But don’t worry, King served up plenty of nonsensical right-wing talking points yesterday. You can watch the program on Iowa Public TV this weekend, but a few highlights are after the jump.
Assuming the House and the Senate pass whatever health insurance bill comes out of the conference committee, Republicans and Democrats are likely to highlight the reform during next year’s campaigns. Recent polls have shown that most Americans don’t expect action by this Congress to improve the quality of their own health care or reduce its cost. Complicating matters for Democrats, key provisions of the bill won’t take effect until 2013 or 2014, giving Republicans plenty of time to exploit fears about the so-called “government takeover” of health care.
After the jump, Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Senator Chuck Grassley preview messages we’ll hear from GOP candidates across the country, while Senator Tom Harkin summarizes some “immediate benefits” of the health insurance reform.
Senator Tom Harkin’s commitment to end the abuse of the filibuster hasn’t waned just because Democrats managed to find 60 votes to pass health insurance reform. Harkin discussed the current dysfunction in the Senate with Ezra Klein:
In the past, we’ve always had one or two or three senators who would try to block something. The most famous was Jesse Helms. He could tie people up in a conniption. But the thing is, when he went too far, his leader, Bob Dole, wouldn’t put up with it. Neither would Trent Lott. And later on, even Bill Frist. You allow him to do so much, and after awhile, you say, that’s enough.
Now we have more of the Jesse Helms. The Vitters and DeMint and Coburn, and maybe throw in Inhofe and a couple other newcomers, and they now run the minority. You don’t have a minority leader putting them in check, saying we have to work together. Dole would never put up with what’s going on over there. Neither would Trent Lott. We’ve had 101 objections from Republicans to proceeding. […]
You’re supposed to filibuster something that is a deep seated issue. But in September, we had an extension on unemployment insurance. We had a filibuster that lasted over three weeks. They held up everything. And in the end, the vote was 97 to one. Filibusters are no longer used to debate something, but to stop everything. […]
The idea is to give some time for extended debate but eventually allow a majority to work its will. I do believe there’s some reason to have extended debate. If a group of senators filibusters a bill, you want to take their worries seriously. Make sure you’re not missing something. My proposal will do that. It says that on the first vote, you need 60. Then you have to wait two days, and on the third day, you need 57 votes. And then you need to wait two days, and on the third day, it’s 54 votes. And then you’d wait another two days, and on the third day, it would be 51 votes.
Harkin told Klein he will start looking for co-sponsors for this measure next month. Freshman Senator Jeff Merkley presumably will be an ally, as he has advocated reform of Senate procedures. Unfortuantely, Harkin is likely to run up against stiff resistance, and not only from Republicans. The de facto supermajority requirement for conducting Senate business empowers corporate hacks like Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh, who caucus with Democrats but don’t support most of the progressive agenda.
On December 23 the U.S. Census Bureau released its last state population estimates before the 2010 census. Swing State Project highlighted this report by Election Data Services containing six different projections for how Congressional reapportionment will play out after the 2010 census is complete. DavidNYC posted charts showing expected gains and losses for various states in all six Election Data Services scenarios as well as in one projection by Polidata.
The projections reveal how hard the current recession has hit many sun belt states that boomed during the earlier part of this decade. California is no longer projected to gain any Congressional districts, for the first time since 1850, according to Charles Lemos, and the state might even end up losing a district. North Carolina won’t add a district, and Arizona and Florida will likely gain only one rather than two districts, as seemed probable a couple of years ago. Meanwhile, New York will lose only one district rather than two.
Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 wrote a great piece in March reviewing the work of the 2001 redistricting commission and analyzing three possible maps of Iowa carved into four districts.
Guest poster possumtracker1991 took us to an alternate reality in which Iowa has politicized redistricting here. It’s an absurdly gerrymandered map showing how four Democratic-leaning districts could be created in Iowa if we didn’t have a non-partisan commission leading the process.
Senators approved the health care reform bill 60-39 as Vice President Joe Biden presided over the Senate’s first Christmas Eve session in at least four and a half decades. It was the expected party-line vote, with Republican Jim Bunning absent.
Speaking of health care maneuvering, Joe Lieberman’s brand has taken a hit this month. It’s no mystery why. As Nate Silver observed here and here, being at the center of the health care reform debate tends to bring senators’ approval ratings down.
Recent polls have shown Chuck Grassley still above 50 percent approval, but with far less support than he has enjoyed for most of his career. He has already been running some positive television ads, but I don’t think he’ll be able to get his numbers back up to the 70 percent range by next year’s election. Nevertheless, Grassley’s Democratic challenger will need to make a broad-based case against him, because his double-dealing on health care reform won’t be the focus of news coverage next fall.
At this historic moment, it is so important to the future of working Americans-and to our country-to get health care reform right. Despite doing some good things, the Senate bill remains inadequate. Substantial changes must be made in the final bill. […]
It makes no sense to tax the benefits of hard-working Americans to pay for health reform. The House bill curbs insurance companies and taxes the wealthy who benefited so richly from the Bush tax cuts. The Senate bill instead includes exorbitant new taxes on middle class health benefits that would affect one in five workers with employer-provided health coverage-or about 31 million people-in 2016. That’s the wrong way to pay for health care reform and it’s political suicide.
The House bill is the right model for reform. It covers more people, takes effect more quickly and is financed more fairly. The AFL-CIO is ready to fight on behalf of all working families to produce a final bill that can be called genuine reform. Working people cannot accept anything less.
