Tom Latham (IA-04) is Iowa’s longest-serving current member of the House of Representatives, but he has kept a low profile for most of his 16 years in Congress. You don’t see him on television or hear him on the radio nearly as often as his Republican colleague Steve King (IA-05). According to statistical analysis by the GovTrack website, Latham is a rank-and-file Republican who has sponsored few major bills.  

Last Friday, Latham stepped out of character to introduce broad-ranging health care reform legislation. A few thoughts about the substance and strategy behind this move are after the jump.

The House of Representatives passed a bill today on “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” by a vote of 245 to 189. Iowa’s delegation split along the usual party lines: Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03), who voted for the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act last year, voted against repeal. Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted against health insurance reform last year and for repealing it. King was delighted: “100% of my language to repeal 100% of ObamaCare just passed the House with 100% Republican support = 100% great day 4 the USA!” Press releases from Braley, Loebsack, Boswell, Latham and King are after the jump. Latham’s statement mentions the main points of the “replacement health care legislation” House Republicans are drafting.

Various groups and politicians have issued statements warning that many Americans will be hurt by repealing the health insurance reform. I’ve posted a few of those after the jump too, but I wouldn’t lose any sleep worrying about that just now. Repeal is a dead letter at least through 2012 and could advance in 2013 only if Republicans capture the U.S. Senate and defeat President Barack Obama.

I found it interesting that only three House Democrats voted for today’s repeal bill, even though 13 current members of the Democratic caucus voted against health insurance reform in the last Congress. Good whipping by Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, or recognition that popular support for repeal may be declining?

Here in Iowa, Governor Terry Branstad announced on January 18 that he joined the state of Florida’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of health insurance reform:

“I am signing on to this suit as the governor on behalf of the people of Iowa, because I believe Iowa taxpayers deserve to be heard on this critical matter,” Branstad said in a statement. “As we begin constructing our five-year budget, there is no doubt that the current federal health care law will shackle Iowa taxpayers for billions in unfunded mandates.”

The suit challenges the individual mandate of the health care reform law, as well as the expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people, said Branstad spokesman Tim Albrecht.

Branstad’s action is purely symbolic. The case will be litigated no matter how many states sign on as plaintiffs, and if the law is ruled unconstitutional, all states will be affected, not just those that joined the suit. Though I’m not an attorney, it seems that a whole lot of federal laws would have been struck down over the years if unfunded mandates really were unconstitutional.

Legal experts disagree over whether the Commerce clause gives Congress the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance reform.

Politically, Branstad’s opposition to health insurance mandates will boost his standing with the Republican base. They don’t really mind “activist judges,” and they won’t remember that Branstad advocated for a mandate to purchase health insurance as recently as 2007. (He explained why here.) The governor’s legal counsel, Brenna Findley, made the case against the individual mandate a central argument in her campaign against Attorney General Tom Miller last year. Miller supports the federal health insurance reform and has said the law is “heavily on the side of constitutionality.”

When Representative Steve King got passed over for the chairman’s post on the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration last Friday, he suggested that House Speaker John Boehner made the call. In an interview with the National Journal this week, King made clear that he isn’t happy with Boehner (hat tip to the America’s Voice blog):

   “I’m going to be OK with it. I’m going to be OK,” King told National Journal in a 40-minute interview. Even in the wake of the “unbelievably tragic” news of the Arizona massacre, King was obviously still smarting from the subcommittee rebuff. He didn’t mince words in placing the blame directly at House Speaker John Boehner. “The speaker holds the big gavel, and he decides who gets the other gavels,” King said. “It makes it very clear that it’s not a meritocracy.” […]

   “John Boehner isn’t very aggressive on immigration,” King said, noting that the GOP “Pledge to America” barely mentions immigration or border security. “It’s the tiniest section,” he said.

Not a meritocracy?

Representative Steve King’s surprise appointment as vice chair rather than chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee was big news in the beltway yesterday. Tom Latham’s main committee assignment slipped under the radar, as usual for the member representing Iowa’s fourth district. Latham is sitting pretty: he’ll chair the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on transportation, housing and urban development, and he’ll be the number two republican on the Appropriations agriculture subcommittee.

Speaking to the Des Moines Register’s Thomas Beaumont Friday, King tried to put a positive spin on his new role (“I’m a member with fewer limitations than I might have had otherwise”). His other comment intrigued me:

King declined to say why he was not selected, except that [House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar] Smith likely received guidance from new House Speaker John Boehner. […]

“There’s an agenda that’s true of all committees that is driven by the chairman of the overall committee, and the chairman of the overall committee takes his marching orders from the top leader,” King said in an telephone interview.

King’s habit of saying offensive things about immigrants gives Boehner ample reason to put him in a less visible role. Latinos are an important voting bloc in many House seats Republicans need to hold to stay in the majority. Then again, knocking King down a peg also serves Boehner’s “buddy Latham” quite well. The speaker and Latham have been close friends for many years.

I expect Latham to run in the redrawn third district in 2012 against Leonard Boswell or some other Democrat. But our state’s new map might create unfavorable conditions for a Republican in IA-03 (say, including Polk, Story, Marshall and Jasper counties but not Madison, Dallas or others to the west). In that case, Latham might be tempted to duke it out with King in a primary in the new IA-04. Latham represented most of northwestern Iowa during the 1990s and could move from Ames back to Franklin County if necessary. A typical GOP primary would favor “loud and proud” King over the low-profile Latham, whose voting record is a tiny bit less conservative. But now Latham has a powerful post on one of the top House committees, while King got left out in the cold.

Any relevant speculation is welcome in this thread.

The Republican takeover of the House of Representatives put Iowa’s Steve King in line to chair the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. Immigration is one of King’s primary concerns, and he was raring to get to work on the issue. His top priority was ending “birthright citizenship” guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Yesterday (the first day the 112th Congress was in session), King and several colleagues introduced a bill to that effect.

But King won’t be able to push that agenda as a subcommittee chair, because House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith selected Representative Elton Gallegly of California to chair the immigration subcommittee instead.

King, who served as the ranking Republican on the Immigration subcommittee since 2007, was selected as vice chairman of the panel.

Gallegly has been in Congress three times as long as King and doesn’t regularly make the news by saying offensive things about immigrants, or outlandish remarks in general.

A few thoughts on today’s news are after the jump.

Representative Leonard Boswell told Roll Call this week that he will run for Congress again in 2012.

Rep. Leonard Boswell, the oldest member of Iowa’s House delegation by 14 years, was thought to be considering retirement, making it easier for the other Members. But Boswell told Roll Call he will seek re-election, saying that preparing to run in a not-yet-drawn district is no different from his previous races.

National Republicans have frequently targeted the Des Moines-area Democrat since he was elected to the House in 1996, one reason he is preparing early – Boswell declared on election night that he would be on the ballot in 2012.

