In June I discussed some of the reasons Iowa is one of only two states never to send a woman to Congress or elect a woman governor.

Thomas Beaumont just explored the same subject in this feature for the Des Moines Register. Iowa women have run for Congress 17 times in the last five decades and come up short every time.

I encourage you to click through and read the whole piece, but here are some excerpts:

Iowa State University political science professor Dianne Bystrom said one reason Iowa women have had a hard time is that challengers win roughly 5 percent of the time nationally, male or female.

“The best way to elect a woman to Congress in the state of Iowa is to run a woman in an open-seat race,” said Bystrom, director of ISU’s Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics. “Better yet, run two women against each other.”

Women have waged competitive challenges that often turned out to be ill-timed.

In 2002, Cedar Rapids Democrat Julie Thomas challenged Jim Leach in the 2nd District, after redistricting prompted the longtime Davenport Republican to move to Iowa City. Also that year, Bettendorf Democrat Ann Hutchinson challenged Republican Jim Nussle in the 1st District, which was altered after reapportionment to include the Quad Cities.

Both women were heavily recruited and received the backing of the DCCC and EMILY’s List. But Thomas lost by 8 percentage points, while Hutchinson lost by 14 points in a year all five Iowa incumbents were returned to office.[…]

One [cultural factor] is states that tend to elect women are more urban than rural. Despite the growth in Des Moines’ suburbs, Iowa remains vastly rural.

Likewise, states with younger and growing populations tend to elect women. Iowa is among the nation’s oldest states and grew by the sixth-slowest rate in the nation from 2000 to 2005.

States prone to electing women also tend to be more politically liberal and less religiously fundamentalist. Iowa is a politically balanced state, although voter registration and voting trends have favored Democrats in the past four years.

I agree that Iowa’s urban/rural demographics are relevant here. In fact, I believe Iowa has a larger proportion of small-town and rural residents than any other state (at least that was the case a decade ago when I heard a political science conference paper on rural voters).

In this diary I also mentioned a few points that did not come up in Beaumont’s article.

I think it’s very relevant that Iowa keeps losing Congressional districts following the census. That reduces the number of races without incumbents, and therefore the opportunities for a woman challenger to break through.

Also, many states have sent exactly one woman to Congress, either a widow of a long-serving man or a daughter or granddaughter in a political dynasty family. We haven’t had either of those types of woman seek political office here in Iowa.  

But no matter where you live, women who are not incumbents seem to have a harder time getting elected to Congress.

I can’t find the link now, but after the 2006 elections I read an analysis of Democratic challengers and gender. The author identified 20 “serious challengers” to Republican incumbents in the U.S. House of Representatives. A serious challenger was defined as someone whose campaign had raised at least $1 million by June 30, 2006.

Of those challengers, 13 were men and 7 were women.

In November 2006, 12 of those 13 men were elected to Congress, but 6 of the 7 women lost.

If you want to see Iowa break this barrier sooner rather than later, kick in a few bucks for Becky Greenwald. Mariannette Miller-Meeks is a good person but has virtually no chance of defeating Dave Loebsack in the strongly Democratic second district–not in what looks like a Democratic wave election in Iowa.

I didn’t get this notice in time to include the events on my weekly calendar, but Governor Chet Culver and Congressman Dave Loebsack will headline events today to discuss the potential for wind energy production in Iowa as well as how Barack Obama will support the wind industry.

Des Moines, Iowa – On Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, Governor Chet Culver will be joined by Iowa wind industry leaders on a tour across Iowa to announce new wind industry rankings for Iowa and unveil a new Obama policy initiative which will further help Iowa’s wind industry grow.   The tour will begin at TPI Composites in Newton, and head to Clipper Windpower in Cedar Rapids. From Cedar Rapids, Congressman Dave Loebsack will take the tour to Fort Madison, home of Siemens Power Generation, Inc.

Governor Culver will be joined by wind industry leaders from TPI Composites and Clipper Windpower, as well as Bob Gates, the 2007-08 President of the American Wind Energy Association.  The wind industry officials will discuss the future of the wind industry and highlight the importance of the wind industry in Iowa.

In addition, the Governor and wind industry leaders will be joined by Wind Energy and Turbine Technology students from the Iowa Lakes Community College in Estherville, Iowa.  The Wind Energy and Turbine Technology program is the first in the state of Iowa and is critical towards helping meet the growing demand for skilled technicians who can install, maintain and service modern wind turbines.

“The outcome of this election is very important to the future of Iowa’s wind industry,” said Governor Culver.  “The wind industry has created more than 2,000 green-collar jobs in Iowa over the last two years, and Barack Obama has a detailed plan to further invest in wind energy and make wind energy a federal priority.”

