The Des Moines Register is losing another group of longtime fixtures in the newsroom. Publisher Laura Hollingsworth announced on Friday the 13th that ten writers and editors are among 13 employees who accepted the Gannett Corporation’s early retirement package.

Following up on this post: Des Moines Register Editor Rick Green has announced that the newspaper will publish all of this week’s Doonesbury comic strips in the Sunday Register Opinion section. The paper will also run commentary for and against the Texas ultrasound law, the target of Garry Trudeau’s ridicule.

The Des Moines Register is one of many newspapers across the country that declined to run this week’s “Doonesbury” comic strips, which mock Republican legislative efforts to shame and intimidate women seeking abortions.

Republican State Senator Merlin Bartz set the bar high for irony on the opening day of the 2012 legislative session. Bartz sought publicity for a bill he has introduced to remove “frivolous, obsolete, and redundant mandates” from the Iowa Code.

On the one hand, that’s a worthwhile effort for the ranking member of the Iowa Senate Local Government Committee. On the other hand, a guy who’s using a 19th-century law to force neighbors to pay for half of his new fence might not be the best standard-bearer for this cause.

Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain and Representative Ron Paul have pushed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney into third place in a new Iowa Republican poll for Iowa State University, the Cedar Rapids Gazette and KCRG TV. However, less than two months before the Iowa caucuses, the majority of likely participants are still not committed to any candidate.

UPDATE: Now Rasmussen has a new Iowa poll showing former House Speaker Newt Gingrich way ahead among likely caucus-goers, followed by Romney and Cain. Details are below.

Philip Brasher, the agriculture and food policy reporter recently laid off by the Des Moines Register, launched the FoodWatch blog yesterday to cover “the politics of what we eat, how it’s produced, and why that matters.” His first two posts were about a Senate deal to replace current ethanol subsidies with different biofuels incentives and a “landmark deal” on improving conditions for caged hens, announced by the industry group United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the United States, a leading animal welfare organization.

Many sustainable food advocates were alarmed when the Des Moines Register let Brasher go and closed its Washington bureau. The FoodWatch blog doesn’t have the Register’s high profile, but at least it keeps Brasher’s reporting accessible to the public for now.

Register publisher Laura Hollingsworth assured Paula Crossfield of the Civil Eats blog that the newspaper’s remaining staff and the Gannett Corporation would be able to “provide comprehensive political and agricultural coverage for our readers in Des Moines and beyond.” What passes for a business section in today’s Des Moines Register includes a Gannett Washington bureau report on the Senate ethanol deal and an Associated Press story about the egg industry’s agreement with the Humane Society. The AP report lacks some of the details and context Brasher provides on his blog.

LATE UPDATE: Brasher rejoined Gannett in late August 2011; his articles about food and agriculture appear in several newspapers, including the Des Moines Register.

Advocates for more sustainable food and agriculture policies are alarmed by cutbacks Des Moines Register management announced last week. Closing the newspaper’s Washington bureau and laying off agriculture correspondent Philip Brasher will leave the public less informed about decision-making in the capital, with implications far beyond the Register’s circulation area in Iowa.

Five months into Rick Green’s tenure as editor of The Des Moines Register, the newspaper is culling its newsroom staff again. The sad details are after the jump.

Rick Green will be the Des Moines Register’s new editor, beginning January 17, the newspaper announced today. Green has been editor at the Palm Springs Desert Sun for the past two and a half years.

In Palm Springs, Green’s newsroom staff is about half the size of the Register’s and its print circulation is about one-third of the Des Moines newspaper’s.

Green said he hopes to work with the Register’s reporters and editors to deliver investigative work and stories that deliver emotion. He has been recognized for helping the Desert Sun produce watchdog journalism – including an initiative that tracked how cash-strapped governments spent taxpayer money. […]

Green previously worked in various news positions in Ohio, including reporting and editing positions at the [Cincinnati] Enquirer from 1988 to 2004.

Green replaces Carolyn Washburn, who is returning to her home town of Cincinnati to become editor of the Enquirer. The Register, Enquirer and Desert Sun are all owned by the Gannett Corporation. During Washburn’s five years as editor of the Des Moines Register, the newspaper has reduced its newsroom staff in several rounds of layoffs as circulation declined (a common problem across the industry). I hope Green will be able to deliver solid investigative journalism, but that may require more investment in newsroom personnel than Gannett is willing to provide. The Register reporting staff is stretched thin already.

