and is hiring more workers this summer,” thanks to a new supply agreement with the European firm Airbus. Obama said the economic crisis that began before he took office “demanded that we make some tough decisions — decisions that we now know have pulled our economy back from the brink and put us on a better path.” In particular, he mentioned federal aid for worker training and a federal program designed to connect engineering universities with manufacturers. The president also praised Alcoa managers for adapting to market conditions, changing an outmoded sheet metal product to a product now in high demand.

It’s fantastic that Alcoa Davenport Works is back to pre-recession employment, and the jobless rate in the Quad Cities is about 6.6 percent, well below the national average. But in most of the United States, unemployment and underemployment are still at historically high levels. The Department of Labor’s jobs report for May was “very disappointing,” prompting the Calculated Risk blog to note, “This is a better pace of payroll job creation than last year, but the economy still has 6.95 million fewer payroll jobs than at the beginning of the 2007 recession. At this pace (157 thousand jobs per month), it will take almost 4 years just to get back to the pre-recession level, or sometime in late 2014 or early 2015!”

I don’t see how photo ops will convince American voters that Obama has helped put the economy on the right track. When bringing down the unemployment rate should be the administration’s top priority, Obama has bought into austerity politics instead. Probably sometime within the next month, he will agree to another major drag on the economy (big federal spending cuts) as a price for getting Congress to raise the debt ceiling. Conservative commentator David Frum argued persuasively here that “Obama is his own worst enemy”:

With unemployment at 10% and interest rates at 1%, the president got persuaded that it was debt and interest that trumped growth and jobs as Public Issue #1.

[…] Back in 2008, Obama made two big promises: a tax cut for everybody earning less than $250,000 and an Afghan surge. […] In the very different circumstances of 2009, both promises rapidly showed themselves to be counter-productive. The “tax cut” promise caused Obama to direct almost one-third of his big stimulus into an individual tax rebate that no economist would have regarded as effective, for reasons explained by Milton Friedman more than 40 years ago. […] He proceeded with both, leading to the two biggest problems of his presidency: a stimulus that added hugely to the national debt while under-delivering on jobs and an expanded Afghanistan war that must end in a reversion to the same disappointing status quo that prevailed before the Afghan surge. Obama probably anticipated both results. And yet he staggered forward anyway. As ready as Obama is to surrender to uncongenial political pressures, he is strangely inattentive to negative real-world results.

Share any thoughts about Obama’s Iowa visit or economic policy in this thread. After the jump I’ve posted statements released by Democratic Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack. The Quad Cities area has been part of the first Congressional district (Braley’s territory), but under Iowa’s new map Scott County will be in the second district, where Loebsack is running for re-election in 2012.

U.S. House members lack consensus on the three-month-old military intervention in Libya, and so do Iowa’s five representatives to that body, judging from two votes taken on June 24. Details on the failed attempts to either authorize or defund our mission in Libya are after the jump.

President Barack Obama announced a slight change in our Afghanistan policy on television last night.

[S]tarting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point. After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.

He asserted that the U.S. undertakes this drawdown “from a position of strength,” as the Al Qaeda terrorist network is now “under more pressure than at any time since 9/11.” He said the U.S. can achieve its goal to allow “no safe-haven” from which terorists “can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies.” Obama also linked his gradual drawdown to boosting the U.S. economy:

Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America’s greatest resource – our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industry, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy. […]

America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.

We’d have more resources to invest in the U.S. economy if we were bringing more troops home sooner. By the end of next summer our troop presence in Afghanistan will still be larger than it was when Obama became president. He ordered at least 21,000 additional U.S. troops to that war zone before the surge of 30,000 troops he announced at West Point in December 2009. Recent polling suggests a majority of Americans support withdrawing troops from Afghanistan at a faster pace.

We’d also be better positioned to “focus on nation building” at home if the president had not agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts and bought into the austerity politics that makes another federal stimulus package unthinkable.

After the jump I’ve posted the full text of Obama’s televised remarks, along with comments released by Democratic Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03). Boswell praised Obama’s plan “to significantly reduce troops by the end of the year” as “an important first step in lessening our military presence and financial obligations in Afghanistan.” In contrast, Harkin said U.S. troops should be brought home from Afghanistan at a faster pace, saying, “We cannot justify the continued loss of life” and “can’t sustain the nearly $10 billion we are spending each month in Afghanistan this year.” Harkin questioned our presence in Afghanistan following the killing of Osama bin Laden. He was among 27 U.S. senators (24 Democrats, two Republicans and one independent) who wrote to Obama earlier this month urging “a shift in strategy and the beginning of a sizable and sustained reduction of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, beginning in July 2011.”

I will update this post if other members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation comment on Obama’s speech. Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) is the only Iowan on the House Armed Services Committee. Last month Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) called for “immediate withdrawal of our combat troops from Afghanistan,” bringing them home by the end of this year.

In related news, the U.S. Senate on June 21 unanimously confirmed Leon Panetta as the new Secretary of Defense. Greg Jaffe reported on outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ reaction to Obama’s speech last night:

“I support the President’s decision because it provides our commanders with enough resources, time and, perhaps most importantly, flexibility to bring the surge to a successful conclusion.” It’s clear that Gates would have preferred the surge troops stay in place through the end of 2012. But his statement suggests he still believes that the military will have enough forces to continue with the current counterinsurgency strategy.

UPDATE: Braley’s statement is now also below. He doesn’t agree with Obama’s plan and wants troops to come home sooner.

LATE UPDATE: Loebsack’s statement is now below.