SECOND UPDATE: This chart at the Washington Post site shows how each senator voted, how much he or she has received in campaign contributions from the health industry, and what percent of that state’s residents lack health insurance.
“Leonard Boswell spent 2009 helping liberal Speaker Nancy Pelosi push a massive government takeover of health care, a cap-and-trade energy bill that will increase costs for Iowa workers, and a massive $787 billion pork-laden spending bill that he called a stimulus but that has not helped the Iowa economy. Tell him your New Year’s resolution is to watch his votes in 2010 to make sure he is voting for Iowa families, not the liberal agenda of the Democrat party leaders in Washington.”
For years, Republicans have trotted out versions of this script against Boswell: blah blah blah Nancy Pelosi blah blah blah liberal agenda blah blah blah Democrat Party. It hasn’t resonated before, so why would it work now?
Specifically, I don’t think they will get far running against the stimulus package. Even in a weak economy, Boswell will be able to point to dozens of programs from the stimulus bill that benefited Iowa families. He has brought money to the district through several other bills passed this year as well. The Republican alternative, passing no stimulus and freezing federal spending, would have made the recession far worse.
The health care bill doesn’t even contain a weak public insurance option, let alone a “government takeover.” I don’t dispute that there will be plenty for the Republicans to attack in that bill, but Boswell will be able to point to items that benefit Iowans, such as new Medicare reimbursement rates to benefit low-volume hospitals (including Grinnell Regional Medical Center and Skiff Medical Center in Newton).
Boswell fought for concessions in the climate change bill that weakened the bill from my perspective but will be touted by his campaign as protecting sectors of the Iowa economy. Anyway, many people’s utility bills are lower this winter because the recession has brought down natural gas prices.
It’s fine with me if the NRCC wants to drain its coffers by funding robocalls like this around the country. I doubt they will scare Boswell into retirement or succeed in branding him as a Washington liberal.
Last night the U.S. Senate voted 60 to 40 to move forward with debate on the health insurance reform bill. All senators who caucus with Democrats voted for cloture, and all Republicans voted against. The breakthrough came on Saturday, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secured Senator Ben Nelson’s support with extra money for Medicaid in Nebraska and new language on abortion.
Reid reportedly promised Nelson a “limited conference” on this bill, meaning that very few changes will be made to the Senate version. However, it’s far from clear that the House of Representatives will approve the Senate’s compromise. About two dozen House Democrats plan to vote against health care reform no matter what, meaning that it will only take 15-20 more no votes to prevent supporters from reaching 218 in the House.
Even before Reid struck the final deal with Nelson, Representative Bruce Braley told the Des Moines Register, “I think the real test is going to be at the conference committee and if it doesn’t improve significantly, I think health care reform is very remote based on what I’m hearing in the House.”
The federal government is paying for the entire Medicaid expansion through 2017 for every state.
“In 2017, as you know, when we have to start phasing back from 100 percent, and going down to 98 percent, they are going to say, ‘Wait, there is one state that stays at 100?’ And every governor in the country is going to say, ‘Why doesn’t our state stay there?’” Harkin said. “When you look at it, I thought well, god, good, it is going to be the impetus for all the states to stay at 100 percent. So he might have done all of us a favor.”
Ezra Klein has posted some amazing spin this morning about how the Senate bill is “not very close to the health-care bill most liberals want. But it is very close to the health-care bill that Barack Obama promised.” Sorry, no. Obama campaigned on a health care plan that would control costs and include a public insurance option, drug re-importation, and letting Medicare negotiate for lower drug prices. Obama campaigned against an individual mandate to purchase insurance and an excise tax on insurance benefits.
Those of you still making excuses for Obama should listen to what Senator Russ Feingold said yesterday:
“I’ve been fighting all year for a strong public option to compete with the insurance industry and bring health care spending down,” Feingold said Sunday in a statement. “Unfortunately, the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle.”
Republican Senator Olympia Snowe was about as unprincipled and two-faced during this process as White House officials were. She voted for the Senate Finance Committee’s bill in October and had suggested her main objection to Reid’s compromise was the inclusion of a public health insurance option. Yet Snowe remained opposed to the bill even after the public option was removed last week. Because of her stance, Reid cut the deal with Nelson. The supposedly pro-choice Snowe could have prevented the restrictions on abortion coverage from getting into the bill if she had signed on instead.
Speaking of Republicans, the Iowa Republican posted this rant by TEApublican: “Nebraska And Huckabee Respond To Ben ‘Benedict’ Nelson’s Christmas Senate Sellout.” If you click over, be prepared to encounter mixed metaphors and misunderstandings about what this “reform” does. Still, the rant is a good reminder of how Republicans will still scream about government takeovers even though corporate interests got everything they wanted out of the bill.
Josh Kraushaar reported for the Politico on Friday that the “National Republican Congressional Committee is getting clobbered by their Democratic counterparts on the fundraising front”:
The DCCC raised $3.65 million for the month, and ended November with $15.35 million cash-on-hand. It still holds $2.66 million in debt from last election cycle.
The NRCC only raised $2.34 million in November, and spent $2.16 million, hardly adding to their overall cash total. The committee now has $4.35 million in its account, while still owing $2 million in debt.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Democrats lose 20 to 30 House seats nationally next year. That said, if the NRCC can’t build up a decent war chest now, with unemployment high and support for health care reform sinking, they may not be able to convert favorable conditions into a huge wave. NRCC officials have talked about targeting dozens of seats, but they’re a long way from having the money to fund that many challengers.