UPDATE: At Iowa Independent, Jason Hancock reports that all Gannett employees will “face one week of unpaid leave before March.” It’s the fourth round of furloughs since the beginning of 2009.

SECOND UPDATE: The Register’s editorial page editor, Linda Lantor Fandel, is leaving to become Governor Terry Branstad’s special assistant for education.

Fandel, who grew up in Kennewick, Wash., came to the Register in 1986 to cover the Des Moines school district.

She covered education as a reporter, editorial writer and deputy editorial-page editor until she was named editorial-page editor in 2009.

The Register’s editorial board under Fandel’s watch endorsed Gov. Chet Culver for governor this year, saying his vision was more comprehensive than Branstad’s.

The editorial board also took Branstad to task when he said a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that public schools can’t turn away the children of illegal immigrants should be overturned.

The editorial board also supported Culver’s plan to offer universal, state-financed preschool to all 4-year-old children regardless of their family’s income, which conflicts with Branstad’s position.

Branstad favors taxpayer support to help needy families offset preschool costs.

“Personally, I don’t have any objection to families that can pay for preschool paying for preschool when the state doesn’t have enough money to pay for preschool for everyone,” Fandel said. “But I think high-quality preschool is really important.”

Fandel said she’s on the same page with Branstad on most education issues.

She has pushed for education leadership that inspires Iowans to aim higher in school, reaches across political party lines to build consensus and plays a role on the national stage on school reforms – all positions that Branstad appears to favor.

Also like Branstad, Fandel has questioned the clarity and rigor of the Iowa Core Curriculum, a $31 million statewide blueprint for what students should master in school. Culver pushed Iowa lawmakers to adopt the Iowa Core in 2008.

Fandel will work closely with Branstad and his new Iowa Department of Education director, Jason Glass, to develop education policies in line with Branstad’s goal to restore Iowa’s reputation for strong schools. Previous governors have used a similar approach.

Among the tasks: Find an alternative to the Iowa Core Curriculum.

Six weeks after revealing the overnight towns for the 2010 Register’s Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa, the Des Moines Register announced the full 442-mile route that cycling enthusiasts will follow the last week of July.

RAGBRAI XXXVIII will treat riders to one of the shortest and flattest routes ever as it winds through northern Iowa from Sioux City to Dubuque from July 25-31. That combination means the 10,000 riders will navigate a 442-mile route that ranks as third-easiest historically, at least as far as hills and mileage go. The ride will be the sixth-shortest. The 14,527 feet of climb is fifth-lowest total, so rejoice and save the hill complaints until at least Day 3.

Click here for an interactive map. On day 1, riders will start in Sioux City, passing through Leeds, Kingsley, Washta and Quimby en route to Storm Lake. The second day, riders will pass through Varina, Pocahontas, Plover, West Bend and Whittemore before reaching the overnight stop of Algona. The third day, riders will pass through Wesley, Britt and Garner en route to Clear Lake. Day 4 will take riders through Swaledale, Rockwell, Cartersville and Rockford before they stop in Charles City. The fifth day, riders pass through Clarksville, Parkersburg, Stout and Dike on the way to Waterloo. Day 6 takes the riders through Washburn, Gilbertville, Rowley, Quasqueton and Winthrop on the way to Manchester. The route for the final day passes through Earlville, Dyersville, Bankston and Graf before riders reach Dubuque and dip their wheels in the Mississippi River.

Click here to register for RAGBRAI. You can follow @ragbrai_iowa on Twitter here for updates between now and the ride.

The Des Moines Register threw a sold-out party Saturday night to announce the route for the 2010 Register’s Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa. The 38th RAGBRAI will go through northern Iowa, beginning in Sioux City on the Missouri River and ending in Dubuque on the Mississippi. The other overnight stays will be in the towns of Storm Lake (Buena Vista County), Algona (Kossuth County), Clear Lake (Cerro Gordo County), Charles City (Floyd County), Waterloo (Black Hawk County), and Manchester (Delaware County).

Perry Beeman writes for the Des Moines Register,

RAGBRAI XXXVIII will treat riders to one of the shortest and flattest routes ever as it winds through northern Iowa from Sioux City to Dubuque. That combination means the 10,000 riders will navigate a 442-mile route that ranks as third-easiest historically, at least as far as hills and mileage go.