President Barack Obama got a little bounce following Osama bin Laden’s killing, and the weak Republican field of challengers has helped give the president an advantage in recent swing-state polls. Public Policy Polling’s latest Iowa survey found Obama leading all the named Republican candidates by at least 9 points, for instance.

However, Obama’s position looks much more tenuous if the 2012 election is about “the economy, stupid.” According to the latest nationwide Washington Post/ABC News poll, disapproval for how Obama has managed the economy is at record-high levels, and the incumbent trails former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney among registered voters.

The “great recession” was not Obama’s fault, but no one can credibly claim his administration did the best it could to boost the job market and housing sector. By next November, the U.S. may be in a double-dip recession. Complicating matters for Obama, he has played into the eventual GOP nominee’s strongest arguments against his record on the economy. Follow me after the jump for details on the new national poll and the latest bad economic news.

Among Iowa’s Congressional delegation, Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) continues to be the only consistent voice against President Barack Obama’s military intervention in Libya. Since shortly after the U.S. joined NATO air strikes against Libyan targets, Braley has demanded a full cost accounting of our country’s third major military conflict, as well as details on an exit strategy. When the U.S. House considered two Libya resolutions on June 3, all five Iowan representatives voted for a toothless option criticizing the administration’s actions. However, only Braley voted for a stronger resolution that would have required the U.S. to withdraw from NATO operations in Libya within 15 days.

After the votes, Braley criticized the White House for giving “nothing but vague explanations” about our Libya intervention. Meanwhile, Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) and Democrats Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) made no public statement on Friday’s House votes, in keeping with their reluctance to comment on Libya during the past two months. In a June 3 press release, Representative Steve King called on Obama to give Americans more “answers” about the intervention. King’s votes and public statements about Libya don’t make clear where he stands on this conflict, though, or on the president’s power to conduct war without Congressional consent.

Details on the Libya resolutions are after the jump, along with some analysis of recent comments from Braley and King.

The U.S. House of Representatives failed to approve a presidential request to increase the debt ceiling yesterday. Members rejected a motion to suspend the rules and proceed with that bill by a 318 to 97 vote (roll call). Every House Republican present voted against raising the debt ceiling, including Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05). Nearly half the Democratic caucus also voted against yesterday’s motion, including Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03). House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer advised Democratic colleagues to reject what he described as a “political charade” aimed at producing fodder for campaign attack ads. Bruce Braley (IA-01) missed yesterday’s vote to attend a family funeral but released a statement saying he would have opposed raising the debt ceiling. I’ve posted his comments after the jump. Since last November’s election, Braley has consistently been talking like a deficit hawk.

The U.S. hit its current debt ceiling in mid-May. If Congress does not raise the limit by August 2, the federal government will not be able to pay all of its bills. Republican leaders are pushing for major domestic spending cuts as a condition for raising the borrowing limit. Naturally, austerity won’t apply to the military budget, and that’s fine with Boswell, Loebsack, Latham and King.

I believe Democrats are making a mistake by accepting Republican demands for strings attached to the debt ceiling hike. President Bill Clinton refused to make such negotiations part of a deal on raising the borrowing limit in 1995, saying he would not let Congressional Republicans use the occasion to “backdoor their budget proposals.”

King asserted yesterday that repealing the federal health insurance reform law would “save the taxpayers $2.6 trillion” and would be a good start toward finding spending cuts to offset the president’s debt request. I’ve posted his full statement after the jump. At this writing I have not seen official comments on the debt ceiling from Loebsack, Boswell or Latham. If those become available, I will update this post.

UPDATE: Latham’s statements on the debt ceiling are now after the jump.

Hours before three controversial PATRIOT Act provisions were set to expire, Congress approved a bill extending the provisions until June 1, 2015. At the Open Congress blog, Donny Shaw summarized the legal points:

They include the authority for “roving” wiretaps that allows the government to monitor computers that may occasionally be used by suspected terrorists, the “tangible records provision” that requires banks, telecoms and libraries to hand over any customer information the government requests without being allows to inform the customer, and the “lone wolf” provision allowing the government to track terrorists acting independently of any foreign power or organization.

Congress approved a three-month extension of those provisions in February. The bill that just passed was a compromise between House Republican and Senate Democratic leaders who disagreed on how far to extend the powers. A House bill would have extended the “lone wolf” authority permanently and the others for six and a half years. A Senate bill would have extended all three powers until the end of 2013.

Many senators have complained that the PATRIOT Act provisions in question undermine civil liberties, but few had the stomach to filibuster the bill when the Senate considered a motion to proceed on May 23. Iowans Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley were among the 74 senators voting for considering the PATRIOT Act extension (roll call). Just eight senators voted to filibuster this bill; another 18 senators did not vote on the motion to proceed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used a legislative maneuver to block various amendments seeking to reform the PATRIOT Act from receiving votes on the floor yesterday. The Senate voted on just two amendments, both submitted by Republican Rand Paul. Motions to table those amendments passed with overwhelming majorities, 91 to 4 and 85 to 10. Both Harkin and Grassley voted to table Paul’s amendments.

Harkin and Grassley disagreed on final passage of the bill, however, as they did when the last extension came to a vote in February. Grassley was among 72 senators voting for the four-year PATRIOT Act extension; Harkin was among the 23 voting against it (roll call).

The bill then went to the House for consideration. After some debate it passed on Thursday evening by a vote of 250 to 153. The roll call shows that Democrat Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) all voted yes, while Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no, with the majority of their caucus. Quite a few House members crossed party lines on this bill; 31 Republicans voted no, while 54 Democrats voted yes. Iowa’s House delegation split the same way in February when the three-month PATRIOT Act extension passed.