The details of the events are:

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8TH, 2008

11:00 AM

Roundtable discussion on Iowa’s wind industry with Governor Culver and wind industry officials at TPI Composites

TPI Composites

2300 North 33rd Ave East (North of Newton across from the biodiesel plant)

Newton, Iowa

1:30 PM

Roundtable discussion on Iowa’s wind industry with Governor Culver and wind industry officials at Clipper Windpower

Clipper Windpower

4601 Bowling St. SW

Cedar Rapids, Iowa

4:00 PM  

Roundtable discussion on Iowa’s wind industry with Congressman Loebsack and wind industry officials at the Fort Madison Library

Fort Madison Library

1920 Avenue E

Fort Madison, Iowa

If you care about renewable energy and wind power, I encourage you to get involved with the Iowa Renewable Energy Association.

I haven’t written much about the race in Iowa’s second Congressional district, not because I have anything against Dave Loebsack. I simply don’t consider this race competitive.

IA-02 has a partisan voting index of D+7, meaning that the presidential vote in the last two elections in the district was seven points more Democratic than the national average. That was before Democrats made massive gains in voter registration in Iowa. In 2004 registered Republicans slightly outnumbered Democrats in this state. Now there are about 100,000 more registered Democrats.

Furthermore, Barack Obama is going to win handily in this district and in its population centers (Johnson County and Linn County). John McCain has reportedly shut down his field office in Iowa City.

As if that weren’t enough, Loebsack’s main opponent, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, faced a tough three-way Republican primary that depleted her cash on hand. As of June 30, she had $16,458 in her campaign account, while Loebsack had nearly $470,000 on hand. (The latest round of Federal Election Commission financial reports cover the period through September 30 and are not yet publicly available.)

What has Loebsack been doing with all that campaign cash? I saw on his website that he is running this television commercial:

It’s a fairly standard positive message about what he stands for, without much detail about what he has accomplished. Bleeding Heartland readers in the second district, are you seeing this ad a lot? Have you seen other Loebsack spots on tv? Is he up on the radio? Does he have lots of yard signs out?

Note: Although Loebsack didn’t get help from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, I’d like to see him donate at least 10 percent of his cash on hand to the DCCC this fall so that they can get behind more strong challengers.

On the Miller-Meeks campaign website there are several videos on the front page. Two look like positive television spots about the Republican candidate’s background, and one sounds like a 60-second radio ad slamming Loebsack for “not getting the job done.” I’d appreciate comments or private e-mails from second district residents about how visible the Miller-Meeks campaign is in the media.

The great blog about campaigns and elections, Swing State Project, does a weekly roundup of independent expenditures in Congressional races. I noticed in the latest edition that OPHTHPAC, the Political Action Committee of the American Academcy of Ophthalmology, is spending $12,500 on behalf of Miller-Meeks. Has anyone seen or heard these ads, or any other ads by independent groups supporting Miller-Meeks?

Looking at the page on OPHTHPAC at campaignmoney.com, this PAC seems to donate to a large number of incumbents in both parties. I assume they are supporting Miller-Meeks because she is an eye doctor, but I am curious about whether they are promoting her or making a case against Loebsack (and if so what case they are making). They’ve given to dozens of Democratic incumbents this election cycle.

This is an open thread for any comments or observations about the race in IA-02.

Tickets are still available for Saturday night’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines. Call  (515) 974-1691 or go to http://www.iowademocrats.org for ticket prices and event details. Here is the speaking schedule:

7:00pm Jefferson Jackson Dinner Begins

Iowa Democratic Party Chair Scott Brennan

Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy

Iowa Senate President Jack Kibbie

Congressman Bruce Braley

Fourth Congressional District Candidate Becky Greenwald

Congressman Dave Loebsack

Fifth Congressional District Candidate Rob Hubler

Congressman Leonard Boswell

Lt. Governor Patty Judge

Governor Chet Culver

Senator Tom Harkin

The Honorable Al Gore

9:30pm Jefferson Jackson Dinner Ends (approximate)

Don’t count on things ending at 9:30 pm!

If you buy more expensive tickets, you may be able to attend one of the receptions before the dinner.

If you meet people from the governor’s office, state legislators or candidates for the state House or Senate, be sure to tell them what issues are important to you, whether that’s clean elections reform (the VOICE act), the collective bargaining bill, stronger water quality regulations, or any issue that matters to you.

No doubt many of you plan to attend the Jefferson-Jackson dinner this Saturday. Most elected Democrats from Iowa will be there, and if you happen to speak with any who are in uncompetitive races, I hope you will ask them to donate a portion of their campaign funds to be used in competitive districts.

Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell are all running in Democratic-leaning districts in a year when Democratic voter registration has surged in Iowa, and Obama leads John McCain.

Tom Harkin will certainly defeat Christopher Reed by double digits and could conceivably win by 20 points.

If you meet any member of our Congressional delegation, please ask him to donate 10 percent of his campaign fund to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

If Iowa’s representatives in Congress give more to the DCCC, there is a better chance of the DCCC getting involved on behalf of Becky Greenwald and Rob Hubler.

Outside Iowa, more and more seats are in play as well. For instance, Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate are within striking range in states like Kentucky and Georgia (see the Swing State Project blog to keep up to date with all the latest polls).