Boswell is holding a campaign fundraiser in Des Moines tomorrow. If former First Lady Christie Vilsack or some other Democrat plans to challenge him in the 2012 primary, she or he should get cracking sooner rather than later. Almost the entire Iowa Democratic establishment supported Boswell against primary challenger Ed Fallon in 2008, but I believe liberal activists are no longer the only ones who would prefer a different Democrat on the ballot in Iowa’s third district.

I expect Representative Tom Latham to be the Republican nominee in the new IA-03, and that campaign will be quite different from Boswell’s 2010 race against Brad Zaun. Latham is a nine-term incumbent and House Appropriations subcommittee chairman. He will have a ton of money in his own war chest, plus the full faith and credit of the National Republican Congressional Committee. House Speaker John Boehner has been one of Latham’s best friends for many years. In fact, I suspect the desire to keep the GOP field clear for Latham was one reason the NRCC never got behind Zaun last year. Latham would reasonably want to avoid a Republican primary against an incumbent with a Polk County base.

Incidentally, Roll Call says it’s “unclear from where Vilsack would run,” since she is from Mount Pleasant, which is in Loebsack’s district. I seriously doubt she would challenge Loebsack in an IA-02 primary. She has lived in Des Moines for more than a decade and works for a Des Moines-based non-profit organization.

Former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack has strongly hinted to local and Washington-based journalists that she is considering a run for Congress, perhaps as early as 2012. Vilsack lives in Polk County, which will remain the population center of the redrawn third Congressional district. Meanwhile, Representative Leonard Boswell has shown no interest in stepping aside for Vilsack. He told a reporter in August,

“Christie [Vilsack] is a smart person. I’m planning on doing this for a while, so I hope that she has got other things she likes to do for a while because I’m going to continue to do this.”

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack did nothing to discourage the rumors when asked last week about his wife running for Congress in 2012:

Christie has extraordinary options. She is well respected and she has devoted most of her life to public service in one form or another and I think she has many options ahead of her. These are decisions that she has to make and I will support her whatever her decisions are.

Meanwhile, many central Iowa Democrats (including myself) received an invitation this week for a Boswell fundraiser on January 7 in Des Moines. Senator Tom Harkin is headlining the event, and since it’s scheduled a week into the 2012 election cycle, maxed-out donors from 2010 will be able to contribute. It’s possible that Boswell has debt to retire from his hard-fought campaign against Brad Zaun, but I agree with Civic Skinny that it looks more like a sign Boswell isn’t afraid of Vilsack in 2012.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Would Christie Vilsack run for Congress even if Boswell doesn’t retire, and if so, who would win the Democratic primary? Also share any thoughts about who would stand better chance against Republican Tom Latham. I expect Latham to run in IA-03 even if the new district doesn’t include Story County. Latham won’t want to roll the dice on a Republican primary against Steve King in the new IA-04.

P.S. Last month I pondered whether Boswell might have lost if he had faced Jim Gibbons rather than Brad Zaun. One big question mark was whether Boswell would have had enough negative material to “win ugly” against Gibbons. This week Civic Skinny published some unflattering background on Gibbons that surely would have come out if he’d been Boswell’s opponent. Excerpts are after the jump.

Deals struck during the Congressional lame-duck session have scuttled for now the federal government’s plan to purchase and open the Thomson Correctional Center facility in Illinois. The high-security prison was mostly built in 2001 but never utilized for lack of state budget funds. A year ago, officials announced plans for the Federal Bureau of Prisons to purchase the facility. The plan involved the Defense Department leasing part of one building to house some detainees transferred from the Guantanamo Bay military prison. Clinton, Iowa lies just across the Mississippi River from Thomson and is the main population center for the area. Local, state and federal officials estimated that opening the prison would generate nearly a thousand jobs directly and more indirectly as workers spent money in the local economy. In late 2009, Representative Bruce Braley said his constituents supported the plan for a new prison at Thomson, while prominent Iowa Republicans stoked fears about bringing terror suspects to a maximum-security facility anywhere in the midwest.

When drafting the 2011 defense authorization bill, House members barred the use of any federal funds for a facility to house former Guantanamo detainees, pending “a thorough and comprehensive plan that outlines the merits, costs, and risks associated with utilizing such a facility.” Similar language made it into the final version of the defense authorization bill, which the House and Senate approved on December 22. The provision will prevent the Obama administration from trying some terrorism suspects in U.S. civilian courts, and was struck to secure Republican support. (By some accounts, Republicans insisted on this provision in exchange for letting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal move forward.)

Federal Bureau of Prisons officials made clear this year that they still planned to purchase the Thomson Correction Center to relieve overcrowding in the federal prison system. However, it would cost the federal government more than $200 million to purchase and renovate the facility. The 2011 federal budget omnibus bill included funding to buy the Thomson Correctional Center, but an uproar over earmarks prompted Senate Republicans to reject the omnibus bill on December 16. Consequently, the federal government is operating on a continuing spending authorization until March 2011. Republican Congressional leaders have promised big domestic spending cuts next year, and it’s not clear whether the Bureau of Prisons, which is part of the Justice Department, will have the money to purchase Thomson. When the state of Illinois attempted to auction the facility last week, neither the federal government nor anyone else placed a bid.

The stalemate surrounding federal plans for Thomson runs counter to a decades-long American tradition of bipartisan political support for prisons as economic development projects.

The U.S. Senate ratified the START arms control treaty today by a 71 to 26 vote. Thirteen Republicans joined all 58 members of the Democratic caucus to ratify the treaty, which needed support from two-thirds of the senators present to pass. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley voted no, as did Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and most of the Republican caucus. According to Major Garrett, no Senate minority leader has ever before opposed a major treaty that the chamber ratified.

Grassley said he voted against ratifying START “because it makes the United States give up more than Russia, it’s silent on the major issue of tactical nuclear weapons, and the verification mechanism is weaker than START I, which I supported in 1992.” I’ve posted his full statement on the treaty after the jump. Every former secretary of state alive, plus various Reagan administration officials, agreed that approving the treaty is in U.S. security interests. Tom Harkin’s statement, which is also posted below, hailed the treaty’s ratification, adding, “The fact that it was subjected to months of obstruction and delay underlines the dysfunction that has taken hold in the U.S. Senate.”

Also today, senators passed by unanimous consent a bill on health care for 9/11 responders. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, backed by his GOP colleagues, had been holding up that bill for some time. Senators from both parties worked out a compromise on the bill, reducing its cost and sunsetting the Victims Compensation Fund, among other things. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will approve this bill later today, before Congress adjourns for Christmas.

Earlier today, President Barack Obama signed the bill that will lead to repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. However, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network cautioned, “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will still be the law until 60 days after the Commander-in-Chief, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify repeal can happen.” The SLDN’s full warning to service members is here. Bottom line: “Do NOT come out. At this time, lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members can still be investigated and discharged under DADT.”