The five Republicans competing in a primary to face seven-term incumbent Leonard Boswell should assume that they won’t get much help from the NRCC during the general election campaign. Iowa’s third Congressional district is not among the most vulnerable Democratic-held House seats. That’s not to say Boswell couldn’t lose, especially if Iowa’s employment market remains weak throughout next year. But I agree with David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, who told the Des Moines Register, “I think it’s fair to say if Democrats are losing any of their seats in Iowa next year, they’ll be suffering large losses across the country.”
If Boswell looks like he is in trouble next year, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will certainly spend money on his behalf. Boswell is in the DCCC’s Frontline program.
Speaking of the GOP primary in IA-03, I got a kick out of Dave Funk criticizing Boswell for securing $750,000 in federal funds for the renovation of the former Des Moines Public Library building (which is now owned by the World Food Prize Foundation). Somehow I doubt third district voters will be outraged that Boswell obtained some federal help for this $30 million project in downtown Des Moines.
The House of Representatives approved the Jobs for Main Street Act yesterday by a vote of 217 to 212. No Republicans supported the bill; the nay votes included 38 Democrats and 174 Republicans (roll call here). Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell all voted for the bill, while Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voted with the rest of their caucus. (This year has been a refreshing change from 2005-2007, when Boswell was often among 30-some House Democrats voting with Republicans on the issue of the day.)
I’m likely to ignore future e-mails from MoveOn.org Political Action after reading the last two appeals they’ve sent me. They are raising money off the health care reform battle while absolving President Obama from blame for the pitiful state of the Senate bill.
Excerpts from the MoveOn.Org appeals and some commentary are after the jump.
A lot of major Republican donors co-hosted a fundraiser last night for Jim Gibbons’ Congressional campaign in Iowa’s third district. The big names included Bruce Rastetter, Gary Kirke, Denny Elwell and John Ruan, as well as Greg Ganske, who represented Iowa’s fourth Congressional district (including Polk County) from 1995 to 2003.
If any Bleeding Heartland readers know which major GOP donors are on board with Brad Zaun in this primary, please post a comment or shoot me an e-mail: desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com. I wonder how long it will be before Zaun and Gibbons start attacking each other as well as incumbent Leonard Boswell.
Rival Republican candidate Dave Funk’s been passed over by the GOP bigwigs. I’m curious to see how much he can raise from smaller donors who buy into his ill-informed comments on energy policy and other matters. Will the “Tea Party” crowd get involved on his behalf?
Democratic strategists who are counting on a bounce from passing fake health care “reform” won’t be comforted by the latest poll numbers. Highlights are after the jump.
The story of the year was a weak economy that could have been much, much weaker. Thank the man who runs the Federal Reserve, our mild-mannered economic overlord
I wish I were joking, but here’s more from Time:
The overriding story of 2009 was the economy – the lousiness of it, and the fact that it wasn’t far lousier. It was a year of escalating layoffs, bankruptcies and foreclosures, the “new frugality” and the “new normal.” It was also a year of green shoots, a rebounding Dow and a fragile sense that the worst is over. Even the big political stories of 2009 – the struggles of the Democrats; the tea-party takeover of the Republicans; the stimulus; the deficit; GM and Chrysler; the backlash over bailouts and bonuses; the furious debates over health care, energy and financial regulation; the constant drumbeat of jobs, jobs, jobs – were, at heart, stories about the economy. And it’s Bernanke’s economy.
In 2009, Bernanke hurled unprecedented amounts of money into the banking system in unprecedented ways, while starting to lay the groundwork for the Fed’s eventual return to normality. He helped oversee the financial stress tests that finally calmed the markets, while launching a groundbreaking public relations campaign to demystify the Fed. Now that Obama has decided to keep him in his job, he has become a lightning rod in an intense national debate over the Fed as it approaches its second century.
But the main reason Ben Shalom Bernanke is TIME’s Person of the Year for 2009 is that he is the most important player guiding the world’s most important economy. His creative leadership helped ensure that 2009 was a period of weak recovery rather than catastrophic depression, and he still wields unrivaled power over our money, our jobs, our savings and our national future. The decisions he has made, and those he has yet to make, will shape the path of our prosperity, the direction of our politics and our relationship to the world.
Bill Maske announced yesterday that he will resign as the superintendent of the I-35 school district in Truro to seek the Democratic nomination in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. He is the first delared opponent for eight-term incumbent Tom Latham.
Maske’s website is here, and his campaign blog is here.
After the jump I’ve posted event details for Maske’s announcement tour this week, with stops in Waukee, Fort Dodge, Estherville, Algona, Mason City, Decorah, Waukon, Postville, Charles City, Ames, Indianola, Winterset and Marshalltown.
Nate Silver thinks that thinks any Democrat who opposes it is “batflippin’ crazy.” He posts a chart showing how a family of four earning $54,000 a year would get much more in subsidies if the bill goes through than if no bill passes.
I discuss a few problems with the bill and Silver’s analysis after the jump.
There is no point in pretending that President Obama wanted any comprehensive bill to pass. There was zero pressure on Lieberman to cave, no talk of using the budget reconciliation process–only pressure on Reid to give Lieberman everything.
Emanuel didn’t just leave it to Reid to find a solution. Emanuel specifically suggested Reid give Lieberman the concessions he seeks on issues like the Medicare buy-in and triggers.
“It was all about ‘do what you’ve got to do to get it done. Drop whatever you’ve got to drop to get it done,” the aide said. All of Emanuel’s prescriptions, the source said, were aimed at appeasing Lieberman–not twisting his arm.