Click here to register for RAGBRAI. You can follow @ragbrai_iowa on Twitter here for updates between now and the ride.

I’ve never done RAGBRAI, and I probably never will unless my kids become cycling fanatics as they get older. But I would love to have one or more Bleeding Heartland users post updates from RAGBRAI this summer. In an election year you can count on plenty of candidate sightings and funny road/yard signs along the route.

Speaking of fanatics dedicated riders, on February 6 several hundred brave souls will complete the 32nd annual “BRR Ride,” a 24-mile loop from Perry to Rippey and back.

UPDATE: Click here for more on the full route, including pass-through towns.

The Des Moines Register announced yesterday that Kathie Obradovich will be the paper’s new political columnist. Her first column will run this Sunday.

Obradovich has covered Iowa politics for many years and been the Register’s political editor since 2003. She replaces David Yepsen, who earlier this year left to become director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Even though the Register’s statewide reach is not what it was a few decades ago, Yepsen still played an agenda-setting role for Iowa politicians and fellow journalists. Sometimes that was for the good, when he called attention to possible backroom deals at the statehouse. However, Yepsen sometimes forgot that his disapproval didn’t automatically make a political strategy illegitimate. I don’t think he ever apologized for wrongly giving his readers the impression that there was something unfair about encouraging college students to come back to Iowa for the 2008 caucuses, for instance. He was too quick to cite think tank reports as proof that Iowans are overtaxed, without considering the services Iowans get for our tax dollars compared to low-tax states like South Dakota. I also didn’t appreciate his suggestion that women’s political opinions are more “catty” than men’s.

May Obradovich use her agenda-setting power wisely.

I’ve posted the Register’s press release announcing Obradovich’s promotion after the jump.

The Des Moines Register reported on Tuesday that David Yepsen will be the new director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale:

Carolyn Washburn, the Register’s editor and vice president, said the newspaper would miss the veteran political writer, who has been with the Register since 1973, and the newspaper’s senior political columnist since 2000.

“As a political journalist in Iowa, David has really done it all, for decades,” Washburn said.

Yepsen has been a familiar face to Iowans. He became the Register’s senior political writer in 1983 and a full-time columnist in 2000. The Jefferson native and University of Iowa graduate also has been a host on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” since 1975, and a frequent commentator on national news programs.

The Southern Illinois campus newspaper confirmed the story.

Yepsen interviewed for his new job in December, around the time the Register imposed yet another round of layoffs in the newsroom. (Political cartoonist Brian Duffy was among those fired at that time. I’ve seen several of his cartoons in the Des Moines area weekly Cityview since then.)

Best of luck to Yepsen in his new position, and kudos to him for taking on a new challenge after so many years at the Register.

Any guesses on who will become the Register’s chief political columnist? The obvious play would be to promote Tom Beaumont from the newsroom, since he covers a lot of the political stories already. Or, they could move columnist Marc Hansen, who is a great writer, over to the op-ed page.

Given the Register’s difficult financial position, I doubt they will bring in a senior columnist from outside, but they could hire someone currently working at a different Gannett newspaper.

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder shares  his reflections on Yepsen and predicts that O.Kay Henderson of Radio Iowa will be “Yepsen’s heir” as the most influential Iowa journalist during the next presidential campaign.

John Deeth (“not a Yepsen fan”) discusses the end of an era from his perspective. I agree with him about so-called objective American journalism.

SECOND UPDATE: Yepsen will start his new job on April 1, according to the SIU Saluki Times:

Asked why he sought the institute position, Yepsen said, “Paul Simon’s legacy prompted me to apply. I am really interested in spending the rest of my life in public service, teaching and working with students and working in the public policy arena.

“I am a great admirer of his and I have been to the institute and the campus several times,” he added. “I like the University and the people here. Also, I grew up in a small town in Iowa that was not far different from much of Southern Illinois. When this position came open, I thought this could be a really good fit for me.”

He said the institute presents a “nice combination of academic work and public policy work,” noting it reminds him of the Harvard Kennedy School “in terms of bringing students, academicians and practitioners together to solve problems.”

That article also quotes former Senator Paul Simon’s book about his 1988 presidential campaign:

“Every four years, the chief political reporter for the Des Moines Register becomes the most important reporter in the nation. It is a position that could cause vanity and abuse. To his credit, David Yepsen handled this position with sensitivity and balance. And he worked hard.”