After the House voted to concur with the Senate amendment to the bill, the PATRIOT Act extension went to President Barack Obama’s desk. Because the president is in France, White House officials said Obama signed the bill before midnight using some kind of “autopen” machine. That’s the first I ever heard of that technology.

After the jump I’ve posted a memo from Grassley on the PATRIOT Act extension, which the Republican senator’s office sent to the media on Thursday evening. At this writing I have not seen press releases on this vote from Harkin, Braley, Loebsack, Boswell, Latham or King.

Glenn Greenwald wrote a good post on the cynicism of Democrats who have been using the Republican talking points of yesteryear to browbeat colleagues into rubber-stamping the PATRIOT Act extension.

UPDATE: Added King’s press release on this vote after the jump.

After a slow start, the Republican presidential campaign is ratcheting up in Iowa. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty formally announced his candidacy in Des Moines today. Over the weekend former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain made his campaign official too.

Arguably the biggest news of the past few days was Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels ruling out a campaign. Many Republican insiders had hoped he would beef up the weak declared field against President Barack Obama.

Links, quotes, and analysis are after the jump.

Yesterday Senator Chuck Grassley and almost all his Senate Republican colleagues blocked a motion to end debate on the nomination of Goodwin Liu for the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (roll call). Tom Harkin and all but one Senate Democrat voted for the cloture motion. A 40-year-old law professor at the University of California in Berkeley, Liu had strong academic and legal credentials. Conservatives opposed his liberal policy views as well as his criticism of President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. During his confirmation hearing in March, Liu said the conclusion of his 2006 testimony against Alito showed “poor judgment.”

Liu would have been the only Asian-American on the 9th Circuit panel, which covers territory where more 40 percent of Asian-Americans live. Some observers have suggested that Republicans wanted to keep Liu off the appeals bench to prevent him from being a future U.S. Supreme Court nominee. (Similar concerns were raised about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor when President Bill Clinton nominated her for an appeals court judgeship in the 1990s.) President Barack Obama has drawn criticism for the “slow pace” of his judicial nominations, but he had nominated Liu three times for this post.

Liu was the second high-profile Obama appointee filibustered this month. On May 9, Grassley and most of his Senate Republican colleagues blocked a motion to end debate on the nomination of James Cole for deputy attorney general. The president had nominated Cole for the position in May 2010, naming him as one of six recess appointees in December after Republicans long delayed considering his nomination.

Cole has extensive experience in private practice and in various Justice Department positions. He is best known for being the House Ethics Committee special counsel who investigated then Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997. Gingrich ultimately paid a $300,000 fine for breaking House ethics rules; Cole discussed that investigation at length in this 1997 interview.

Grassley didn’t mention the Gingrich investigation in his lengthy prepared floor statement opposing Cole’s nomination. Grassley cited the Justice Department’s failure to cooperate with investigations into whistleblower allegations, as well as a 2002 op-ed piece Cole wrote advocating criminal trials in U.S. civilian courts rather than military tribunals for terrorism suspects. Finally, Grassley criticized Cole’s work as an independent consultant hired in 2004 to monitor the insurance giant AIG’s compliance with a securities fraud settlement.

The least convincing part of Grassley’s statement on Cole was this: “I have been consistent in my opposition to recess appointments over the years.” Trouble is, President George W. Bush “made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions.” I do not recall Grassley filibustering a Bush nominee for any position.

Grassley may have been especially upset by Obama’s December 2010 batch of recess appointees because they included Norm Eisen for U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic. The U.S. had been without an ambassador to that country for two years, and Grassley was the lone senator holding up Eisen’s nomination. He “accused Eisen of improperly firing an inspector general for partisan political reasons”; Eisen denied that claim. In January, Grassley and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa wrote to White House Counsel Bob Bauer, calling Eisen’s appointment “particularly inappropriate.”

UPDATE: After the jump I’ve added Grassley’s official statements on the Goodwin Liu nomination and the failed cloture vote. I also added the full prepared floor statement from Grassley on May 18, explaining his reasons for opposing Liu. These prepared remarks do not include statements Grassley made on the Senate floor that day, asking rhetorically whether Liu thinks “we’re the communist-run China.” Speaking in the chamber, Grassley suggested that by discussing how conservatives use terms like  “free enterprise” and “private ownership of property” as code words, Liu was implying that “if you get government more involved, like they do in China, it’s somehow a better place.”

A Republican-led filibuster blocked Senate consideration today of a bill that would end “tax breaks for the five largest oil companies: Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron.” Click here for more detail on tax breaks that would be eliminated. The 52 to 48 vote in favor of proceeding with the “Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act” failed because 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster. The roll call shows that Iowa’s Chuck Grassley voted against the motion to proceed, as did all but two Senate Republicans. Tom Harkin voted for considering the bill, as did all but three Democrats.

I’m all for ending oil company subsidies, but this bill was about optics rather than good energy policy. Andrew Restuccia wrote in The Hill,

Democrats’ pledge to continue pushing the bill signals that they view the effort as a winning political issue amid $4-a-gallon gas, soaring oil company profits and growing concern about the deficit. […]

Democrats say the bill would save $21 billion over the course of 10 years, savings that can be used to reduce the deficit at a time of increased belt-tightening.