Organizing for America will get a rude awakening when they try to round up canvassers and phone bankers. All the volunteers and donors and voters who brought Obama where he is turned out to be less important than one senator from Connecticut who campaigned for John McCain.
Three conservative Republicans have already announced plans to run against Representative Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third Congressional district, and today retired architect Mark Rees of West Des Moines threw his hat in the ring too. William Petroski reports for the Des Moines Register:
Rees said he isn’t criticizing Democratic President Barack Obama or individual members of Congress.
“It’s not that I support what is and has been happening in Washington because I don’t any more than my fellow candidates,” Rees said in prepared remarks. “But it serves no legitimate purpose to craft politically motivated, emotionally driven statements laced with selected statistics promoting and promising unrealistic, unachievable results.” […]
Rees said he supports a federal balanced budget amendment, expanded job creation tax credits, capital investment tax credits for new equipment and facilities expansion and developing market import loan programs. He favors stronger border security, but wants to provide immigrants with a path to citizenship.
In addition, Rees said he wants to protect marriage between a man and a woman, but also believes in civil unions. He also favors cost-effective efforts to cap carbon emissions, but he does not support programs to allow pollution credits to be traded or purchased by any entity other than the government.
He said he supports expanding alternative energy programs through investment tax credit programs and a progressive tax structure that includes a vanishing long-term capital gains tax, a tiered short-term capital gains tax, a specialized market trading surtax, and a targeted short-sales capital gains tax.
I have no idea whether Rees can self-fund or raise enough money to run a credible campaign during the primary. Dave Funk, Jim Gibbons and Brad Zaun will be competing to see who’s the most conservative, so it’s conceivable that a moderate could sneak through next June with a strong showing in the Des Moines suburbs.
If any of the other candidates drop out before then, though, I would put extremely long odds on GOP primary voters selecting someone who believes in civil unions for same-sex couples or a path to citizenship for immigrants who came to this country illegally.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that while West Des Moines is the largest suburb of Des Moines and one of the larger cities in IA-03, many of the newest and wealthiest neighborhoods in West Des Moines lie in Dallas County, which is part of IA-04.
TUESDAY UPDATE: According to The Iowa Republican blog, Pat Bertroche is campaigning for this seat but has not filed paperwork with the FEC yet. So that would make five candidates if Bertroche goes forward.
On Friday the House of Representatives approved The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by 232 to 202. All three Iowa Democrats (Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell) voted for the bill. Tom Latham and Steve King joined their Republican colleagues, who unanimously voted no. A press release from Braley’s office summarized key provisions:
– Creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) to protect Americans from unfair financial products and services.
– Creation of an oversight council to identify and regulate large financial firms whose collapse would place the entire financial system at risk.
– Establishes a process for dismantling institutions like AIG or Lehman Brothers that protects taxpayers and ends bailouts.
– Enables regulators to prohibit excessive executive compensations.
The “unfair” financial products to be regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Agency include mortgages, credit cards and “payday” lenders. I would particularly like to see a crackdown on payday lending. Those high-interest loans have been shown to trap low-income borrowers in a cycle of debt.
The bill also includes some regulation of the derivatives market for the first time, but it sounds as if those provisions didn’t go far enough:
Consumer advocates cheered the survival of the consumer protection agency but said the overall legislation fell short, especially in the regulation of complex investment instruments known as derivatives.
The legislation aims to prevent manipulation and bring transparency to the $600 trillion global derivatives market. But an amendment by New York Democrat Scott Murphy, adopted 304-124 Thursday night, created an exception for nonfinancial companies that use derivatives as a hedge against market fluctuations rather than as a speculative investment. The amendment exempted businesses considered too small to be a risk to the financial system.
A Democratic effort to make more companies subject to derivatives regulations and to end abusive-trading rules failed.
When the Obama administration first proposed a package of regulations, it called for regulations of derivatives without any exceptions. But a potent lobbying coalition that included Boeing Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., Coca-Cola and other big companies persuaded lawmakers to dilute the restrictions.
“It’s a weakness in the bill and a win for Wall Street,” said Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America. “Hedge funds and others that are not bona fide hedgers of commercial risk will slip through this language.”
Representative Boswell worked on the derivatives regulations, and a statement from his office on December 11 expressed pride in “the work that the Agriculture Committee did to bring greater oversight and transparency to the over-the-counter derivatives market while balancing the interests of Iowa’s farmers and business owners who utilize these markets to hedge operations costs and lock-in commodity prices for responsible business planning.”
After the jump I’ve posted part of this statement, which includes written remarks Boswell submitted regarding the derivatives regulations.
The Constitution does not contain a supermajority requirement for ordinary legislation to pass the Senate, but the filibuster has evolved into a means to kill any bill unless 60 senators support it.
The current use of the filibuster is not “traditional.” This memo from December 1964 shows that no one imagined Medicare would need more than a simple majority in the Senate. There was no expectation that Lyndon Johnson’s reform efforts would fail if Medicare couldn’t command a filibuster-proof majority.
Senator Tom Harkin tried to change Senate rules on the filibuster in 1995, and the Burlington Hawk Eye reports that he may try again, “Given what he sees as the abuse of power by a couple members of his own party whom he said are threatening to join the minority party if their every demand is not met.”
A federal judge today issued an injunction preventing the implementation of a congressional ban on funding for ACORN.
Judge Nina Gershon concluded that the ban amounted to a “bill of attainder” that unfairly singled out ACORN.
“[The plaintiffs] have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process of adjudicating guilt,” Gershon wrote in her decision.