If every safe Democratic incumbent gave just 10 percent of his or her cash on hand to the DCCC or the DSCC, millions more dollars could be put to work electing Democrats in tossup or lean-Republican races.

Just 10 percent–that’s all we ask. Please pass along this message to Braley, Loebsack, Boswell and Harkin.

For more information on the Use It or Lose It campaign, read this piece by Lucas O’Connor and this piece by Sven at Silver State.

Speaking of Use It or Lose It, here’s an excerpt from an e-mail Senator John Kerry sent out on Tuesday:

We need the strongest Democratic majority possible to get the change we need in Washington. We need to make sure a handful of Republican Senators can’t block President Obama as he tries to get our country back on track.

It’s time to push even harder to completely change Washington. We need to aim to get 60 votes in the Senate to push real change in our country.

So I have an announcement: I just gave a million dollars from my campaign to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to try to make this happen. I’m making this announcement to you here in the johnkerry.com community first because I want you to join me in my commitment to get this change.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the $700 billion bailout bill failed in Congress today on a truly bipartisan vote: 140 Democrats for, 95 against; 65 Republicans for, 133 against.

In the House, Bruce Braley, Tom Latham and Steve King voted no, while Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell voted yes.

The full statement from Braley’s office is after the jump. I will update this post with full statements from Iowa’s other members of Congress as they become available. The Des Moines Register has excerpts from each representative’s statement here:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

Senator Tom Harkin spoke out against the bailout several days ago.

UPDATE: I encourage those of you who support this bailout to read these notes from a conference call Treasury had with about 800 Wall Street analysts. If you click the link you can even download a recording of the call and listen yourself. The notes at that site are plenty for me. All of the “concessions” the Democrats got were meaningless:

1. The tranching is a mere formality, and the Treasury boys as much as said so. They could take the $700 billion max as soon as the bill has passed,

2. However, they do not plan any action immediately, will wait a couple of weeks. They want to focus their efforts on stronger companies but also made noise about protecting the financial system. This, by the way, is the Japanese convoy system all over.

[…]

5. The exec comp provisions sound like a joke, They DO NOT affect existing contracts, they affect only contracts entered into during the two years of the authority of this program and then affect only golden parachutes. More detail on that point, but I don’t need more detail to get the drift of the gist.

Regarding that second point about Treasury planning to wait a couple of weeks before doing anything, I totally agree with this analysis:

Waiting a couple of weeks because no one has any idea when or where the next bomb will blow up. In other words, all their doomsday scenarios about Black Monday were B.S. They screamed the check had to be written by Monday, but now they’re saying they actually have a few weeks before they need to cash it. Plus, this will allow them to “seek guidance” from GS, JPM, and other selfless public servants about where the money should be funneled.

Remember, a Treasury official admitted to Forbes last week that they made up the $700 billion number. There was no analysis supporting that number.

I think Jerome Armstrong is right on target:

It’s almost as if, the administration thought this election through already, and decided that if they could bust the budget wide enough, then Democrats, incoming with 60 votes in the Senate, 250 in the House, and a President, would be able to do nothing but cut costs.  Try to spend anything in ’09, and the Republicans would be re-born as fiscal deficit hawks running against the spendster libruls.

I don’t pretend to know the solution here, other than taking the fiscal downer now, which is admittedly trite. I also have to wonder about the tact to ‘own’ this thing as well, making it a Democratic bill that takes on Bush, which has its own set of problems. Its become so poisoned that to let the Republicans off the hook would seem to be handing them a gift. At the end of the day, I am doubtful that this “no” sticks, and won’t be at all surprised to see a dozen votes flip to pass this behemoth budget buster pass as is. We win it all, and are able to do nothing but raise taxes and cut spending.

Folks, this is a trap that will enrich a bunch of people while doing little to help the overall economy.

Final point: I totally disagree with Nate Silver, who said this about retiring members of Congress who voted for the bailout:

The congressmen who are retiring this year — and who therefore can perhaps be described as the most neutral arbiters of the public good — voted overwhelmingly for this measure.

Neutral arbiters of the public good?

A lot of retired members of Congress go work at lobbying firms, “consult” with investment banks or get paid to serve on corporate boards. I reject the premise that their support for the bailout means it was a good idea.

On September 16, the House of Representatives approved the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. The vote split 236 to 189, mostly along partisan lines. Iowa Representatives Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell all voted with the Democratic majority in favor of the bill. Tom Latham and Steve King voted with most Republicans against the bill.

You can read the bill summary here.

In essence, this legislation was designed to give Democrats cover on the offshore oil drilling issue. The Democratic majority caved by allowing for more drilling between 50 and 100 miles of the shore. This will do nothing to reduce our reliance on foreign oil or lower the cost of gas, but it will give Democratic incumbents a response as Republican candidates hammer them on how we need to “drill here, drill now.”

To give Democrats cover for caving on offshore drilling, the bill also contains lots of good things, like renewed tax credits for wind and solar power, more investment in public transportation, better energy-efficiency standards, a federal renewable electricity standard (which would require 15 percent of electricity generated in the U.S. to come from renewable sources by 2020). In addition, it would end tax subsidies for large oil and gas companies and ban the export of Alaskan oil.