Chris Geidner analyzed the Senate numbers on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and found that just two current senators (Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer) voted “against DADT at every stage in its history.” Grassley was one of five current senators who voted to keep Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on December 18 and also voted for the 1993 defense authorization bill enacting the policy. Tom Harkin was among 18 current members of the Democratic caucus who voted to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell despite having voted for the 1993 defense authorization. Caveat: Harkin and most of that group had previously voted for a Boxer amendment to strip Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell from that 1993 bill.

In other Congressional news, momentum is building for some kind of filibuster reform when the new Senate convenes in January, but it sounds as if the changes will not reduce the number of senators needed to overcome a filibuster (60).

The U.S. Senate approved a continuing resolution today to fund the federal government at current levels through March 4, 2011. Both the cloture motion and the bill itself passed by large bipartisan majorities; Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin and Republican Chuck Grassley voted for the cloture motion and the funding resolution. Harkin slammed Republicans for blocking the fiscal year 2011 omnibus bill last week, because unlike the continuing resolution approved today, the omnibus bill would have increased funding for programs such as Head Start, child care subsidies, meals for seniors and drugs for AIDS patients. The House of Representatives is expected to approve the continuing resolution later today to stop the government from running out of money at midnight. UPDATE: The House approved the spending bill by 193 to 165, with 75 representatives not voting. All five Iowans voted, and they split along party lines.

A bigger problem will come in March, when House Republicans force through major cuts in domestic spending (probably with the eager cooperation of President Barack Obama). Those will be a drag on the economy, erasing any stimulative effect from the lousy deal Obama struck on extending the Bush tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the House gave final approval to the food safety bill today on a mostly party-line vote of 215 to 144. Iowa’s representatives split the usual way, with Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell voting for the bill and Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voting against it. I am still surprised that the Senate resurrected the food safety bill on Sunday. I have yet to see any explanation for why Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma agreed to let it pass. Coburn had been that bill’s most vocal opponent in the Senate all year. It’s not as if Coburn suddenly decided to stop being a jerk; he appears ready to block the 9/11 responders bill from becoming law during the lame-duck session. Even some Fox News commentators are upset about that political maneuver.

The Senate took a step toward ratifying the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) today. Eleven Republicans joined all Democrats present to approve a cloture motion on that treaty, which the U.S. and Russia signed in April. Grassley voted with most of his GOP colleagues against the cloture motion on START; he has voted for various Republican amendments offered to the treaty. I haven’t seen any statement from his office explaining his opposition. The last START expired in December 2009, and we need to ratify the new treaty in order to resume inspecting Russian nuclear bases. There could hardly be a more important national security issue. Ronald Reagan’s former chief arms control negotiator said last month that Iran and North Korea were the “only two governments in the world that wouldn’t like to see this treaty ratified.”

Bleeding Heartland readers may recall that Senate Democrats imperiled the food safety bill, S510, by forgetting to put revenue-raising language in a bill that originated in the House of Representatives. Senate leaders tried to salvage the situation by adding the food safety language to the massive ominbus spending bill Congress was expected to approve last week. However, Senate Republicans torpedoed the omnibus bill, leaving few options for getting the food safety bill to President Barack Obama’s desk before the new Congress convenes.

According to Cox Radio reporter Jamie Dupree, the food safety bill came “back from the dead” on Sunday. The Senate took the food safety language from the continuing resolution on spending that had already passed the House and inserted it into a “Cash for Clunkers” bill the House had previously approved. (The food safety language replaced the Cash for Clunkers language.) The Senate then approved the new bill by unanimous consent. Amazingly, no Republican gummed up the works on that, not even the food safety bill’s deadly enemy Tom Coburn. The bill now goes back to the House, where Dupree says approval is expected this week. UPDATE: The Hill’s Alexander Bolton and Matthew Jaffe of ABC News report on the Senate maneuvering.

I had almost given up on this bill passing. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good step forward with bipartisan support in Congress. Both Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley voted for the bill a few weeks ago in the Senate.  

The U.S. Senate rejected a cloture motion on the DREAM Act today by a vote of 55 to 41. At least 60 yes votes were needed to move forward the bill, which would give some undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children a path to citizenship. Iowa’s Tom Harkin voted yes, as did most of the Democratic caucus. Chuck Grassley voted no, along with most Senate Republicans. Six cowardly and mean-spirited Democrats voted no: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana. (Correction: it looks like Manchin missed the vote, but his office released a statement this morning saying he could not support the bill because it didn’t require people seeking citizenship to receive a college degree. Jackass.)

Only three Republicans voted yes on the DREAM Act: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Bob Bennett of Utah. Fake GOP moderates Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois all voted against the bill. Sickening. President Barack Obama nominally supports the DREAM Act, but as far as I can tell, the White House did nothing to convince wavering senators to vote for it.

After the DREAM Act failed, the Senate moved to a cloture motion on a stand-alone bill to repeal the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. The Senate approved that cloture motion 63 to 33, with Iowa’s senators splitting the usual way (Harkin for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Grassley against). The Senate will vote on the bill itself early next week later today, and it should easily pass.

UPDATE: Click here for the roll call on the DREAM Act cloture motion. The roll call for the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell vote is here. Congratulations, Chuck Grassley, you put yourself on the wrong side of history twice in one day.

SECOND UPDATE: The bill repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell passed the Senate by 65 to 31 (roll call). Harkin yes, Grassley no, of course. After the jump I’ve posted Harkin’s statements on the DREAM Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Grassley’s office hasn’t issued a statement on either vote; typically he sends out a press release every time the Senate considers major legislation.

Harkin’s statement on DREAM noted that the original 2003 bill had 15 Republican co-sponsors, which prompted me to look them up here. Lo and behold, there’s our Chuck Grassley, one of 47 sponsors of Senator Orrin Hatch’s “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003.” No wonder he doesn’t want to explain his vote today to block the bill from consideration.

The House of Representatives approved a bill last night to extend all the Bush tax cuts for two years, reduce the estate tax, and extend benefits for some unemployed people by 13 months. The bill passed by an unusual bipartisan vote of 277 to 148. The Democratic caucus split 139 in favor of the bill and 112 against, while Republicans overwhelmingly supported the bill by a 138 to 36 margin. The roll call shows that Iowa Democrats Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted for the bill, as did Republican Tom Latham (IA-04). Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Republican Steve King (IA-05) both voted no.

It’s a disgrace that House Democrats went along with a so-called “compromise” that makes the lowest-income workers pay more, does nothing for people who have exhausted 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, and will lay the groundwork for big cuts to domestic spending and Social Security in the future. President Barack Obama deserves the most blame for not negotiating a better deal with Republican leaders. He could have changed the dynamic months ago by making a clear threat to veto any extension of the tax cuts for the highest incomes. But he lacked the courage or the integrity to stand up for tax policies he claims to believe in.