Those talking points would be more convincing if party leaders had genuinely tried to end oil subsidies when Democrats controlled the U.S. House and had close to 60 votes in the Senate. It also makes no sense to focus this bill on the biggest oil companies, rather than the sector as a whole. Democrats apparently wrote the bill that way because of those companies’ large profits in the first quarter of this year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told journalists today that he will press for ending oil companies’ tax breaks as part of legislation on raising the debt ceiling. The U.S. hit its current debt ceiling yesterday and won’t be able to pay all its bills if Congress does not act to raise the ceiling by August 2. I believe President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are playing a losing game by making budget negotiations part of a deal on raising the debt ceiling. When it was time to raise the government’s borrowing limit in 1995, President Bill Clinton wisely refused to let Republicans use the occasion to “backdoor their budget proposals.”

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: After the jump I’ve added a statement Grassley released on May 17, calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to approve the proposed Keystone XL Canadian pipeline project. Grassley depicts that project as a way for the Obama administration to help reduce the cost of gasoline. But an analysis commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy earlier this year suggested that building this pipeline might cause oil and therefore gasoline prices to rise in the Midwest. Environmental groups have raised many objections to the Keystone XL project as well.

SECOND UPDATE: I’ve also added below excerpts from a report by the Congressional Research Service on “the extent to which proposed tax changes on the oil industry are likely to affect domestic gasoline prices.” The report briefly explains the five tax breaks that would be repealed under the bill senators filibustered.

Senator Tom Harkin raised an important question yesterday when speaking to Ed Tibbetts of the Quad-City Times:

Harkin said he’s previously called for an immediate exit from Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are scheduled to leave in 2014.

“I think that timeline should be moved up,” he said in an interview. “I mean why are we in Afghanistan now? I thought we were in Afghanistan at the beginning to find Osama bin Laden. OK, that’s over with. Now, why are we in Afghanistan? Are we there to build a modern, 21st-century democracy?”

Senator Chuck Grassley told Tibbetts that he doesn’t seek any change in the U.S. approach to battling terrorists:

Grassley said bin Laden hasn’t been al-Qaida’s operational leader for years, just its inspirational head.

“The threat for terrorist activity is as great as ever,” he said. “It’s a setback for al-Qaida, without a doubt, but probably a temporary setback.”

I suspect Grassley is closer to the truth than White House chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, who on Monday compared the terrorist group to a “mortally wounded tiger”:

“We are hoping to bury the rest of al-Qaeda along with bin Laden,” Brennan told reporters.

“This is a strategic blow to al-Qaeda. It is a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, blow to lead to its demise. But we are determined to destroy it.”

I don’t see how the massive U.S. military presence in Afghanistan (more than 100,000 troops) will further this goal when Al Qaeda operatives are working in many countries.

Escalating military operations in Afghanistan has cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars as well as many lives. I still believe it will eventually be viewed as one of President Barack Obama’s biggest mistakes. Members of Congress should insist on answers to Harkin’s questions. If past experience is any guide, though, Obama will keep getting blank checks to fund war.

President Barack Obama announced minutes ago that Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the Al Qaeda movement, is dead following a “targeted” U.S. operation in the city of Abbottabad, Pakistan. Speaking on national television late Sunday night, Obama said that shortly after taking office, he had instructed the CIA to make capturing Bin Laden a top priority. He was briefed on a possible lead to Bin Laden last August, and last week he decided that the U.S. had “enough intelligence to take action.” Today Obama authorized a “targeted operation,” in which Bin Laden was killed in a firefight. The U.S. has custody of his body, according to the president, and there were no American casualties. Obama emphasized that the U.S. is not at war with Islam, saying Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader and was a “mass murderer” of Muslims. Obama credited Pakistan’s counter-terrorism efforts with helping locate Bin Laden and said he had contacted Pakistani leaders, who agreed that the death of Bin Laden is good for both countries.

I will update this post as more news and Iowa reaction become available. Official statements from Representatives Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Bruce Braley (IA-01) are after the jump. Former President George W. Bush issued a statement congratulating Obama and the members of the U.S. intelligence community who made today’s events possible.

Meanwhile, use this thread to discuss the political implications of Bin Laden’s death. Al Qaeda isn’t going to disappear overnight, nor is the U.S. likely to end its military presence in Afghanistan sooner. I don’t know enough about U.S.-Pakistani relations to have a sense of the likely impact.

The UK newspaper Daily Mail published an article yesterday on how Bin Laden escaped elite British and American troops near Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in December 2001.

Comments about other U.S. military interventions are also welcome in this thread. Yesterday in Tripoli, a NATO air strike killed the youngest son and three grandchildren of Col. Moammar Qaddafi. The Libyan leader and his wife were reportedly not harmed. Some GOP senators have said regime change should become the explicit U.S. policy goal in Libya.

UPDATE: Likely Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a statement congratulating “our intelligence community, our military and the president.”

SECOND UPDATE: Representative Tom Latham (IA-04) via Twitter: “On this night of historic news may God bless the victims of 9/11 and may God continue to bless the United States and freedom’s cause.” Kind of a strange tweet from Senator Chuck Grassley: “Pres bush was right when he said there aren’t enuf caves for Osama bin Laden to hide. That we wld get him. We got him”

THIRD UPDATE: The State Department has issued a worldwide travel alert for American citizens due “to the enhanced potential for anti-American violence given counterterrorism activity in Pakistan.”

FOURTH UPDATE: An administration official briefing journalists after Obama’s speech said the U.S. did not inform Pakistani authorities about this mission in advance. Official says four people were killed in raid in addition to Bin Laden: one of Bin Laden’s sons, two other male associates and a woman who allegedly was being used as a shield. The large compound where Bin Laden was found was reportedly built about five years ago, but U.S. officials do not know how long Bin Laden had been living there.