The Oil Drum blog noted,

It is not too surprising that the oil and gas industry is not in favor of the legislation. The legislation provides for a whole host of benefits, and a big piece of the cost would be paid for by new taxes on oil and gas companies. The off-shore drilling provision could best be described as window dressing.

Unfortunately, these benefits will not happen, because Republicans don’t need to pass a compromise energy bill in order to clear the way for more offshore drilling.

They can just wait for the current ban on offshore drilling to expire on September 30. In past years, Democrats in Congress have fought to extend the ban on offshore drilling, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew she did not have the votes to accomplish that this year. So, the bill will die in the Senate:

The bill faces a very uncertain future. The Senate is set to take up three separate energy bills, which differ sharply from the House measure. The White House issued a veto threat Tuesday, saying the House bill “purports to open access to American energy sources while in reality taking actions to stifle development.”

Senate Republicans may choose to block action on any energy bill and allow the moratorium to expire on Sept. 30. If the drilling ban lapses, the Bush administration could begin the process of preparing oil and gas lease sales in new areas as close as 3 miles offshore.

Pelosi and others talked about their big victory in getting this bill through the House, but that so-called victory won’t amount to much besides allowing Democratic incumbents to tell constituents they voted for offshore drilling.

The hypocrisy of Republicans on this issue is even worse.

Remember when a bunch of House Republicans demanded a special Congressional session this summer to deal with energy policy? Remember when Republican delegates to the GOP national convention chanted, “Drill, baby, drill!”

The Republican majority proved that they are not in favor of a comprehensive energy policy that would reduce oil consumption, promote renewable energy, and take tax breaks away from companies posting record profits this year.

Not only that, some Republicans tried to pass a motion to adjourn to block passage of this bill.

I totally agree with this statement from Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:

Today, Republicans in the House were given a chance to pull America out of its energy crisis, and they refused. Majority leadership reached across the aisle to offer a package that includes both clean energy provisions and expanded offshore drilling. But supporters of Big Oil dug their heels in, refusing to support a truly comprehensive energy package because it did not do enough to help the oil industry and instead attempted a stunt to force a drill-only approach.

If House Republicans were honestly interested in clean energy, consumer protection, or a crackdown on ethics at federal agencies, they would have supported this package wholeheartedly. Instead, they fought it, proving beyond a doubt that their single, narrow aim is to increase profits for the oil industry.

For months, they have held up clean energy legislation, instead calling for a drill-only policy which will do nothing to lower gas prices, protect consumers, or solve our energy crisis. They have continued to demand that we open more of our nation’s coasts and public lands to drilling, which will lock us into a future of dependence on oil. They have maneuvered to undermine any bill that doesn’t put the oil industry first and hardworking Americans last.

With their latest failed trick, many Republicans in the House confirmed without a doubt that they will not be satisfied until the oil industry has an even tighter grip on our economy.

The full text of Pope’s statement is after the jump.

Though I find this whole episode depressing, it should motivate us to elect Barack Obama and more and better Democrats to Congress. Doing so won’t necessarily bring us a perfect energy policy, but we will certainly see some improvement on the charade we have now.

Mike Glover of the Associated Press wrote a piece this week on the huge money advantage that Senator Tom Harkin and Iowa’s five U.S. House incumbents have over their opponents.

I’ll have more to say on this topic in future posts, but for now I want to note one thing: although nearly all incumbents are able to outspend their opponents, that advantage is not always enough to overcome a national tidal wave toward the other party.

Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell all represent districts with a Democratic tilt (of varying degrees) in what is likely to be a very big Democratic year.

The odds-makers might favor Tom Latham and Steve King now, but in a big year for the challenger’s party, money and the other advantages of incumbency are not always enough to win.

Just ask Neal Smith, who was an 18-term incumbent and had more clout than any Iowan currently serving in the U.S. House. I can’t find campaign finance statistics going back that far, but I would bet that he spent more trying to keep his seat in 1994 than Republican Greg Ganske spent in taking him down.

Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley spent “what aides say may total $1.5 million to $2 million, a staggering amount for a House race” in 1994, but he still lost to George Nethercutt in Washington’s fifth district.

Chris Bowers had the most accurate final House forecast in 2006. But what did he write in his first forecast following several states’ primaries in September of that year?

NH-01 drops off the board since upset winner Shea-Porter has only 3% of her opponent’s cash

And in his final House update, published on November 6, 2006, Bowers still had Shea-Porter’s race in the “likely Republican” category, commenting, “If she wins, Carol Shea-Porter will become a legend.”

Her shocking victory in New Hampshire’s first district over an entrenched Republican incumbent was indeed legendary.

Obviously, it’s better for a challenger to have as much money to spend as possible, which is why you should donate to Rob Hubler and Becky Greenwald, and why I would like to see our ultra-safe Democratic incumbents giving more to the DCCC and DSCC.

But I strongly disagree with the contention that a money advantage makes Tom Latham and Steve King as safe as Iowa’s Democratic incumbents this year.