Gershon said ACORN had demonstrated “irreperable harm” from the ban, while “the potential harm to the government, in granting the injunction, is less.
Credit should go to the 75 House Democrats who had the courage to vote against this unconstitutional bill. Sadly, Iowa’s Democratic representatives Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell joined the stampede to cut off ACORN.
This week, an independent review of ACORN (pdf here), run by by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, found serious but correctable problems with the organization that were organizational, not criminal in nature, and that reflected an overall lack of coordinated national management and unified purpose–the exact opposite of the centralized, highly disciplined super-secret organization that conservatives have long fantasized about.
While the report pulls no punches in citing nine significant reports that need to be made, it says that “The following nine (9) recommendations, discussed in detail in Section VII, are neither an epitaph nor an absolution for ACORN, but are a roadmap to reform and renewal, if implemented in their entirety in concert with other measures to regain the public’s trust.”
Regarding the videos used to attack ACORN, the report finds that “The released videos offer no evidence of a pattern of illegal conduct by ACORN employees,” that “The ACORN employees captured on video were members or part-time staff. They were not organizers or supervisory level employees,” and that “There is no evidence that any action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by ACORN employees on behalf of the videographers.”
Jim Gibbons’ Congressional campaign hasn’t impressed me so far, but I’m even less impressed by supporters of Republican rivals who are trying to discredit Gibbons as a “carpet-bagger.” It’s supposed to be a big scandal that Gibbons recently moved from Boone County (part of IA-04 and a 20-minute drive from the Des Moines suburbs) to Polk County. This attack is an insult to the collective intelligence of third district voters.
Former Iowa State University wrestling coach Jim Gibbons moved into an apartment in Des Moines from a home in [a] rural area near Perry, said Nick Ryan, who responded on behalf of the campaign.
If Ryan is taking press calls for the Gibbons campaign, it’s a safe bet that Rastetter’s money is on Gibbons. Why the ethanol baron would prefer him to State Senator Brad Zaun is still a mystery to me. Anyone with a good hypothesis is welcome to post a comment here or send me an e-mail: desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.
UPDATE: In the comments, Bleeding Heartland user mirage points out that Cityview’s Civic Skinny and Iowa Progress have pushed the carpet-bagger angle. Point taken, though neither of them said that should be a reason for Republican primary voters to reject Gibbons. I’ve observed commenters at The Iowa Republican trying to use this argument, though.
The House of Representatives approved the Tax Extenders Act of 2009 on Wednesday by a vote of 241 to 181. As you can see from the roll call, all but ten Democrats voted for the bill, including Iowa’s Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell. All but two Republicans voted against it, including Iowa’s Tom Latham and Steve King. After the jump I’ve posted more details about the business tax credits that would be extended if this bill becomes law.
On December 3, the House passed the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families Farmers and Small Businesses Act, which caps the estate tax at 45 percent and exempts estates worth up to $3.5 million (preserving this tax at 2009 levels). Again, all of Iowa’s Democrats voted for the bill. Iowa’s Republicans voted against it. If Congress had not acted, the estate tax would have been repealed in 2010 and then would have reverted to its 2001 level in 2011 (a 55 percent tax on estates valued above $1 million).
If the 2009 estate tax rules are extended, only 100 small business and farm estates in the entire nation will owe any estate tax at all in 2011, according to the new estimates by the Tax Policy Center, and virtually none of those businesses and farms would have to be sold to pay the tax. […]
Under 2009 law, the estates of more than 997 of every 1,000 people who die will owe no estate tax whatsoever. […] In its latest analysis, the Tax Policy Center projects that only 0.25 percent of the estates of people who die in 2011 – i.e., the estates of 1 of every 400 people who die – will be subject to the estate tax if the 2009 estate tax rules are continued.
To sum up: Republicans are for saving farmers and small business owners from the so-called “death tax” that doesn’t apply to them. But when they had a chance on Wednesday to extend tax credits affecting farms and small businesses, House Republicans said no.
If this trade-off carries the day, the opt out public option is gone. […]
As has been widely reported, one of the trade-offs will be to extend a version of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to consumers in the exchanges. Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would offered on the exchanges in every state. However, according to the aide, if insurance companies don’t step up to the plate to offer such plans, that will trigger a national public option.
Beyond that, the group agreed–contingent upon CBO analysis–to a Medicare buy in.
That buy-in option would initially be made available to uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open. For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized–people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance–and so will likely be quite expensive, the aide noted. However, after the exchanges launch, the Medicare option would be offered in the exchanges, where people could pay into it with their subsidies.
It appears as if liberals lost out on a Medicaid expansion that would have opened the program up to everybody under 150 percent of the poverty line. That ceiling will likely remain at 133 percent, as is called for in the current bill.
In addition to the new insurance options, the group has tentatively agreed to new, and strengthened, insurance regulations, which the aide could not divulge at this time.
Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.
The health care bill approved by the House would require insurers to spend 85 percent of premium income on providing benefits. Upping that to 90 percent is even better; my concern is that if enforcement is left to state insurance commissioners, evasion will be widespread.
I’m off the bus, however, unless further details come to light about very good provisions buried in this compromise. This bill creates millions more customers for private insurers but doesn’t give Americans enough choices, doesn’t create a government plan to keep private insurers honest, and therefore is unlikely to reduce costs or solve the various problems of our current health care delivery system.