FIFTH UPDATE: Added Representative Dave Loebsack’s (IA-02) statement after the jump.

MONDAY UPDATE: The large compound where Bin Laden was reportedly killed is very close to a Pakistani military academy, raising “suspicions that Pakistan has played a double game, and perhaps even knowingly harbored the Qaeda leader.”

U.S. officials said they buried Bin Laden at sea last night in accordance with Islamic law, after flying his body to Afghanistan to confirm his identity. Burial at sea will prevent any gravesite from becoming a shrine for the Al Qaeda leader’s followers, but the quick disposal of the body may prompt questions about whether he is really dead.

Marc Ambinder reports on “The Secret Team That Killed bin Laden.”

After the jump I’ve added Latham’s full statement, comments from Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds and a interesting stream of comments from an Abbottabad resident who started tweeting after hearing a helicopter at 1 am Sunday (“a rare event”). Still no statements released by Senators Tom Harkin or Chuck Grassley or Representative Steve King (IA-05).

FINAL UPDATE: I never did find a press release from Steve King regarding Bin Laden’s reported death, but he seems to have given most of the credit to U.S. policies sanctioning torture of terror suspects. On May 2, King posted these two Twitter updates:

Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?

ObL “Sealed” into eternal damnation. Intel from KSM in Gitmo:-) “It feels like the entire country won the World Series,” Bill Hemmer-FOX.

I don’t know why King would be quick to assume torture led to Bin Laden’s capture. Interrogating Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn’t stop the trail for Bin Laden from growing cold. If this New York Times article “Behind the Hunt for Bin Laden” is accurate, Pakistani agents working for the CIA produced the key lead in the search for the Al Qaeda leader last summer.

Few weapons are more effective in politics than well-placed ridicule. Used incompetently, however, political mockery is just cringe-inducing.

Case in point: the event the Iowa Democratic Party staged yesterday to make fun of Mitt Romney.

At literally the eleventh hour Friday night, President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders struck a deal to keep the federal government running through the end of the 2011 fiscal year. The deal cuts a further $38 billion in spending, bringing total spending to a figure $78 billion below Obama’s original 2011 budget request. (That request was never enacted; the federal government has been running on a series of continuing resolutions since October 1.) The Hill reported last night,

Because it will take several days to translate the agreement into a legislative draft, both chambers passed a stopgap to keep the government funded until the middle of next week. The short-term measure would cut $2 billion from the budget […]

The deal cuts a total of $37.7 billion from current spending levels over the next six months. Of that total, $17.8 billion came from mandatory spending programs, including $2.5 billion in House transportation spending, according to a senior Democratic aide familiar with the deal.

Democrats knocked off most of the controversial policy riders that House Republicans had included in H.R. 1, the package of spending cuts that passed in February.

Republicans, however, won the inclusion of a rider to expand the District of Columbia’s school voucher program and to authorize a Government Accountability Office study of a financial oversight board established by the Wall Street reform bill.

Most significantly, Democrats won the disagreement over funding that included Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion services.

The Senate approved the short-term spending bill on a voice vote last night. I posted a statement issued by Senator Tom Harkin after the jump.

The House approved the bill a few minutes after midnight on a 348 to 70 vote (roll call). Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) and Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) all voted yes. Steve King (IA-05) was among 28 Republicans to vote no. I’ve posted Loebsack’s statement after the jump and will add comments from other Iowans in the House when I see them.

Although most of the House Democratic caucus voted to keep the government running, this deal is a huge victory for House Republicans, especially Speaker John Boehner. He gave up the Planned Parenthood and EPA riders, but only after getting much deeper spending cuts, almost all from non-defense domestic programs. Reuters listed the cuts in the short-term spending bill. Most of the money comes out of high-speed rail, which is an idiotic program to cut from a job creation perspective. The deal covering the remainder of the fiscal year includes only about $3 billion in defense spending cuts, compared to $17.8 billion from benefit programs.

Obama bragged in his weekly radio address today, “Cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history.” Yet again, he’s validating Republican ideology, rhetoric and tactics on the budget. Look for House Republicans to insist on even deeper cuts in domestic spending as a condition for raising the debt ceiling. I dread thinking about what will be in the 2012 budget bills. Republicans will make sure all the “shared sacrifice” comes from people who depend on government benefits.

Share any thoughts about the federal budget in this thread. I enjoyed Philip Rucker’s feature on the top negotiators for Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

President Barack Obama addressed the nation tonight regarding our nine-day-old military intervention in Libya. He explained why the U.S. and its allies in the United Nations Security Council authorized a no-fly zone and why it was not in “our national interest” to let Colonel Moammar Gaddafi continue killing his country’s people. Obama emphasized that “in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners.” It took the international community more than a year to settle on a similar sequence of actions to curtail violence in Bosnia during the 1990s.  

Obama promised to work with allies to assist the people of Libya and support a political transition. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will fly to London tomorrow to “meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. ”

Obama also made clear that the U.S. will not try to “overthrow Gaddafi by force” with troops on the ground, because we cannot afford to repeat our experience in Iraq:

Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake. […]

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

The full text of Obama’s remarks, as prepared, are at the end of this post.

Reacting to the president’s speech, Senator Chuck Grassley said he “was an early advocate of a no-fly zone,” which has helped the Libyan opposition make progress “despite the President’s delay in offering this help [….].” Grassley added that Obama hasn’t made clear how long our mission in Libya will last, and said Congress should discuss our commitment there.