I wasn’t surprised in November when the Des Moines Register failed to report on opposition to former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack’s possible appointment as secretary of agriculture.

I wasn’t surprised in December when the newspaper omitted the same perspective from its piece on reaction to the news that President-elect Barack Obama was picking Vilsack for the job.

But I find this January 12 Des Moines Register article by Chase Davis quite odd. The subject is how Vilsack has relatively few ties to agribusiness. Excerpt:

Secretary of Agriculture nominee Tom Vilsack raised only a small portion of his campaign cash from farmers, grocers and others with direct ties to the agriculture industry, despite serving eight years as governor in one of the country’s most emblematic farming states, documents and fundraising data show.

From his first run for governor in 1998 to his short-lived presidential bid in 2006, Vilsack raised almost $15.8 million through contributions to his campaign and political action committees. Only about 2.3 percent, or $364,000, came directly from interests connected to agriculture.

Political observers said the small share of industry donations Vilsack received could earn him credibility and a perception of independence as he prepares for his confirmation hearing Wednesday. Others note the agricultural industry has long exerted its political influence through connections, not money.

“(Agriculture businesses) are much more human than a lot of other businesses. They have a very tight network,” said Edwin Bender, executive director of the National Institute on Money in State Politics. “Money is maybe not the prime indicator there.”

To the extent that influence follows money, Vilsack can make a convincing case that he is not beholden to the agribusiness industry – which could serve him well in the position, local experts said.

Agribusiness “will have more trouble getting everything they want, and they know it,” said Arthur Sanders, chairman of the Politics and International Relations Department at Drake University.

But if companies do convince Vilsack to support their policies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Vilsack “will have more credibility if he pushes for them,” Sanders said.

The article baffles me on two levels. It ranks Vilsack’s “top political donors associated with agribusiness interests,” and number one on the list is the philanthropist Doris Jean Newlin, whose husband was a vice president of Pioneer Hi-Bred International before he retired.

Newlin has made significant gifts to quite a few Democratic politicians, the Iowa Democratic Party, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. It’s a stretch to consider her donations to Vilsack’s campaigns the most noteworthy link between Vilsack and agribusiness, just because Newlin is married to a retired vice-president of Pioneer.

What makes the article even more strange is that it does not mention biotech companies. Vilsack was an outspoken and persistent advocate for growing more genetically-engineered crops in Iowa and elsewhere. The Biotechnology Industry Organization named him governor of the year in 2001. He even used to fly on the Monsanto corporate jet. What opposition there was to Vilsack’s appointment as secretary of agriculture stemmed primarily from his many ties to biotechnology companies like Monsanto.  

Vilsack may well have fewer connections to agribusiness than others who have headed the USDA. I think the Senate should confirm him, given that he is the president’s choice, and he is certainly qualified for the job.

But it was quite a strange editorial decision by the Register to publish a whole article about Vilsack not having strong ties to corporate agriculture, while failing to mention any of his connections to the biotechnology industry. If you’re going to report a story, at least report the whole story.

Across the country, newspapers are trying to save money by cutting experienced staff and relying more on syndicated material. The Des Moines Register continued the trend by announcing dozens of layoffs this week. Brian Duffy, who has been the newspaper’s political cartoonist for 25 years, was among those let go.

A brief story in the Register’s business section on Thursday noted,

The Register was said to be the only newspaper in the United States with an editorial cartoon on the front page. The tradition extended back to at least the early 20th century, according to Register archives. Ted Rall, the president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, estimated that about 20 editorial cartoonists have been laid off or retired in the last three years without being replaced.

Meanwhile, the Register’s chief political columnist, David Yepsen, interviewed this week for the position of director of Southern Illinois University’s Paul Simon Public Policy Institute. You can’t blame him for looking around. After several rounds of layoffs, the atmosphere in the Register’s newsroom must be quite depressing.

The Iowa City Press-Citizen also announced job cuts today.

My sympathies go out to all those whose jobs were eliminated. I was “downsized” myself once (two days before Thanksgiving), and even with a good severance package it is a very demoralizing experience.

UPDATE: I was with friends tonight who were outraged that the Register turned its back on a long history of featuring political cartoons prominently. They are old enough to remember the work of “Ding” Darling, who drew cartoons for the Register for much of the first half of the 20th century, and Frank Miller, who was the Register’s cartoonist from 1953 to 1983.