In the good news column, last night the Senate tabled (killed) Ben Nelson’s abortion amendment modeled on the Stupak language in the House health care bill. The vote was 54-45, with seven Democrats from conservative states voting with all but two Republicans (roll call here). Harkin voted to table this amendment, like most Democrats, while Chuck Grassley was on the other side.
A proposal to enable the importation of cheaper prescription drugs could endanger the U.S. medicine supply and would be difficult to implement, the Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday. […]
But the Obama administration’s declaration on the eve of the vote could derail the amendment despite the fact that Obama co-sponsored Dorgan’s drug imports bill while a member of the Senate and that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was a vocal proponent of the House version of the bill when he served as a member of the lower chamber.
Feel the hope and change!
SECOND UDPATE: The compromise still may not be enough for Joe Lieberman. They shouldn’t have given up on using the budget reconciliation process to pass a better bill with 51 votes.
An informal list of 17 members the NRCC believes can be convinced to step down, privately called the “Dem Retirement Assault List,” makes clear the party needs Dem incumbents to step aside if they have hopes of taking back the majority. The NRCC has taken pains to attack those lawmakers in recent weeks.
The list includes 14 members whose districts voted for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in ’08. […]
The NRCC has also begun targeting Reps. Sanford Bishop (D-GA), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Leonard Boswell (D-IA), three members who already have credible opponents but who occupy seats Pres. Obama won in ’08.
2008 would have been a perfect time for Boswell to retire. Tons of voters in Iowa’s third Congressional district registered as Democrats in order to participate in the Iowa caucuses, and any number of candidates could have held this seat easily. Statewide, turnout in November 2008 was about the same as in 2004, but turnout in Polk County was significantly higher in 2008.
I don’t know anyone who expects Boswell to step down next year, but if he did, this might be a tough hold, since Democratic turnout tends to be lower in off-year elections. On the other hand, much would depend on the Democratic nominee. One possible candidate is former First Lady Christie Vilsack, who seemed to leave the door open for a future campaign when she ruled out running against Senator Chuck Grassley. Someone with high name recognition and no voting record to attack might even do better than Boswell against Brad Zaun or Jim Gibbons.
Many Iowans will be leaving work or school early today, or perhaps not going in at all, as the season’s first big winter blast rolls in. Here’s plenty of reading to keep you busy if you are stuck at home.
Global news first: The United National Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen opened yesterday. To follow news from the proceedings, I’m reading the team of Mother Jones bloggers in Copenhagen. The Open Left blog will also post regular updates from Natasha Chart and Friends of the Earth staff who are on the ground. If you prefer a mainstream media perspective, check out The Climate Pool on Facebook, which is a collaboration among major news organizations.
The state could base its spending on a multi-year average, such as the previous three years, or five years or seven years, said Jon Muller, president of Muller Consulting Inc., a public policy and business development consulting firm based in Des Moines.
“The way it’s always worked, when times are really good, we increase spending and we cut taxes,” Muller said. “And when times are bad, there’s pressure to increase taxes and decrease spending. And that all happens when the demand for government is at its highest,” Muller said.
The multi-year idea would flip, he said.
“In good times you would be squirreling money at way a little at a time. And in bad times, you could continue to increase spending to service the growing demands of a recession.”
It would require state lawmakers to not touch the reserves, even in times of plenty. But it would also reduce the need to tap into reserves just to get by during rainy days, the advisers said.
Regarding budget cuts, the Newton Independent reports here on a “plan to reorganize the Iowa Department of Human Services operations under two deputy directors, six rather than nine divisions, five rather than eight service areas, more part-time offices and the elimination of 78 currently vacant positions” (hat tip to Iowa Independent). Click this link for more details about the proposed restructuring.
On the political front, John Deeth analyzes possible changes the Democratic National Committee is considering for the presidential nomination process. Jerome Armstrong had a good idea the DNC won’t implement: ban caucuses everywhere but Iowa. No other state derives the party-building benefits of caucuses, but just about every state that uses caucuses for presidential selection has lower voter participation than would occur in a primary.
I haven’t written much on health care reform lately, because recent developments are so depressing. Our best hope was using the budget reconciliation process to pass a strong bill in the Senate with 51 votes (or 50 plus Joe Biden). Now that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has taken reconciliation off the table, we’re left with a variety of bad compromises to get to 60 votes in the Senate. I am not convinced the final product will be any improvement over the status quo. It will certainly be worse for millions of Americans required to buy overpriced private health insurance. If there’s a quicker way to neutralize the Democrats’ advantage with young voters, I don’t know what it is.
Speaking of things that are depressing, John Lennon was shot dead 29 years ago today. Daily Kos user noweasels remembers him and that night. Although Paul’s always been my favorite Beatle, I love a lot of John’s work too. Here’s one of his all-time best:
Share any relevant thoughts or your own favorite Lennon songs in the comments.
Members of the House Populist Caucus, chaired by Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01), held a press conference on Thursday to endorse a bill that would “assess a small fee on Wall Street day traders to pay down the national deficit and invest in America’s middle class families.”
State Senator Brad Zaun formally announced today that he is running against Representative Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third Congressional distirct. Charlotte Eby was there:
Zaun, 47, highlighted his experience as a legislator, small business owner and former mayor in his announcement speech.
Zaun cited a growing national deficit as one of his reasons for running and called what is going on in Washington dysfunctional.
“We need to fix this because what’s going to happen is these young people here and all of us in this room are going to be paying for this irresponsibility that’s going on in Washington, D.C.,” Zaun said. “I truly believe that I can make a difference.” […]
Zaun said incumbents are vulnerable next year, something he said is evident the “tea party” movement and town hall meetings this summer.