UPDATE: In the comments, riverdog9 asked why I would encourage people to give to the DCCC instead of directly to the candidates. That was not my intention, and I apologize for any misunderstanding.

To clarify, individual Democratic voters should give directly to the Congressional candidates, unless you’re one of those people who can afford to give more than the maximum donation of $2,300 to a candidate for federal office. In that case, you should give $2,300 directly to the candidate and any extra money to interests groups that are supporting that candidate.

Safe Democratic incumbents should give more to the DCCC and DSCC, because campaign finance law allows unlimited transfers of funds from members of Congress to those committees, and unlimited expenditures by those committees on behalf of candidates in individual districts.

On Monday, Congressmen Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell announced that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will immediately release $85 million in held-up disaster aid to Iowa. Those three members of Congress wrote to HUD Secretary Steve Preston last week to request the release of funding for Community Development Block Grants.

The full text of the joint press release from those representatives is after the jump.

Apparently, Republican Tom Latham had blamed the Democratic leadership in Congress for the delay in releasing disaster aid to Iowa. Becky Greenwald’s campaign issued this statement today:

For Immediate Release                                                                      Contact: Erin Seidler

August 5, 2008                                                                                                    515-537-4465

Latham Plays Politics with Flood Relief; Iowans Struggle to Rebuild after Floods

Waukee, IA – Congressmen Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell announced that after pressuring the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) to release crucial flood relief money to Iowa, HUD has released $85 million to help Iowa recover from flooding. (Associated Press, 8/5/08)

What has Tom Latham done to deliver flood money? Played politics as usual. He attacked Speaker Nancy Pelosi when the real delay in flood recovery was tied up in HUD and the Bush administration.

“This is completely outrageous. I’m sure if there were sewage in Tom Latham’s basement, he wouldn’t be so focused on scoring political points for the Republican Party,” said Erin Seidler, Communications Director for Becky Greenwald for Congress.  “People in Iowa are struggling to put their lives back together after the devastating floods. Tom Latham decided to play partisan politics instead of fighting to get the money back to Iowa.”

“We need an independent thinker in Washington like Becky Greenwald who won’t put politics over the needs of the people of the 4th District,” Seidler continued.

Latham doesn’t call attention to himself the way Congressman Steve King does, but he is a loyal Republican foot soldier. Residents of the fourth district deserve more effective representation.

Matt Stoller found this shameful tidbit in the Congressional Record from last Friday. The speaker is Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who is mad that some senators want to find budget cuts to offset disaster aid for Iowa:

So I don’t want anybody telling me that we have to offset a disaster relief package for the Midwest where people are hurting, when we didn’t do it for New Orleans. Why the double standard? Is it because people aren’t on rooftops complaining for helicopters to rescue them, and you see it on television too much? We aren’t doing that in Iowa. We are trying to help ourselves in Iowa. We have a can-do attitude. It doesn’t show up on television like it did in New Orleans for 2 months.

Open Left commenter SpitBall raises an excellent point–a better question is “why federal aid to the flood victims in Iowa should require a budgetary offset, when the invasion [and] occupation of Iraq does not.”

But getting back to Grassley’s comment, it disturbs me that he would denigrate the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Can’t he just praise Iowans without portraying us as better than those no-good complainers in New Orleans?

And suppose the Iowa floods had left thousands of people trapped in their homes, unable to escape on foot or by vehicle. Is he saying Iowans would not stand on their roofs hoping to be rescued? Would we build our own rafts, or what?

The Iowa flooding this summer was unprecedented, but we didn’t have whole neighborhoods of people stranded without food or water the way New Orleans did the first couple of days after Katrina hit.

The unspoken contrast in Grassley’s comment is that (white) Iowans are better people than (black) Katrina victims.

Right-wing blowhard Rush Limbaugh started pushing this meme right away last month. Iowa conservative blogger Emily Geiger picked up the talking point from Rush or some other radio host and ran with it:

Iowans can fix most things ourselves. It’s just a matter of who is going to pay for it all after the fact. This isn’t like New Orleans, where (I heard some relief worker on the radio the other day say that) out-of-state volunteers had to wake up residents at 10 a.m. so that the volunteers could get inside the houses where the residents then sat around and watched the volunteers work.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: when the going gets tough, count on Republicans to make people feel better by reinforcing their racist stereotypes.

Meanwhile, Democratic Representatives Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell did something constructive on Thursday. They jointly wrote to Steve Preston, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, asking for the immediate release of $30 million in Community Development Block Grants to Iowa.

The full text of their letter to the HUD secretary, along with a joint press release explaining some background, is after the jump.

As I’ve written before, any serious effort to combat global warming will have to include policies that give Americans more accessible alternatives to driving.

Otherwise continued increases in vehicle miles traveled by car and truck could cancel out reductions in greenhouse gas emissions due to cleaner fuel sources and greater fuel efficiency.

Last week 41 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging Congress to address transportation issues in forthcoming legislation on climate change.