Democrats should nevertheless have voted against this bill, in my opinion. They campaigned against the Bush tax cuts for a decade and are now extending them at all income levels, setting the stage for a permanent extension two years from now. Sorry, Sue Dvorsky: that’s not standing up for the middle class.

It’s a moral failure for the Democratic Party to ask people earning less than $20,000 and families earning less than $40,000 to pay a bit more while the wealthiest people don’t sacrifice a penny. Democrats may have worried the Republican-controlled House would pass an even less favorable bill in the new year, which Obama would sign.

After the jump I’ve posted statements from Braley, Loebsack and Boswell. You can tell Loebsack isn’t proud of this vote, and Boswell makes some excuses too. But it’s consistent with his style: “As I have always said, my legislative philosophy is if you can’t take home the whole loaf of bread, grab as many slices as you can to benefit your constituents […].”

Braley’s press release touting his no vote uses a Republican frame (“Americans spoke clearly on November second. Congress must get serious about reducing the deficit and become better stewards of their tax dollars […]”). His remarks during the House floor debate also focused on fiscal conservatism, although Braley also threw in some populist lines criticizing the tax breaks for the rich. He also cited the threat to “the long-term viability of Social Security.”

UPDATE: In the comments, John Deeth mentioned the House vote on an amendment to raise the estate tax rate and lower the exemption to that tax received just 194 yes votes, all from Democrats. Braley and Loebsack voted with the majority of their caucus, but Boswell was among the 60 Democrats who voted with Republicans. Changing the bill would have sent the measure back to the Senate rather than directly to the president’s desk.

The House of Representatives approved a stand-alone bill today to repeal the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. The vote was 250 to 175, with just 15 Republicans crossing party lines to vote yes and 15 Democrats voting no. Iowa’s Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) all voted for repeal, while Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted against. Boswell is the only veteran among Iowa’s current House delegation. He served in the Army for 20 years, including two tours in Vietnam.

I haven’t seen any Iowa poll on this subject, but numerous national polls have indicated that more than 70 percent of Americans believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military. That figure was 77 percent in the most recent poll on the issue, conducted by Langer Research for ABC News and the Washington Post. A Pentagon survey this year found that “70 percent of surveyed service members believe that the impact on their units would be positive, mixed or of no consequence at all.” Support for ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was significantly lower among Marines, however.

The U.S. Senate voted 81 to 19 today to approve a bill to extend unemployment benefits and some tax credits for one year, in exchange for keeping current income tax rates on all income levels in place for two years. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley was among 37 Republicans who voted yes, while Tom Harkin was among 14 Democrats who voted no. (Harkin and three others voted against the bill today despite voting for Monday’s cloture motion to advance the bill.) Before today’s final vote, the Senate considered a motion to suspend the rules so that Senator Bernie Sanders’ amendment improving various tax provisions could be considered. Only 43 Democrats, including Harkin, supported that effort.

Bleeding Heartland has already covered some of the problems with this bill.  Some may wonder why a self-styled deficit hawk like Grassley would support adding $858 billion to the deficit over two years (and trillions more in the years to come, as Bush tax cuts appear almost certain to be made permanent). Grassley’s answer is that Americans are still “overtaxed,” and “We have a deficit problem because Washington spends too much.” Naturally, Republicans ignore the fact that Warren Buffett pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, or that corporate tax payments are at historically low levels. Statements from Grassley and Harkin on today’s vote are after the jump. Harkin’s Senate floor statement of December 14 made a more extensive case against the package.

But desmoinesdem, you might object, Republicans said a few weeks ago that they would block everything during the lame-duck session until the future of the Bush tax cuts was resolved. Well, the tax cuts have been extended, and now Republicans are threatening to shut down the federal government and block ratification of the START U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty. Who’d have guessed that giving in to Republican demands would lead to more hostage taking?

The House of Representatives is debating repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell today. I wouldn’t bet on Republicans letting that through the Senate, even though at least 60 senators claim to be for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Iowa’s U.S. Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley were among a large bipartisan majority that voted to advance a bill to extend unemployment benefits, the Bush tax cuts and various special tax breaks and credits. The Senate passed the cloture motion by a vote of 83 to 15. Just 10 members of the Democratic caucus and five Republicans voted against cloture for various reasons. A handful of senators who voted for cloture may vote against the bill itself, but the bill will pass easily.

The Los Angeles Times summarized key points in the Senate’s version of the deal President Barack Obama negotiated with Republican leaders in Congress:

The package extends the Bush tax cuts for two years on families at all income levels, including the wealthiest 2% who have incomes above $250,000 a year. Obama once campaigned against tax cuts for those earners.

The package also continues unemployment insurance through 2011 for up to 7 million Americans who otherwise would see their extended jobless aid expire.

One key change for most taxpayers will be a 2-percentage-point reduction in payroll tax worth up to $2,000. It replaces the so-called Making Work Pay tax cut for 95% of Americans, a break that expires Dec. 31.

The package also reinstates the estate tax that lapsed this year under a quirk of law. It establishes a 35% rate on inheritances above $5 million for singles and $10 million for families. […]

[T]he Senate added $10 billion in energy assistance, including nearly $5 billion in ethanol and coal credits that environmentalists oppose. But it also included an extension of grants for renewable energy developers, which supporters credit with having doubled solar plant production in 2010.

The package also includes a long, $55-billion list of specialty tax breaks that tend to be extended each year – help for Puerto Rican rum makers, racetrack developers and Los Angeles film producers.

I don’t have time to list all the shameful aspects of this deal tonight, but I discuss seven big problems after the jump. UPDATE: I recommend Rortybomb’s post on “who got what” in this package.

The ban on gays in the military appears likely to live on despite broad public support for letting gays serve openly and a Pentagon review showing repeal would pose a “low risk” to the armed forces. Democrats in Congress attached a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal provision to the 2011 defense authorization bill. But on December 9 the U.S. Senate rejected a cloture motion to proceed with considering that bill on a mostly party-line vote of 57-40. Iowa’s Tom Harkin was among 56 Democrats who voted to proceed with the bill; newly-elected Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia gave a convoluted excuse for voting no, while just-defeated Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas did not vote. Chuck Grassley was among all but three Republicans who voted no; two didn’t vote and Senator Susan Collins of Maine voted yes. Three Republicans who have claimed to support repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy upheld yesterday’s filibuster: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Scott Brown of Massachusetts and John Ensign of Nevada.

Negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Collins of Maine appear to have broken down over how Reid would allow amendments to be offered to the bill, and/or the length of time he would permit for debate. Collins and Senator Joe Lieberman say they will offer a stand-alone bill to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but whether that bill could clear the Senate before the end of the year is a big question mark. Even if it does, the House may not have time to vote on it before the new Congress takes office.