Senator Tom Harkin said that given Gaddafi’s “humanitarian atrocities, I was supportive of the initial UN-backed military strikes.  But with the U.S. ongoing military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have concerns about an open-ended engagement in Libya.” He added, “while there is merit in handing over operations to NATO, ultimately, a political solution is needed to end the conflict in Libya.”

Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) released a statement expressing concern “that tonight we didn’t get a clear and accurate accounting from the President on how much this conflict in Libya is going to cost American taxpayers. We’ve got two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – and Americans deserve to hear from our President what this third conflict is going to cost us. I look forward to meeting with Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton later this week and hearing their explanation of the costs of this operation and their strategy for moving forward in Libya.” Last week Braley asked Obama to provide a full cost accounting for our latest military mission. He was the only Iowan in Congress to issue a statement on our new involvement in Libya.

The complete statements from Grassley, Harkin and Braley are after the jump. I will update this post later if Iowa’s other members of Congress comment on the president’s speech.

UPDATE: After returning from a weekend trip to Afghanistan, Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) spoke to reporters on March 28 (before Obama’s speech):

Noting the U.S. still has troops in Iraq, Loebsack said involvement in Libya raises concerns about overextending the military.

However, he said, Petraeus told the congressman he doesn’t expect enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya “to have any major effect on what we’re doing in Afghanistan.”

“Our troops (in Afghanistan) are doing their mission,” he said. “They have the resources they need to do their mission. That’s critical.”

As of March 29, I still have not seen any reaction to Obama’s speech from Loebsack or Representatives Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve KIng (IA-05).

SECOND UPDATE: Further comments from Loebsack, Boswell and Latham are now below.

Geraldine Ferraro died today at age 75, after battling multiple myeloma for 13 years, far longer than she was expected to survive when diagnosed. She became the first woman named to a major-party national ticket in the U.S. when Walter Mondale chose her as his running mate in 1984. Ferraro acknowledged that she would not have been Mondale’s choice for vice president had she been a man. The Democratic nominee was trailing President Ronald Reagan badly in the polls and needed something to shake up the campaign. Ferraro was supposed to turn the emerging “gender gap” in American politics to the Democrats’ favor.

I remember discounting the rumors that a woman might be nominated for vice president. The Reagan years had rapidly developed my cynicism. It was a big deal just to have a woman on the “short list,” so I figured that talking Ferraro was going to be the Mondale camp’s gesture toward women, and we’d have to wait another cycle or two to see a woman on a ticket. But after watching Ferraro’s speech at the national convention, this liberal teenage girl was so excited and inspired that I briefly forgot what I knew about Mondale having no chance to be elected.

Journalists covering the campaign picked Ferraro apart; you can read the gory details in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times obituaries. She wasn’t very experienced in terms of media relations, and she was a strong woman, so she was an easy target. One manufactured controversy after another dominated stories about her campaign, and I remember lots of speculation about her Italian-American husband’s possible mob ties. Meanwhile, media provided scant coverage when Reagan’s Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan was indicted in September 1984, six weeks before the presidential election. You’d think the first-ever indictment of a sitting cabinet secretary would be a bigger news story than some of the garbage being thrown at Ferraro, but you would be wrong. (Donovan was later acquitted.)

Bleeding Heartland readers too young to remember the 1984 campaign may know of Ferraro mainly because in March 2008, she asserted that Barack Obama’s race gave him an advantage in the presidential primaries against Hillary Clinton: “Sexism is a bigger problem [than racism in the United States] […] It’s OK to be sexist in some people’s minds. It’s not OK to be racist.” The ensuing furor prompted Ferraro to resign from Clinton’s presidential campaign fundraising committee, though she stood by her remarks. At the time, I felt many Obama supporters blew Ferraro’s comments way out of proportion. Her perspective was shaped by decades of personal experience with sexism, like law school professors who felt she had taken “a man’s rightful place.”

Representative Bruce Braley said in a statement today, “Geraldine Ferraro was a great leader and a remarkable woman. She not only made history, she inspired generations of women to do the same. She will be greatly missed, but her influence will live on.”  I will update this post with further Iowa reaction to Ferraro’s passing.

Share your own memories of Ferraro and her political career in this thread.

UPDATE: Senator Chuck Grassley posted to Twitter, “Geraldine Ferraro was an xtraordinary M of Cong. A person easy get along w. True abt my working w her”

Ferraro’s father died when she was eight years old. Here’s a reflection she wrote on how losing a parent so young affected her life.

LATE UPDATE: Joan Walsh’s reflection on Ferraro’s life and career is worth reading.

Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) has asked President Barack Obama to disclose all costs associated with the current U.S. military intervention in Libya. From Braley’s March 24 press release:

“Just as we’re struggling to cut federal spending and bring down our national deficit, we’re also faced with the challenge of managing two military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we’re going to be involved in Libya, we must know how much a third military conflict will cost us,” said Rep. Braley. “I know I’m not the only who’s asking these questions – Speaker Boehner, for one, has also expressed his concerns – and I think it’s important that the President give us and all American taxpayers an accurate answer on this issue. I will always stand with people fighting for freedom and democracy around the world, and I know both President Obama and Speaker Boehner would too. But America has to address many important challenges right here at home – with spending as the most critical one. And before we spend any money abroad, I want to know how much it’s going to cost us.”

The full text of Braley’s letter to President Obama is after the jump.

Braley is right to ask substantive questions about the U.S. operation in Libya. I have been surprised by the Iowa delegation’s muted reaction to our latest military intervention, given that Obama launched this operation without Congressional authorization. To my knowledge, Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin and Representatives Dave Loebsack, Leonard Boswell, Tom Latham and Steve King have not issued any official statement regarding “Operation Odyssey Dawn.”