Representative Dave Loebsack was the only Iowan to sign this letter, which was drafted by Ellen Tauscher (D, CA-10) and Earl “the Bike” Blumenauer (D, OR-03).

I received a copy of the letter from a Smart Growth America e-mail list and am reproducing it here. I couldn’t find the text anywhere online, so there’s no link:

July 14, 2008

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker

H-232, The Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

We thank you for your continued work to address climate change through federal legislation. As you have previously noted, Congress has a historic opportunity to provide leadership on one of the defining issues of this era. As Congress begins work on comprehensive climate change legislation, we ask that this legislation address the second largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions: surface transportation.

As you know, surface transportation produces one-third of the United States’ greenhouse gases, and sixty percent of these emissions come from personal vehicle use. Last year, Congress demonstrated leadership on climate change by raising CAFE standards to thirty-five miles per gallon by 2020. However, recent studies suggest that the expected increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs) will negate both higher CAFE standards and a reduction of carbon content in fuel. If VMTs are not reduced, transportation sector emissions will rise forty percent above 1990 levels by 2030.

Through climate change legislation, we believe that Congress should encourage greater use of VMT-reducing strategies, especially public transportation. Significant funds should be dedicated to increase public transit, intercity passenger rail, freight rail capacity, intelligent transportation systems, and bicycle and pedestrian alternatives. In addition, the legislation should encourage smart growth and transit-oriented development.

We believe that climate change legislation should allocate a portion of funds to all sectors that generate greenhouse gases, including transportation. Supporting VMT-reduction strategies will lower greenhouse gas emissions, decrease transportation costs for Americans, and relieve pressure on other sectors to meet an overall emissions cap. Without such efforts, other industries will have to overcompensate to offset the transportation sector’s emissions. In addition, these policies will have the added benefits of providing consumers with increased transportation choices, improved accessibility, a greater range of housing choices, improved personal health and fitness, decreased air pollution, and reduced traffic congestion and commute times.

In the coming months, we look forward to supporting legislation that will reduce the transportation sector’s greenhouse gas emissions and demonstrate the United States’ commitment to addressing climate change.

Sincerely,

Ellen O. Tauscher

Earl Blumenauer

(and 39 other members of Congress)

This letter explains concisely why transportation has to be part of our conversation on global warming.

I also like the way it makes clear that dealing with transportation issues in the climate change bill will create more flexibility in setting the emissions caps for other sectors.

The road-building lobbies will vigorously oppose the changes this letter advocates. But perhaps they can be pitted against the powerful corporate interests that will oppose sharp reductions in industrial greenhouse gas emissions.

Here is some background on smart growth and transit-oriented development, in case you are wondering what those terms in the third paragraph mean.

Tauscher and Blumenauer deserve credit for leading on this issue. It will take a huge effort by many people to make good changes in federal transportation policies.

All the representatives who signed this letter are listed after the jump. After Tauscher and Blumenauer, they appear in alphabetical order, as they did on the letter to Pelosi. Chris Shays of Connecticut is the only Republican in the group.

On Tuesday the House overrode George Bush’s veto of a bill that stopped planned cuts in the Medicare reimbursement rate for doctors. It’s the fourth time Congress has voted to override Bush’s vetoes. This is the bill that just barely cleared the Senate because of Ted Kennedy’s return.

This diary by noweasels has the story and links to the roll-call votes, along with a lot of comments about how this law will affect people. TomP has some background on Medicare and how it was adopted.

The House vote was 383-41. In the Iowa delegation, Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Tom Latham voted yes on the override. Steve King voted no. Leonard Boswell was among the 11 representatives who missed the vote.

The Senate vote was 70-26, with Tom Harkin voting yes and Chuck Grassley voting no. Barack Obama and John McCain were among the four senators who missed the vote.

The House of Representatives approved the so-called “compromise” on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that in fact gave the Republicans and the White House everything they wanted.

One of Iowa’s three Democratic representatives voted with the Republicans. Can you guess which one without peeking here at the roll call vote?

That’s right, Leonard Boswell voted with the Republicans.

Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack stuck with the majority of the House Democratic caucus and voted against this bill.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama came out against the immunity provision in the FISA bill today. His full statement on the bill is here, but the most important part seems to be this comment about the telecom immunity provision:

I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

Some people who follow this issue closely feel Obama’s statement didn’t go far enough. In particular, it is not clear whether “work in the Senate to remove this provision” would include supporting a filibuster of the bill.

In the good news column, Rob Hubler, Democratic candidate in the fifth district, sent the blogger Glenn Greenwald a strong statement opposing retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Here is a copy of that statement, which the Hubler campaign sent to me:

Dear Mr. Greenwald,

As  the Democratic nominee for Congress in Iowa’s Fifth Congressional District, I want you to know that I appreciate very much the initiative you  have taken to oppose and expose the FISA Amendments Act of  2008. This bill effectively guarantees retroactive immunity  for telecom companies that participated in the President’s illegal wiretap  program, and fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home.