“I think people are just saying they’ve had enough with the insiders and what’s going on,” Zaun said.
Speaking of insiders, Iowa Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley praised Zaun at today’s event. I’ll be interested to see who in the GOP establishment sides with Jim Gibbons in the primary to run against Boswell.
Judging from various comment threads at The Iowa Republican, supporters of Gibbons feel Zaun is too “moderate.” There have been a couple of references to “pro-gay” votes by Zaun, but I have no idea what they are talking about. Zaun voted against the 2007 bill that amended the Iowa Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination because of sexual orientation (click here for the bill history). Zaun is also on record opposing same-sex marriage rights.
Boswell was not among the congressional Democrats targeted, nationally, by the G-O-P in 2008, but Zaun says he’s been assured the National Republican Congressional Committee will invest money to defeat Boswell in 2010.
“They’ve told me that this is going to be a priority and this seat is going to be one of the top targeted seats,” Zaun says.
Developing a line of attack he has used before, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats asserted yesterday that Terry Branstad’s past support for Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska makes Branstad partly responsible for any health care reform bill Congress passes this year.
“Ben Nelson gave Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid the vote he needed to get the 60 votes to steamroll Republican opposition. It means the Democrats will be able to proceed with legislation that will effectively destroy our private health care system while saddling businesses and working families with hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes and limiting our access to care,” said Vander Plaats, who is seeking the 2010 Iowa Republican gubernatorial nomination. “Whatever happens from here on out, Terry Branstad is going to have to accept some responsibility because he was a very active supporter of Ben Nelson in his first campaign for the Senate.”
A few thoughts on this line of attack are after the jump.
UPDATE: CQ Politics reports that Maske “has filed candidacy paperwork with the Federal Election Commission.”
At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner on Saturday I was pleased to meet Bill Maske of Truro (Madison County), who is running against Representative Tom Latham in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. I don’t know whether there will be a contested Democratic primary; I didn’t see stickers or campaign literature for any other Democrat looking at this race. After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from the material Maske’s volunteers were handing out. He plans to make a formal campaign announcement soon.
Latham is generally considered a safe incumbent after beating Becky Greenwald last year by 20 points in a district Barack Obama won. Still, it will be important to have a Democrat out there highlighting Latham’s bad votes. In 2012, Latham will either be thrown into the same district as Steve King or, more likely, will have to run in a new third district containing Polk County. We can’t afford to leave him unchallenged next year.
Speaking of King, it looks like there will be a contested Democratic primary in the fifth Congressional district. Attorney Matt Campbell has put up a campaign website for this race. He joins Mike Denklau, who has already started campaigning.
I’m heading to the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. I won’t be blogging there, but I will update this post with some highlights when I get home.
Senator Tom Harkin has taped a video greeting for the event, because he’s in Washington as the Senate begins to debate the health care reform bill. Democrats have all 60 votes they need to bring the bill to the floor, but several members of the caucus have not ruled out backing a Republican filibuster before the final vote. I won’t be supporting the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee this cycle, because I don’t want a penny going to a dishonest tool like Blanche Lincoln. She’s probably going to lose anyway.
In addition to any comments about health care reform or the JJ Dinner, please consider this an open thread for anything that’s on your mind this weekend.
For comic relief: in the middle of this afternoon’s Senate proceedings, Chuck Grassley tweeted,
Can somebody tell me why Wall st Journal no longer list Des Moines in its weather cities list. Iowa still exists
UPDATE: I hadn’t been to the JJ dinner in a few years and had a great time. Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal were making fun of each other when the bucket was passed around for extra donations.
McCarthy: What’s the difference between God and a state senator? God doesn’t think he’s a state senator.
Gronstal: What’s the difference between House representatives and boy scouts? Boy scouts have adult supervision.
Speakers: Bruce Braley, Leonard Boswell, Patty Judge, Chet Culver, and Tom Harkin’s recorded video before Biden. (Dave Loebsack is out of the country.)
Huge ovation shortly after 8 pm when IDP chair Michael Kiernan came on stage to announce that the U.S. Senate defeated a filibuster of the motion to bring the health care reform bill to the floor, 60-39. Harkin promised in his video that they will get a health care reform bill bassed before the end of the year, and it will contain a public health insurance option.
Biden gave a great speech, with plenty of jokes, Irish poetry, quiet moments and a few lines that got the crowd on their feet. He apologized for being a little late; he had been on the phone with some unnamed senators whose votes he had helped sway on health care reform.
I had to leave right after Biden’s speech, so I missed the after-party, where U.S. Senate candidates Bob Krause, Roxanne Conlin and Tom Fiegen were set to speak. If you were there, post a comment or a diary to let us know how those speeches were.
SECOND UPDATE: After the jump I’ve posted Kiernan’s remarks and excerpts from Culver’s speech.
Next spring, Iowa’s third Congressional district will see its first competitive Republican primary in some time. State Senator Brad Zaun of Urbandale told CQ Politics today that he plans to run against seven-term incumbent Representative Leonard Boswell. Zaun said he will formally announce his candidacy sometime after December 1.
Earlier today, The Iowa Republican blog reported that former Iowa State wrestling coach Jim Gibbons is quitting his job at Wells Fargo to run for Congress against Boswell. One of the previously announced candidates, Dave Funk of Runnells, indicated in this comment thread that he will stay in the race. Until this week, Funk and Pat Bertroche of Clive were the only confirmed Republican candidates against Boswell.