Braley’s letter is consistent with his increased focus on fighting the deficit since last November’s election. As I’ve written before, I disagree with austerity movement types who make the deficit out to be our country’s biggest threat. Our national strength depends more on fixing other problems: reducing unemployment, reorienting our energy policy and fixing the still-broken health care system, to name a few. Getting the economy moving would do more to shrink the budget gap than the non-defense discretionary spending cuts deficit hawks demand.

I give Braley credit for acknowledging that the U.S. doesn’t have unlimited free money to blow on wars around the globe. The same can’t be said for many members of Congress who claim to care about excessive government spending.

UPDATE: Braley issued this statement on March 25:

Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) released the following statement after White House spokesperson Jay Carney was asked about Rep. Braley’s letter calling for an accounting of the Libyan conflict. According to USA Today, Carney replied to reporters, “there are contingency funds…for this kind of thing.” Today Rep. Braley said:

“Yesterday I asked for accountability on the question of how much this conflict is costing us, and I have yet to see a clear response from the White House. The fact that funds for contingency military operations exist doesn’t answer the question of how much we’re spending, and will continue to spend, in Libya. I’m not the only one asking these questions – the American people are demanding answers too. And the President must give Congress and all taxpayers an accurate answer.”

Yesterday, Rep. Braley sent a letter to President Obama asking for a full accounting of the Libyan conflict and the costs to taxpayers. Speaker Boehner sent a similar letter to the President. Rep. Braley has previously called for a full accounting of the human and financial costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Frantic efforts to control the situation at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant have not had much success during the past week. The areas of greatest concern appear to be the reactor in unit 3 and the spent fuel pool on the roof of unit 4.

President Barack Obama indicated yesterday that the U.S. and its allies may embark on a new military campaign in Libya, if Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi does not comply with demands for a cease-fire with rebels. On Thursday the United Nations Security Council authorized military action against Qaddafi. Like other commentators, I don’t feel reassured by Obama’s promise that the U.S. won’t deploy ground troops in Libya. The president’s reasoning for intervening there (but not elsewhere to avert atrocities) is not convincing.

The Des Moines Register has published front-page stories three days in a row on an Ankeny couple who exploited a loophole in mortgage law to get a nice house for free. Lee Rood’s reporting suggests the couple misrepresented their assets to obtain the mortgage and were in a position to know about the loophole before they closed on their house (without the wife signing the documents). I don’t condone obtaining a house by fraudulent means, if that’s what has occurred in this case. That said, foreclosure fraud by lenders appears to be far more prevalent than the scheme this Ankeny couple may have implemented. Most of the time the mainstream media ignores stories about innocent homeowners jerked around by banks. I hope the Register will follow up with a number of front-page stories about that side of the foreclosure story.

Iowa State University economist Neil Harl argued that Republican tax cut proposals won’t spark economic growth. Speaking on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program,

“The question is what is in the best interest of this state in terms of long-term economic growth,” Harl said. “What attracts companies to come to Iowa? I don’t think it’s potholes in the streets. I don’t think it’s a third-rate school system. I don’t think it’s a situation of starved universities.” […]

Harl said he opposes the Republican plans because they would inevitably cut into state revenue needed to support the services he believes are the real attraction for businesses. One of Iowa’s main assets is a high quality of life, he said.

“I think it’s a state that’s viewed as forward looking and offers a great environment for a company to move into,” he. “This is being sold on the grounds that it will attract more companies here, but I really doubt that.”

As part of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, Borders will close its West Des Moines bookstore by the end of May. For now, Borders plans to keep its stores in Ames, Dubuque and Davenport open. Even though I support locally-owned businesses like Beaverdale Books, Borders is one chain I will be sorry to see go.

I’ll close this gloomy post on an upbeat note: less than one week remains before Planned Parenthood’s giant semi-annual book sale at the State Fairgrounds.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: And on March 19, the U.S. launched air strikes in Libya. Happy Iraq War anniversary! This is not going to end well.  

The House of Representatives approved a three-week continuing resolution on current-year spending today by a vote of 271 to 158 (roll call). If the Senate does not approve the bill by Friday, the federal government will shut down. The Iowa delegation split the same way as two weeks ago, when the House approved the last continuing resolution. Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) and Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) all voted for the spending bill. Two weeks ago Steve King (IA-05) was among only six House Republicans to vote against the continuing resolution. Today he had much more company; 54 House Republicans voted against the bill backed by their leaders. The measure would have failed without Democratic support.

That support is eroding as well. Two weeks ago, yes votes outnumbered noes in the House Democratic caucus, but today a majority of House Democrats voted against the continuing resolution. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), has said he will not support another continuing resolution after this one. If House and Senate leaders don’t reach a comprehensive agreement on fiscal 2011 spending during the next three weeks, it may become more difficult to avoid a shutdown.

King told ABC News this week he isn’t worried about that outcome:

Rep. Steve King is lobbying his colleagues to take their fight against President Obama’s health care law to a new level: He wants to cut off funding for the law as a condition for keeping other government funds in place.

“We have a leverage point, and it is the funding for the government for the balance of the fiscal year 2011,” King, R-Iowa, told us today on ABC’s “Top Line.” “This is the place to pitch the fight.”

If such a stance brings about a partial government shutdown, it would be Democrats’ fault, King said: “If we shut off the funding to implement Obamacare and the Senate or the president refuses to go along with it, that is their decision, not ours.”