President Barack Obama publicly opposes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but he has so far declined to order a moratorium on discharges under the policy. That means federal courts will have the final say on whether the ban survives. A federal judge declared Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unconstitutional earlier this year, and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take up the case next year.

In other Senate news yesterday, Republicans showed they were serious when they promised to block every single piece of legislation until the Bush tax cuts were all extended. The GOP caucus unanimously blocked consideration of a bill “that would provide medical benefits and compensation for emergency workers who were first on the scene of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” The vote was 57 Democrats in favor, including Harkin, and 42 Republicans opposed, including Grassley. According to the New York Times, “Republicans have been raising concerns about how to pay for the $7.4 billion measure,” which is laughable, because they have no problem voting for trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts.  Republican priorities disgust me, but they do know how to stay united, unlike Democrats.

Incidentally, Grassley said in a statement yesterday that he was able to get a full extension of ethanol and biodiesel tax credits included into the tax deal Obama negotiated with Republicans. Sounds like he will definitely support the package on the Senate floor (no concern from the phony deficit hawk about finding a way to offset the $858 billion price tag). Harkin hasn’t committed to voting yes or no on the tax cut deal. Grassley believes a short-term extension of unemployment benefits might have been possible even without a deal on the tax cuts. That would fall way short of what’s needed to help unemployed people and stimulate the economy. I am frustrated that no Congressional leaders in either party are serious about getting help to the “99ers” who have exhausted all their unemployment benefits.

The House of Representatives approved the DREAM Act on December 8 by a vote of 216 to 198. The bill would give some undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children a path to citizenship. Eligible people could obtain “conditional” status for six years provided they have no criminal record, have lived in the country for at least five years, and have graduated from high school or received a GED. To maintain legal status, people would have to pass a criminal background check and demonstrate that they have either attended college or served in the military for at least two years. Although 38 House Democrats opposed the DREAM Act yesterday, all three Iowa Democrats (Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell) voted for it. Only eight House Republicans crossed party lines to support this bill, and those did not include Tom Latham or Steve King. In recent weeks, King has slammed the DREAM Act as a “multi-billion dollar amnesty nightmare.”

The White House supports the DREAM Act, and the administration has mostly exempted students even as deportations of undocumented immigrants increased since President Barack Obama took office. However, Obama didn’t insist on passage of the DREAM Act as part of his tax cut deal with Congressional Republican leaders. The Senate is expected to vote on the House version of this bill next week. Although some Republicans support the DREAM Act, including Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, I would be surprised if it passes during the lame duck session.

Incidentally, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has supported legislation like the DREAM Act in the last, but last week he said he opposed current bill before Congress. He must be aware that if he runs for president again, he’ll need to win over GOP primary voters and caucus-goers who overwhelmingly oppose what conservatives call “amnesty.”

Also on December 8, the House voted on the Seniors Protection Act. According to a statement from Braley’s office, that bill “would have provided a one-time $250 payment to seniors on Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), railroad retirement, and veterans disability compensation or pension benefits due to the lack of a cost-of-living adjustment for 2011 (COLA).” The bill received 254 votes in favor and 153 votes against but still failed, because it was brought to the House floor under a suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote to pass. The Iowa delegation again split on party lines.

Meanwhile, the offices of Representatives Braley, Loebsack and Boswell still have not responded to my requests for comment on Obama’s tax deal with Republicans. On December 9 the House Democratic caucus reportedly voted against bringing the deal to the floor, but that was a non-binding resolution. The bill could still pass with a minority of Democratic votes and a majority of Republicans. On the Senate side, Republican Chuck Grassley says the deal is better than doing nothing. Democrat Tom Harkin says he is working behind the scenes to improve the deal and is inclined to vote no without some changes. However, even as he criticized Obama’s negotiating strategy, Harkin didn’t rule out supporting the deal until he sees the final package.

UPDATE: Braley released this noncommittal statement on December 9:

“As the tax cut package takes shape, I want to reiterate my support for a tax cut extension for every American family on incomes up to $250,000.  I continue to fight for an extension of unemployment benefits, especially during the holiday season.  I remain extremely concerned that extending Bush’s tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans will explode the deficit.”

“I continue to fight to cut taxes for Iowa’s families and I am working to ensure our future generations are not saddled with extreme debt.  I look forward to reading the legislative language produced on the bill before making a final decision on these important issues.”

SECOND UPDATE: Steve King talked to the Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth:

King said he dislikes that the tax cuts are only extended for two years. He said he wouldn’t go to the mat to extend the tax cuts permanently, but that they should be at a minimum extended five years so people sitting on capital to invest will know their tax liabilities for a longer period.

Further, King doesn’t like the unemployment benefits extension, since he said that only encourages people to not work and continue to receive those dollars.

THIRD UPDATE: Loebsack’s office says he “has consistently supported extending the middle-class tax cuts. He is also pleased to see that an extension of emergency unemployment benefits and additional tax cuts for hard-working families are included, along with potential extensions of renewable energy tax credits.  He is actively working to improve the proposal as it develops in order to ensure that the best interests of Iowans are being served.”  

President Barack Obama announced the “framework” for his unilateral surrender betrayal of core principles deal with Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts today. It’s worse than I expected, which is saying something. Republicans get tax cuts for all income levels extended for two full years (we’re supposed to believe Obama will stand up for letting them expire during a presidential election year). They agreed to extend some unemployment benefits, but only for 13 months. Although long-term unemployment is at historically high levels, the “99-ers” (people who have exhausted 99 weeks of unemployment benefits) will get nothing out of this framework. To sweeten the deal for Republicans, the estate tax will be reduced to 35 percent, and it will apply only to estates exceeding $5 million in assets. That’s very costly and not at all stimulative. To provide more disposable income for working people, the payroll tax on employees will be cut by two percentage points for a year. That’s good as long as it doesn’t become an excuse later to cut Social Security benefits. UPDATE: David Dayen reports that a senior administration official told him the payroll tax cut “would be paid for out of general revenue through a credit, and so would not impact Social Security and Medicare finances in any way.”

It astounds me that Obama could think he will gain politically from this bargain. How many videos like this one are floating around? October 30, 2008: “Why would we keep driving down this dead-end street? […] At a moment like this, the last thing we can afford is four more years of the tired old economic theory that says we should give more and more to billionaires and corporations and hope that prosperity trickles down on everybody else.”

After the jump I’ve posted some Iowa politicians’ reactions to the deal. I’ll update as more statements become available.

UPDATE: Late on Tuesday afternoon, the offices of Representatives Bruce Braley (D, IA-01), Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) have not responded to my requests for comment on the tax deal. How hard is it to express an opinion about the major decision of the lame-duck session? U.S. Senate conservadem Mary Landrieu of all people came out guns blazing today against the “moral corruptness” of the deal.