SECOND UPDATE: Blogger Ron Maly, who worked at the Register during the 1980s, lists others who got laid off this week at the Register. They include outdoor writer Julie Probasco-Sowers. Maly agrees with an unnamed acquaintance who predicts that firing Duffy “will cost the Register a lot more than they’ll save with his salary.”

THIRD UPDATE: Jason Hancock reports that the Register will also reduce or eliminate various special sections. The annual RAGBRAI preview will be among the discontinued publications.

Anyone who’s been reading the Des Moines Register for the past few years knows that the editorial board endorses incumbents more often than not, in state-level, city council and school board elections as well as federal races. They like seniority and experience in their elected officials.

For those reasons, the Register has typically endorsed a few Republican incumbents despite the editorial board’s generally liberal orientation. With neither Jim Leach nor Chuck Grassley on Iowa ballots this year, I was concerned that the Register would back at least one of the Republicans running for Congress–perhaps Tom Latham by virtue of his position on the House Appropriations Committee.

As it turned out, the Register endorsed every Iowa Democrat running for Congress for the first time that I can remember (going back several decades).

The endorsements were markedly different in tone, however.

A glowing endorsement of Bruce Braley argued,

this ambitious and energetic congressman sets the standard for what Iowans should expect from their representatives. […] We can’t fit everything Braley has accomplished his first term into the space of this editorial, but it’s obvious he’s worked tirelessly.

Their list of Braley’s achievements in his first term didn’t even include his work on bringing passenger rail to Dubuque and the Quad Cities.

The Register’s editors concluded that Dave Loebsack has worked hard and also deserves re-election in the second district, but it’s clear that they liked Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks a lot:

She’s smart, has in-depth knowledge of health care, has served in the military and has a compelling life story, which includes leaving home at the age of 16 and working her way through school.

Like most campaign newcomers, including Loebsack two years ago, her knowledge of many issues is shallow. But her background indicates she’d come up to speed quickly.

Dissatisfied with Loebsack, she says she took it upon herself to do something about it and embarked on the race without party recruitment.

If Miller-Meeks doesn’t prevail, she should consider running for another public office. Iowa has a shortage of women in politics, and Miller-Meeks’ life experience and potential for leadership could serve the state well.

I don’t think I’ve ever read anything like the Register’s endorsement editorial for Iowa’s third district. The paper favored Leonard Boswell’s Republican opponent in 2006 and Ed Fallon in the Democratic primary this year, so I thought there was a decent chance the Register would endorse Kim Schmett, Boswell’s challenger this fall. Instead, they published this under the headline “Iowans deserve more from 12-year incumbent”:

Voters have a dilemma in the 3rd District.

After 12 years of light accomplishment and wrongheaded votes, Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell doesn’t deserve to return to Congress.

But his Republican challenger, Kim Schmett of Clive, also fails to make a compelling case that he deserves a congressional seat.

Iowans deserve better.

However, the Register’s editorial board subscribes to the philosophy that if voters must decide, so must we. So the Register gives a weak nod to Boswell, with a list of expectations:

– During his next term, Boswell should use his seniority and the experience he’s gained to take a more active role in representing Iowa’s interests.

– He should announce early in the term that it will be his last, retiring with Iowans’ thanks for a career dedicated to public service.

It goes on, but you get the drift. I hope Boswell will take the newspaper’s advice after he wins re-election next week.

Evaluating the fourth district candidates, the Register determined that Becky Greenwald has the potential to be a strong, energetic leader. Tom Latham has 14 years of experience and sits on the House Appropriations Committee (which is the main reason the Fort Dodge Messenger and Mason City Globe-Gazette endorsed him), but the Register’s editors found Latham “hasn’t developed the kind of in-depth expertise on issues or demonstrated the national leadership Iowans should expect from their investment in his seniority.”

Making the call in the fifth district race was easy for an editorial board that gave Steve King the benefit of the doubt by endorsing him in 2002 and 2004. The editors have had enough of King’s “divisive, fear-mongering commentary”:

Fifth District voters should not send him back to Washington. Fortunately, they have a promising alternative: Electing Democrat Rob Hubler, a retired minister from Council Bluffs who has brought himself up to speed and staked out reasonable positions on issues Iowans care about, including the Iraq war, energy and health care.