Still, King argued, a shutdown might not be a bad result.

“If essential services keep going, no, it wouldn’t be. And I think that we’d be able to keep essential services going on. You know, the wedge issue is this: Is the president — would he think that his signature issue is more important to him than all the functions of government? That’s the question. And in the end, will American people stand with us, or will they stand with Obamacare?”

In other Congressional news, King is the only Iowan among 81 House Republicans cosponsoring a concurrent resolution that “condemns the Obama administration’s direction that the Department of Justice should discontinue defending the Defense of Marriage Act; and demands that the Department of Justice continue to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in all instances.” King has vowed to seek a funding reduction for the DOJ since President Barack Obama instructed the department not to defend Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in court.

After the jump I’ve posted Braley’s statement on today’s vote. I will add press releases from the other Iowans in the House if and when I see them.

UPDATE: I see King has introduced a federal official English bill again: “A common language is the most powerful unifying force known throughout history, […] We need to encourage assimilation of all legal immigrants in each generation. A nation divided by language cannot pull together as effectively as a people.” As a state senator, King was the leading advocate of Iowa’s official English bill, which Governor Tom Vilsack signed in 2002. King later sued successfully to stop the Secretary of State’s office from providing voter registration information in languages other than English.

I’ll be interested to see whether the House Republican leadership lets King’s new bill go forward, or whether the same concerns that cost King a subcommittee chairmanship this year sink his efforts to require the federal government to conduct most services in English.

SECOND UPDATE: King’s statement is now after the jump. Politifact provides more context on the $105 billion figure King mentions here.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? The footage coming out of Japan the last couple of days has been horrifying. At least 10,000 people are now estimated to have died in the 9.0 earthquake near Sendai and subsequent tsunami. Hundreds of aftershocks, some of them quite powerful, threaten to destroy structures the first earthquake weakened. Power outages will occur because several of Japan’s nuclear reactors have been shut down. Radiation is leaking from the 40-year-old Fukushima nuclear plant, where one of the buildings exploded on Saturday and a meltdown seems to have occurred.  Authorities are distributing iodine to protect people nearby against some adverse health effects from radiation exposure. The nightmare scenario is northerly winds blowing a radioactive cloud toward Tokyo. Although Japanese nuclear plants have more containment features than Soviet reactors like the one destroyed in the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, people are comparing the two catastrophic events. Chris Meyers and Kim Kyung-hoon reported for Reuters,

However, experts said Japan should not expect a repeat of Chernobyl. They said pictures of mist above the plant suggested only small amounts of radiation had been expelled as part of measures to ensure its stability, far from the radioactive clouds Chernobyl spewed out 25 years ago.

Japan’s nuclear safety agency said it was rating the incident a 4 on the 1 to 7 International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES), less serious than 1979’s Three Mile Island, which was rated a 5, and Chernobyl at 7. […]

Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters the nuclear reaction facility was surrounded by a steel storage machine, which was itself surrounded by a concrete building.

“This concrete building collapsed. We learnt that the storage machine inside did not explode,” he said.

Saturday morning I was disgusted by MSNBC’s coverage of the nuclear plant explosion. The only “expert” they interviewed to discuss the meltdown risk was from the Nuclear Energy Institute. He spent almost all his air time talking about how the radiation leak was very short-term, affecting a small area, and anyway we’re all exposed to radiation every day just by virtue of living on planet earth. I’m sure General Electric (major shareholder in NBC communications) wouldn’t want viewers to get too worried about nuclear power. GE built the Fukushima facility.

This disaster reveals one of the major hidden costs of nuclear power:

The liability costs associated with cleaning up after the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant will ultimately be borne by the Japanese government instead of the private insurance market, according to experts from the insurance industry.

Those liability costs, if they prove substantial, will place an added burden on the government as it copes with tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars in other expenses linked to the massive rebuilding effort that lies ahead.

This is an open thread.

UPDATE: Added YouTube clips from Ronald Reagan’s 1980 Labor Day address after the jump. Speaking about Polish workers, Reagan said, “Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.” Reagan served six terms as president of the Screen Actors Guild in the 1940s and 1950s (when he was a Democrat). As Republican governor of California and president of the U.S., however, he did a lot of damage to the organized labor movement.

SECOND UPDATE: What a total disgrace. The Obama administration has forced State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley to resign because he said last week that the Defense Department’s treatment of accused Wikileaker Private Bradley Manning is “is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” President Obama was asked about Crowley’s comments at Friday’s press conference and (disgracefully) defended the way Manning is being treated in custody.

THIRD UPDATE: Physicist Michio Kaku: “At present, it seems that Unit 1 has only suffered partial melting. The situation at Unit 1 is stable, but the situation with Unit 3 continues to worsen hour by hour. The danger is that a further secondary earthquake or pipe break could cause the sea water to flush out of the core, uncovering the uranium and initiating a full-scale meltdown. “

Since last October, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller has been leading a national foreclosure working group involving attorneys general from all 50 states. The group was supposed to investigate “robosigning” and other abuses that led to many wrongful foreclosures. Last week the five largest mortgage servicers in the U.S. received a proposed settlement from Miller’s group, and the American Banker posted the settlement terms here (27-page pdf file). Financial penalties will be determined later; $20 billion seems to be the most likely figure, and it’s not clear how that money will be used.

Miller described the settlement offer as an attempt to “change a dysfunctional system” and “reach an agreement good for banks and good for homeowners.” Many observers charge the deal would do little to correct abuses by mortgage lenders and contains nothing to compensate victims of past misconduct. More details and analysis are after the jump.