Republican filibusters on Saturday blocked two U.S. Senate attempts to vote on extending Bush tax cuts for all but the highest income levels. The first cloture attempt related to an amendment to permanently extend all tax cuts affecting the first $200,000 of income for individuals or $250,000 for families. It also would have extended unemployment benefits. It needed 60 votes to pass but received 53 yes votes and 36 no votes (roll call). Iowa’s Chuck Grassley joined all Republicans present and a handful of conservative Democrats to block this measure. All 11 senators who didn’t vote were Republicans. Perhaps they didn’t want to go on record voting against tax cuts.

The second cloture motion related to Senator Chuck Schumer’s amendment, which would have extended Bush tax cuts for all incomes below $1,000,000. The idea was to force Republicans to show that they would defend millionaires’ interests even if doing so torpedoed tax cuts for everyone else. But many Democrats objected to Schumer’s plan, because it would cost $400 billion over ten years and would tacitly redefine earners up to $1,000,000 per year as middle-class. The vote was 53-37, with 60 yes votes needed to invoke cloture. Iowa’s Tom Harkin was among the small group of Democrats who voted no, as did Grassley and the rest of the Republicans.

A deal that would have allowed votes today on two Republican-proposed amendments, extending all the Bush tax cuts permanently or for a limited time, “fell apart when a Republican objected to it at the last minute, leaving a surprised and embarrassed Mitch McConnell at the table empty-handed.” Click through for David Waldman’s explanation of the procedural issues and why a Republican would want to prevent those votes from happening during the lame-duck session.

Joan McCarter posted a revealing exchange between Schumer and Grassley during today’s Senate debate:

   Mr. Schumer: I thank my colleague. And through the chair, I’d simply like to ask my colleague this. I understand we have a different point of view here. We both care about deficit reduction. Could he please explain to me why it is okay to take $300 billion of tax cuts for those at the highest income levels, above a million, and not pay for it and yet we have to pay for unemployment insurance ex extension?

   Mr. Grassley: I thought I made that point very clear, because the taxpayers are smarter than we in Congress are. They know that they give another dollar to us to spend and it’s a license to spend $1.15. So it just increases the national debt. And when it comes to paying for unemployment compensation, we can pay for unemployment compensation because the stimulus bill was supposed to stimulate the economy and it’s not being spent. And if you put money from stimulus into unemployment, you don’t increase the deficit and you’ll also have the money spent right away.  

   Mr. Schumer: I would just say that the answer doesn’t deal with deficit reduction. If you care about deficit reduction, the two should be treated equally. A dollar of tax break for millionaire and a dollar of increased unemployment benefits increases the deficit the same amount. However, every economist — I saw we had a chart up about economists before — will tell you that a dollar into unemployment benefits stimulates the economy about four times as much as a dollar into tax decreases for millionaires. That’s pretty universal. Mark Zandy, John McCain’s economic advisor during his campaign, said that a dollar of tax breaks for millionaires stimulates the economy about 30 cents worth. A dollar of tax — a dollar of unemployment benefits increases the economy by about $1.62.

Grassley and the rest of the Republicans should stop pretending to care about the deficit.

If I were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I would ignore whatever deal President Obama is working out with Republicans and refuse to schedule a vote on extending all the Bush tax cuts. Republicans had their chance to keep lower tax rates for everyone on their first $250,000 of income, but they said no.

The House of Representatives voted today to extend the Bush tax cuts affecting individuals earning less than $200,000 annually and families earning less than $250,000. The vote was 234 to 188, mostly along party lines. Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell all voted for the bill, while Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voted against it. If you click on the roll call, you might notice the vote was on a “Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment” to the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III. Adding the tax cut language to this vehicle, instead of introducing a new bill, was done to deny Republicans the chance to make a motion to recommit and attach the rest of the Bush tax cuts. David Waldman walks you through the House procedural weeds.

Only three House Republicans voted for this bill, which would permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of filers. Every recent poll shows a minority want to extend the tax cuts for the top income levels. It’s disgusting that Republicans can’t accept even this bill, which gives more money back to wealthier people anyway.

The White House response to today’s vote was even more disgraceful:

“The President continues to believe that extending middle class tax cuts is the most important thing we can do for our economy right now and he applauds the House for passing a permanent extension.  But, because Republicans have made it clear that they won’t pass a middle class extension without also extending tax cuts for the wealthy, the President has asked Director Lew and Secretary Geithner to work with Congress to find a way forward.  Those discussions started just yesterday and are continuing this afternoon.  The talks are ongoing and productive, but any reports that we are near a deal in the tax cuts negotiations are inaccurate and premature.”

Who still believes that Barack Obama wants to win this battle? He isn’t even trying. I wonder if he’s been planning to cave on this issue all along.

Meanwhile, the House passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 today by a vote of 264 to 157. All Iowa Democrats voted yes, as did Latham (one of just 17 Republicans to cross the aisle on this issue). King voted no, along with most of the Republican caucus. The Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent in August. It would improve the school lunch program and fund other child nutrition programs, but unfortunately food stamp funding was used to cover part of the cost. Senator Tom Harkin’s office summarized the bill’s provisions, and I’ve posted that statement after the jump. Referring to the food stamp funding, Harkin states, “President Obama, however, has committed to work with Congress to replace this offset before these SNAP [food stamp] cuts take place in November 2013.” I wouldn’t count on the president keeping that promise in light of today’s White House statement on tax cuts.

UPDATE: Senator Tom Harkin said on December 2 that if Obama caves on the Bush tax cuts, “He would then just be hoping and praying that Sarah Palin gets the nomination.”

For a smart guy, President Barack Obama has surprisingly poor bargaining skills. Putting lots of tax cuts in the too-small stimulus without insisting on Republican concessions made the Recovery Act less stimulative but failed to win bipartisan support for it. Expanding off-shore oil drilling without gaining anything concrete from Republicans did nothing to advance a comprehensive energy bill.

Despite those failures, Obama still seems unable to start negotiations from a position of strength. To set the tone for his first post-election meeting with Congressional Republican leaders, the president announced a new policy designed to appeal to conservatives, with no strings attached. During yesterday’s meeting, he even apologized to top Republicans for not reaching out to them more.

Naturally, Republicans haven’t made any policy gestures toward the president this week, nor have they apologized for not working constructively with him.

Millions of Americans will pay the price for Obama’s inability to grasp basic negotiating tactics.

The U.S. Senate approved the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act today by a 73 to 25 vote. Tom Harkin and all other Senate Democrats voted for the bill, as did 15 Republicans including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley. Grassley also was among 14 Republicans who joined Democrats to support the cloture motion ending debate on the food safety bill yesterday.