Zaun was just re-elected to the Iowa Senate in 2008, so he won’t have to give up his seat in the upper chamber if he loses the GOP primary or the general election.
CQ Politics suggested that with Gibbons and Zaun in the race, it may change its rating on this district from “safe Democratic.” I tend to agree with the statement that Gabby Adler of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent to CQ Politics:
“Each year Republicans claim they have Congressman Boswell in their sights, and each year they never live up to their own hype – there is no reason to believe this time will be any different,” Adler said.
As I’ve previously written, I do not consider Boswell an endangered incumbent this cycle. That said, the prospect of continuing job losses throughout 2010 could put many Democratic incumbents at risk.
What puzzles me is why so many Republicans are seeking this position. Even if a Republican beats Boswell, he is likely to be thrown into a 2012 primary against Tom Latham in a redrawn IA-03. Few people would choose a freshman over a nine-term incumbent with a seat on the House Appropriations Committee.
At Ames High School, he won three state titles. At Iowa State University, he was a three-time All-American and won a national championship during his junior year.
When his collegiate wrestling career was over, then-ISU coach Dr. Harold Nichols, offered Gibbons a job as an assistant coach. When Nichols retired in 1986, Gibbons was named head coach. He coached seven individual NCAA champions while compiling a 96-32-1 career coaching mark. After winning the NCAA Championships in 1987, Gibbons was named national coach of the year. He was named Big Eight Coach of the Year in 1991 and retired from coaching after the 1992 season.
Since leaving coaching, Gibbons has been a financial advisor, most recently with Wells Fargo Advisors in West Des Moines. He also serves as a television commentator, providing color commentary for ESPN, The Big Ten Network, and Iowa Public Television. In 2003, he was named broadcaster of the year by the National Wrestling Media Association.
Gibbons says he is retiring from Wells Fargo to run for Congress full-time. He opposed the federal stimulus package and Democratic bills on health care reform and climate change.
I’m guessing that this means State Senator Brad Zaun and former Iowa GOP chairman Mike Mahaffey will not seek the Republican nomination to challenge Boswell. Gibbons can probably raise a decent amount of money and may even be able to self-fund his campaign. The National Republican Congressional Committee is unlikely to invest a lot of money in this district in my opinion.
College wrestling is a popular sport in Iowa, but I still don’t see Boswell as a likely casualty next year. If unemployment keeps rising, though, who knows? Any comments about this or other House races are welcome in this thread.
UPDATE: In the comments, Bleeding Heartland user mirage, who is a Republican, believes Zaun would be a stronger candidate than Gibbons. Zaun was mayor of Urbandale, a heavily Republican suburb of Des Moines, before winning a seat in the Iowa Senate in 2004.
SECOND UPDATE: I was wrong about Zaun. He told CQ Politics today that he plans to run against Boswell and will announce his candidacy sometime after December 1.
Iowa’s second Congressional district is the most Democratic-leaning of our five districts. It has a partisan voting index of D+7, which means that in any given year, we would expect this district to vote about 7 point more Democratic than the country as a whole. In 2008, Dave Loebsack won re-election in IA-02 with about 57 percent of the vote against Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who couldn’t crack 40 percent.
Today Republican blogger Craig Robinson previews the GOP primary to take on Loebsack. His piece is a good reminder of how small the Republican tent has become in a district once represented by Jim Leach.
Few problems require federal action more urgently than global warming. I admire the members of Congress who have been trying to address this issue. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman tried to get the best deal he could. Senator John Kerry has tried to keep things moving in the upper chamber. Senator Lindsey Graham is getting tons of grief from fellow Republicans because he admits that climate change is a problem.
I want to support these people and their efforts to get a bill on the president’s desk. Unfortunately, the time has come to accept that Congress is too influenced by corporate interests to deal with climate change in any serious way. Pretending to fight global warming won’t solve the problem and may even be counter-productive.
The Des Moines Register released more results from its latest Iowa poll by Selzer and Co., and Senator Chuck Grassley’s approval rating was 57 percent, the same as in the Register’s September poll. Only 32 percent of respondents said they disapproved of Grassley’s work.
Grassley’s 57 percent approval figure remains well short of the 75 percent he began the year with. […]
Political independents and Democrats have been responsible for much of Grassley’s slide since January. He made up little ground with them this fall. […]
More than half of Republicans say he did an excellent or good job on health care, while only about a quarter of Democrats and 39 percent of independents rate his work positively.
In a head to head matchup against Roxanne Conlin, Grassley led 57 percent to 30 percent. Last month’s Research 2000 poll of Iowans found Grassley leading Conlin by a much narrower margin, 51 percent to 39 percent. I’d like to see more polling of this race, but given Selzer’s track record in Iowa, I’m going to assume that the Register poll is close to the mark.
Since the media won’t be as focused on health care reform in the autumn of 2010, Democrats will need to build a case against Grassley that goes beyond his double-dealing on that issue. Even if Democrats run a near-perfect campaign against Grassley, he is very likely to be re-elected unless he makes some unforced errors.
On the other hand, it’s worth remembering that Grassley’s never been re-elected with less than 66 percent of the vote before. Holding him below 60 percent, or better yet below 55 percent, would greatly help down-ticket Democratic candidates next November.
Republicans are trying to recruit a strong challenger against Congressman Leonard Boswell, and by the end of the year State Senator Brad Zaun, former Iowa GOP head Mike Mahaffey, or perhaps some other prominent figure will throw his hat in the ring. However, I continue to believe that Iowa’s third Congressional district will not be a close contest next year, and I’ll explain why after the jump.