If elected, I would vigorously oppose this measure, which would essentially  require the court to grant immunity, and authorize surveillance on citizens without adequate checks and balances to protect their  rights.

I  believe that the constitutional rights of everyday Americans are at issue  here, and full accountability is needed.  No President  should ever have unchecked power.

As  a member of Congress, I will support legislation that preserves appropriate  court review of all surveillance of U. S. citizens, and I will not vote for immunity for telecom companies.

Americans  in the U. S. with no connection to suspected terrorists should never have  their privacy abridged by an overzealous, unchecked executive  branch.

Sincerely,

Rob  L. Hubler

This is just for fun.

For the first time ever, Republicans are not putting a lot of resources into challenging Senator Tom Harkin. Unless a recount changes the outcome of the GOP primary, Harkin will face little-known Marion businessman Christopher Reed, who has not even raised enough money to file an FEC report. Harkin has more than $3 million to spend on this race. More on Reed here:

http://www.iowaindependent.com…

The Real Sporer thinks the GOP Senate nomination could still go to a state convention, if recounts and challenges push Reed’s percentage of the vote below 35 percent. He won with about 35.3 percent of the vote on Tuesday.

Congressman Bruce Braley will face State Senator Dave Hartsuch in Iowa’s first district. Hartsuch has raised less than $6,000 for his campaign, according to the latest FEC report.

Congressman Dave Loebsack will probably face Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the second district, unless a recount overturns her 109-vote victory in the primary:

http://www.iowaindependent.com…

There may be lasting hard feelings among the Republicans in that district, considering the hard-fought primary and Peter Teahen’s very narrow loss.

Congressman Leonard Boswell will face Republican Kim Schmett in the third district. Schmett has raised about $54,000 so far, according to FEC filings.

Congressman Tom Latham will face Becky Greenwald in the fourth district. She had raised about $56,000 as of the last FEC filing. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has targeted this district in its “red to blue” program. Count on pretty much every major Democratic donor in Iowa to contribute to Greenwald too, with Harkin and Boswell presumably out of danger now. EMILY’s list may also get involved on Greenwald’s behalf.

Congressman Steve King will face Rob Hubler in the fifth district. Hubler has raised over $100,000 for this race, but it’s a steep uphill climb for any Democrat in this district.

Take the poll after the jump: which of these incumbents will win in November with the largest share of the vote?

A few days ago, Des Moines Register reporter Jane Norman wrote a story about earmarks Iowa’s members of Congress obtained for projects in 2007. The article was based on the 2008 “Congressional Pig Book,” published by Citizens against Government Waste.

The Register notes:

Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that takes aim at waste and fraud in government.

To qualify as pork, projects must meet one of seven criteria: a request by just one member of Congress; no specific authorization; no competitive award; no presidential request; a greatly increased budget amount compared with the previous year; serving only a local or special interest; or no congressional hearing.

Norman’s main point was that Iowa’s members of Congress obtained far more earmarks in 2007 than they had the previous year, totaling

$184.6 million in earmarks, or $61.79 in Iowa pork for every man, woman and child in the state.

It’s a major rebound for Iowa, which languished in 37th place in a similar study in 2006. That year, lawmakers obtained $72.2 million in earmarks, or $24.34 per Iowan.

(Note: Earlier this year, the group Taxpayers for Common Sense did its own analysis and came up with somewhat different numbers for 2007: the Iowa delegation was calculated to have obtained about “$152 million in earmarked money from Congress – or $51.10 for every man, woman and child in the state.”)

Norman noted that since Democrats took control of Congress in he 2006 elections, Senator Tom Harkin now chairs a “key appropriations subcommittee.” The “Congressional Pig Book” apparently singled him out for getting “$40 million for 44 projects in his own bill,” according to Norman.

I don’t know why the authors would single out Harkin, when their own book shows that Senator Chuck Grassley obtained more pork for Iowa in terms of total dollar value. Grassley collaborated with Harkin on a large number of earmarks for Iowa projects.

I also get a little tired of self-appointed taxpayer watchdogs expressing righteous indignation about this or that project that got a few hundred thousand dollars from the federal government. The Pig Book shows that the more than 11,000 earmarks in 2007 accounted for about $17.2 billion in federal spending.

Meanwhile, the U.S. spent several times that amount on the continuing war in Iraq in 2007, with little to show for it besides more American casualties.

That said, there’s no doubt that a lot of earmarks are wasteful appropriations for projects of limited benefit to the broader community. The Pig Book contains a ton of information about the earmarks each member of Congress has obtained. You can search all the Iowa earmarks from 2007 on this page of the Des Moines Register’s website, or search for earmarks by any member of Congress at the Citizens Against Government Waste site.

I used that search engine to find the total number of earmarks that each Iowa member of Congress obtained last year. The total dollar amount for each member comes from a table published in the Des Moines Register on April 3 (no link, because I could only find this table in the print version). Note that not every dollar earmarked by an Iowan ends up in Iowa, because some of these projects operate in many states.