Some details on the bill as well as its complicated path through the Senate are after the jump.  

Representative Steve King’s never had trouble calling attention to himself, even as a not very powerful member of the House minority. With Republicans in charge of the House beginning in January, King’s national profile will rise further as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration. One of his top priorities will be moving a bill to restrict birthright citizenship.  

The House of Representatives on November 18 failed to approve a three-month extension of unemployment benefits beyond November 30.

If the measure is not renewed, some 2 million people by the end of the year will stop getting weekly checks they receive as they look for work, says the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for workers’ rights.

By a vote of 258 to 154, the proposal to extend benefits through February fell short of the two-thirds margin needed to pass the House under special rules allowing an expedited vote.

Some 21 Republicans joined 237 Democrats to vote for the measure, while 11 Democrats and 143 Republicans voted against.

Under normal rules, the measure needs only a simple majority to pass. Democratic leaders in the House said they would schedule another vote for the week of November 29.

The roll call shows that Iowa’s House members split on party lines. Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) voted to extend the unemployment benefits, while Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted against doing so.

The bill that failed would have cost $12.5 billion, and various House Republicans cited concerns about increasing the deficit. That’s a sick joke when the GOP caucus is eager to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent without any plan to pay for them. Jobless benefits are among the most efficient ways the government can stimulate economic activity, because people who are out of work will almost certainly spend any additional income on goods and services. Tax cuts in general are far less stimulative, especially tax cuts for people with plenty of disposable income.

In other Congressional news, House Democrats elected outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as minority leader this week. She defeated Blue Dog Heath Shuler by 150 to 43 in a secret ballot vote. Outgoing Majority Leader Steny Hoyer will be minority whip, and outgoing Majority Whip Jim Clyburn will be assistant leader, a newly-created position. Braley’s staff confirmed that he voted for Pelosi, but for some reason, Boswell’s and Loebsack’s staffs declined to answer the Des Moines Register’s question about whom those representatives backed for minority leader. I would be shocked if either of them voted for Shuler.

A majority of Iowa women voters backed Senator Chuck Grassley on November 2. Here’s how he repaid them two weeks later:

Senate Democrats didn’t muster enough votes today to overcome a Republican-led filibuster of the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that would have lifted the cap on damages in pay- discrimination lawsuits and restricted how employers can fight such complaints. The legislation would also have banned employers from penalizing workers who share salary information to find pay discrepancies.

Democrats pushed the measure, which would have strengthened remedies under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 for women, early in the Obama administration as part of a pro-labor agenda. It passed the House of Representatives in January 2009, along with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. […]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and other business groups lobbied Republican senators to block the companion piece of legislation.

Yes, Grassley and every other Republican present (plus “Democrat” Ben Nelson of Nebraska) voted to block debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act. If you’re a working woman getting paid less than your male colleagues, Grassley wants to limit your ability to find evidence of discrimination as well as your compensation if you file a claim against your employer.

Grassley’s lack of concern for underpaid women is no surprise. He also voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act several times.

Add the Paycheck Fairness Act filibuster to the list of reasons Democrats should take up Tom Harkin’s call for Senate reform. Yet again, 41 senators overruled 58 colleagues who supported moving a bill forward. Senators will be able to change the chamber’s procedural rules in January, when the newly elected Congress begins work. Democrats would be idiots not to do so.

Speaking of corporate influence over American politics, Bloomberg News reported yesterday that America’s Health Insurance Plans, a lobbying group representing health insurers, gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $86.2 million in 2009.

The spending on the Chamber exceeded the insurer group’s entire budget from a year earlier and accounted for 40 percent of the Chamber’s $214.6 million in 2009 expenditures. […]

The $86.2 million paid for advertisements, polling and grass roots events to drum up opposition to the [health care reform] bill, said Tom Collamore, a Chamber of Commerce spokesman. The Chamber said in a statement it used the funds to “advance a market-based health-care system and advocate for fundamental reform that would improve access to quality care while lowering costs.”

Senator Chuck Grassley will become ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, Ed Tibbetts of the Quad-City Times reported on November 11. Grassley and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama made a deal in May 2009 to let Sessions be ranking member on Judiciary temporarily. The position became open when Arlen Specter switched to the Democratic Party, but Grassley (who is senior to Sessions) wanted to remain the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee through the end of 2010. Sessions is now expected to become ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. The GOP Senate caucus term-limits its committee chairs and ranking members.

Speaking to Tibbetts on November 10, Grassley said,

“I would hope to be doing roughly the same things on health care in the Judiciary Committee as I did in the Finance Committee,” he said.

Grassley has been a tenacious investigator of the Food and Drug Administration and the pharmaceutical industry. He also said he would remain active overseeing nonprofits.

Grassley said fraud-related issues are squarely within the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction.

Also, the New Hartford Republican has a history of casting a wide net in his oversight activities. In the 1980s, Grassley targeted waste in the Pentagon budget while he sat on a subcommittee of Judiciary, not a Defense-related panel.

In his new role, Grassley will be a more prominent figure in battles over confirming President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees as well.

Over in the U.S. House, Steve King (IA-05) is set to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration. He has been ranking member on that subcommittee since 2007. John Deeth notes that a Hispanic Republican group based in the southwest is objecting due to King’s use of “defamatory language that is extremely offensive to Hispanics.” Good luck getting the House Republican caucus to care, even if Latino voters did swing last week’s elections to Democrats in Colorado, Nevada and California.

Time for another Bleeding Heartland foray into counterfactual history, inspired by conversations with many Democrats and a few Republicans during the past week.

In early 2009, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee included Representative Leonard Boswell on its list of 40 “Frontline” Democrats, incumbents acknowledged to be vulnerable. House Democrats lost more than 60 seats on November 2, with most “tossup” seats falling to the GOP. Chet Culver lost the governor’s race by more than 100,000 votes, and Democrats fared worse than expected in the Iowa House and Senate races. Yet voters re-elected Boswell in a swing district (partisan voting index D+1). Not only that, he won by a larger margin than Bruce Braley. Who would have predicted that six months ago?

All of the above raises an obvious question: would Boswell be heading back to Congress if Republicans had nominated Jim Gibbons rather than Brad Zaun?  

Now that Representative Bruce Braley has survived a Republican landslide despite a bucketload of money thrown at him, I thought I’d check to see how others in his House Populist Caucus fared on Tuesday.

Short story: the Populist Caucus lost five members. As a group, they fared better than the Blue Dogs or New Democrats, but not as well as the Progressive Caucus. The details are below.

In a few hours we’ll know whether seven-term Representative Leonard Boswell foiled Iowa Republicans again. For months the third Congressional district was considered a tossup race, and Republican Brad Zaun led in two GOP internal polls released this summer. However, Boswell has led the most recent polls. The Hill commissioned a survey in mid-October that found Boswell beating Zaun 49 percent to 37 percent. According to Tim Sahd’s final rankings for the National Journal, IA-03 isn’t among 90 House seats most likely to change hands.

If Boswell survives a Republican wave election, it will be good news for Iowa Democrats, but not for people who hate negative political advertising. Beginning in August, Boswell and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee simply buried Zaun. Bleeding Heartland discussed early commercials for this race here and here. Details on the closing arguments from both sides are after the jump.

For your “no one could have predicted” file: going into today’s election, Mariannette Miller-Meeks is the Iowa Republican U.S. House challenger considered to have the best chance of winning. When she announced plans to run in the second Congressional district again last year, I thought she was way too conservative to have a shot against two-term incumbent Dave Loebsack. IA-02 has a partisan lean of D+7, and Miller-Meeks received less than 40 percent of the vote in 2008. For months the district was considered safely Democratic, while Iowa’s third Congressional district was rated a tossup.

Loebsack is still favored to win a third term, according to most election forecasters. The early vote numbers look strong for Democrats in his district. That said, Miller-Meeks has a realistic chance to become the first woman elected to Congress from Iowa, especially if Democratic House losses are on the high end of forecasts (60 to 80 seats).

Follow me after the jump for more on how Miller-Meeks and Loebsack have appealed to voters since the last time Bleeding Heartland discussed this race in detail.

Greeting workers at Davenport’s Oscar Mayer plant at 5 am today, Representative Bruce Braley said, “This is where you get a feel for what politics should be.” No doubt retail campaigning is more fun than being on the receiving end of about $1.6 million in spending by the American Future Fund and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Most handicappers have Braley favored to win re-election; if he loses tonight, the conservative groups that put this race on the map will get much of the credit.

After the jump I review the campaigns waged by Republican challenger Ben Lange, Braley and the groups targeting each candidate in Iowa’s first Congressional district.

Lots of Democrats have had a tough year, but few candidates faced a more difficult task than Matt Campbell. He’s challenging Representative Steve King, who won his previous four elections in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district with 62 percent, 63 percent, 59 percent, and 60 percent of the vote. Campbell isn’t just running for Congress in a Republican year, he’s running in Iowa’s most conservative U.S. House district (partisan voting index R+8). IA-05 also happens to be Iowa’s largest Congressional district (32 counties) and the most expensive district for advertising. Campbell’s opportunities for raising his name recognition were limited, because King maintained his perfect record of never debating an opponent. All four other U.S. House incumbents debated their challengers at least once.

King was so relaxed about his re-election campaign that he spent most of last week touring other parts of Iowa with the anti-retention Judge Bus.

Follow me after the jump for video clips, transcripts and some comments about King and Campbell outreach to voters in IA-05.

Eight-term Representative Tom Latham survived two Democratic wave elections easily, winning the fourth Congressional district by 17 points in 2006 (when Governor Chet Culver carried his district) and 22 points in 2008 (when President Barack Obama did). As a result, Latham never looked vulnerable heading into 2010, and he hasn’t run as active a campaign as he did two years ago. Democrat Bill Maske wasn’t able to raise as much money as Latham’s previous opponents, Selden Spencer and Becky Greenwald, and he has received no help from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. However, he has campaigned hard around this 28-county district for the last ten months.

I summarized each candidate’s campaign message below.  

Representative Leonard Boswell and Republican challenger Brad Zaun are about to hold their only debate of the campaign on KCCI-TV at 7 pm. (They also taped a joint appearance on Iowa Public Television earlier this month.)

I’ll update this post later with thoughts on the debate. Share any thoughts about the debate or the third Congressional district race in this thread.

TUESDAY UPDATE: I only caught part of last night’s debate live, but watched the whole tape this morning. Boswell and Zaun had their strong and weak points, and I doubt many people’s minds were changed by the debate. Both candidates gave strong closing statements framing the choice in this election. More specific comments about the debate are after the jump.

In another sign of a competitive race in Iowa’s second Congressional district, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has spent $90,000 to run a television commercial against Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

The ad targets Miller-Meeks’ support for a national sales tax, but does so in a misleading way. Video, script and a few comments are after the jump.

I figured Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks was too conservative to have a chance against Representative Dave Loebsack in Iowa’s second Congressional district. Loebsack represents the most Democratic-leaning House district in the state (partisan index D+7), and Miller-Meeks failed to reach the 40 percent mark in 2008. But I was wrong. Plenty of House incumbents who cruised two years ago are in tough races now, and many signs point to a highly competitive rematch in IA-02.

It’s been too long since Bleeding Heartland last checked in on this race. Television commercials for Miller-Meeks and Loebsack are after the jump, as well as highlights from this week’s debate between the candidates.

President Barack Obama supposedly wants to end the ban on gays and lesbians openly serving in the U.S. military. His administration has backed a legislative compromise that would probably lead to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell next year. However, the votes aren’t there in the Senate to attach that provision to this year’s defense authorization act. The Senate will consider the bill again after the November election, but I doubt senators would vote to lift the ban on gays in the military during a lame-duck session. Next year the issue will be off the table in a House and Senate with many more Republican votes, and possibly Republican majorities.

Yesterday a U.S. District Court judge in California gave Obama an easy way to keep his promise on ending the ban:  

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ permanent worldwide injunction — praised by gay rights organizations — orders the military “immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced” under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. […]

In her ruling Tuesday, Phillips stated the policy infringes on the rights of military personnel. “Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers’ rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights,” the judge wrote.

Now the question is whether Obama will have his administration appeal this ruling:

President Barack Obama has backed a Democratic effort in Congress to repeal the law, rather than in an executive order or in court.

But U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ injunction leaves the administration with a choice: Continue defending a law it opposes with an appeal, or do nothing, let the policy be overturned, and add an explosive issue to a midterm election with Republicans poised to make major gains.[…]

If the government does not appeal, the injunction cannot be reversed and would remain in effect. If it does, it can seek a temporary freeze, or stay, of her ruling. An appeal would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Either side could then take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Pentagon did not immediately comment, and a Justice Department spokeswoman said the government was reviewing the decision. Meanwhile, a group of 19 Democrat senators signed a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to let the injunction stand.

As of yesterday, Senator Tom Harkin was not among the Democrats who co-signed that letter. I am seeking comment from his office on whether he supports a Justice Department appeal of Judge Phillips’ ruling.

Since the last time Bleeding Heartland caught up on the third Congressional district race, seven-term incumbent Leonard Boswell’s chances for re-election have improved. Long considered Iowa’s most vulnerable Democrat in Congress, Boswell may now be in a stronger position than he has been all year.

New commercials, a new poll, and more are after the jump.  

Senator Chuck Grassley and Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin both launched new television commercials today, their first in a couple of weeks.

Videos and transcripts are after the jump.