Chuck Grassley (R), 155 earmarks, $321.4 million

Tom Harkin (D), 194 earmarks, $302.8 million

Tom Latham (R, IA-04), 63 earmarks, $67 million

Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02), 27 earmarks, $53.5 million

Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03), 27 earmarks, $33.1 million

Bruce Braley (D, IA-01), 26 earmarks, $27.5 million

Steve King (R, IA-05), 13 earmarks, $9.8 million

Why does Latham, a Republican, lead our House delegation in terms of earmarks? He is the longest-serving Iowan in the House (having been first elected in 1994) and serves on several subcommittees of the House Appropriations Committee. Also, his district includes Iowa State University, and a lot of federal funding goes to major research universities.

The data for the Democrats surprised me. How did the freshman Dave Loebsack secure so much more than Leonard Boswell? At first I thought it must be because Loebsack’s district includes the University of Iowa, but only two of Loebsack’s 27 earmarks were for the university.

Looking down the list more carefully, I realized that the dollar amount credited to Loebsack is inflated because he was one of 13 House members to earmark $24 million for the Department of Education’s National Writing Project. Most of that money will not go to Iowa.

Even if we remove that one from Loebsack’s list, he is still left with 26 earmarks (almost as many as Boswell), totaling $29.5 million (almost as much as Boswell). Keep in mind that Loebsack is only halfway through his first term, while Boswell was elected to Congress in 1996.

Braley is not far behind, despite being a freshman as well.

It’s no surprise that King is at the bottom of the list. Not only is he a Republican in a Democratic-controlled chamber, his idea of constituent service seems to revolve around making outrageous statements. Oh, and also suing to prevent non-native English speakers from receiving voter information in other languages. He has no major universities in his district either.

If you dig around in the database and find anything particularly noteworthy, please put a comment in this thread.

Cross-posted around the blogosphere yesterday. I am posting here because a few of the links have not appeared in previous posts at Bleeding Heartland. -desmoinesdem

Welcome to the latest diary in my series on the Democratic primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district. Ed Fallon is challenging Leonard Boswell, who was first elected to this seat in 1996.

Today, I consider who would represent this district more effectively in Congress.

Here are links to my previous diaries on this campaign:

the introductory diary, with biographical information on Boswell and Fallon

The cases for Fallon and Boswell

Boswell and Fallon pick up the pace

Will Democrats vote on the issues?

The Center for Responsive Politics has ranked the U.S. House and Senate members in terms of their net worth, based on disclosure documents filed in 2007. Jane Norman has the highlights in the Des Moines Register.

Tom Harkin, Chuck Grassley, and Tom Latham are the only members of Congress from Iowa who disclosed a net worth greater than $1 million. Click the link for more details.

MyDD user lipris linked to this post from the Albany Project blog, which includes a list of the 24 Democratic-held U.S. House seats being targeted this year by the NRCC.

None of the three House seats held by Iowa Democrats are on the list. Neither Bruce Braley (IA-01) nor Leonard Boswell (IA-03) has a Republican challenger yet. Braley is officially launching his re-election campaign today. Boswell is facing a primary challenge from Ed Fallon.

I think that Dave Loebsack (IA-02) has a Republican challenger, but I can’t find the link to an article about that. I would be shocked if he has any trouble holding his seat. He will have the army of Obama volunteers helping him if the challenge turns out to be serious.

It looks like a very good year for Iowa Democrats. The caucuses in January prompted nearly 60,000 people to register as Democrats, while only about 7,600 Iowans became Republicans to participate in the GOP caucuses. According to Secretary of State Mike Mauro,

as of March 1, there were 701,285 registered Democrats in Iowa. There were 615,576 Iowans registered as Republicans and 761,201 not affiliated with a party.

Meanwhile, at MyDD Jonathan Singer discusses the GOP’s voter registration problem on the national level.

Yesterday, I attended the Progressive Iowa Network/DFIA conference in Iowa City. There were probably 50 people in attendence, mostly from Iowa City/Cedar Rapids and the Quad Cities. There are representives from the Obama, Richardson, Biden, and Kucinich campaigns.

State Senator Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City) was introduced and as soon as he got to the podium Rep. Dave Loebsack came in and bumped Sen. Bolkcom. Bolkcom graciously gave up the podium and Loebsack promised this will be the only time this happens.

Loebsack thanked the people in attendance and said he knew a lot of the people here. Thanked Joyce Shulte, who ran against Steve King in 2006. Loebsack said…

I know some of you aren't happy with everything the Congress has been doing. If I was elected in a district where 60% of the people voted for Bush, it would be a lot harder to do what I have been doing. I don't have extraordinary political courage.

Loebsack will be speaking at the ceremony for departing troops in Ottumwa on Sunday. He said the war must come to an end and he is doing everything he can to end it. Bush is not treating properly. Democrats are trying to do that in House and Senate.       

Dave Loebsack spoke over lunch at the DFA training in Cedar Rapids today.  Loebsack was very well recieved and thanked the group of activists that helped him get elected in the 2nd district.  Loebsack talked a lot about the Iraq War and the funding bill that was passed yesterday in the US House.