In the U.S. Senate race, the Register also had no trouble choosing a candidate and urged Tom Harkin to be ambitious in his fifth term:

Iowans should without hesitation cast their ballots to return Democrat Tom Harkin for his fifth term in the U.S. Senate. With that investment in seniority, however, comes heightened expectations for him to lead in shaping landmark legislation that will benefit Iowans and the nation for decades to come. […]

In his fifth term, Senator Harkin should aim high and set aside partisan sniping for statesmanship. On the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, he should channel his passions for wellness and nutrition into forging legislation that provides health care for all, at long last bringing America into the company of every other industrialized nation. On that same committee, he should shepherd changes in education policy to better prepare all American students for a competitive global economy. And as Agriculture Committee chairman, he should continue his work to expand agriculture’s role in producing alternative forms of energy, thus reducing dependence on oil, while protecting soil, water and air. He has the right vision for overhauling federal farm programs: Instead of paying farmers for what they grow, pay them for how well they grow it.

These would be transformational changes in American life and government: Providing health care for all. Expanding educational opportunities for all of America’s children. Lessening the nation’s dependence on oil while better protecting the environment.

Spearheading significant progress in these areas would create a more compassionate, just and prosperous society – and be crowning achievements for any senator.

I look forward to finding out what Harkin can accomplish as a senior member of a Congressional majority under a Democratic president. He’s been in the Senate for a long time, but Democrats controlled the White House and Congress for only two of those years.

The Register has endorsed some Republicans running for the state legislative or Polk County office, but they’d like to see a Democratic sweep in the federal races.

This is an open thread for discussing any significant media endorsements in races at any level this year.

Jason Hancock has a story up about the latest round of cuts in the Des Moines Register newsroom. The people who have lost their jobs after working hard for years have my sympathy.

I was downsized during the 1990s. It was lousy to feel that far-off management did not respect the value of my work, or indeed the work of anyone around me, since my whole department was cut.

If you don’t read the Register much, you might not care about the story. Gannett had already damaged newsgathering and investigative reporting so much over the past 20-odd years, what difference could this make?

However, the political elite of this state still read the Register, as do reporters for other media. The newspaper still has the power to set the agenda for political debate and political coverage, only it will be doing so with a more skeletal staff.

I’m not optimistic about what coverage of next year’s legislative session will look like. I don’t know whether someone else will cover the Iowa delegation in Congress the way Jane Norman did, or whether we’ll just hear less about what our representatives are doing.

Even before this round of layoffs, the Register was slow to pick up on wrongdoing at the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium. Will the Register have the flexibility to assign anyone to investigative work, or will the next CIETC scandal, or the the failure to fix the Birdland levee in Des Moines, never be properly researched?

The Cityview weekly in Des Moines publishes some good investigative reporting, but that is no substitute for a strong daily newspaper in Iowa’s capital city.

Hancock says the mood in the Register’s newsroom is gloomy. Even without being directly affected by these layoffs, I’m feeling downbeat too.

The Des Moines Register published a long interview with the three members of the Iowa Utilities Board on Monday.

As you may recall, Democrats John Norris and Krista Tanner recently voted to approve an application to build a new coal-fired power plan near Marshalltown. Republican Darrell Hanson opposed the coal plant.

The whole piece is worth your time, but this was the key passage for me:

Q: For base-load power, it seems as if there aren’t many other options for Iowa than coal right now. Longer term, what’s on the horizon for base-load power?

Tanner: That is why I ultimately ended up voting for [the plant]. Even if all these things end up happening, the most aggressive standards we’re talking about are 30 by 30 [30 percent of electricity generated by renewable sources by 2030], and I’m really concerned about what does that other 70 percent look like. In my opinion, it’s coal or nuclear. [Nuclear is] not without its problems, because it is expensive. I am on the [Iowa] Climate Change Advisory Council, and we put that as an option to study. There’s a lot of resistance to it in the public, more so than coal, even though it’s a lower carbon-generating source.

They are pursuing ways to store the carbon to make coal more viable. I don’t think that will happen in the next five to 10 years. I saw this plant as almost a bridge technology, because it is more efficient. My thought is that if we’re going to have coal, it better be the most efficient plant we can have and have a potential for biomass. While it may be an incremental step in carbon reduction, it’s a step that we can take today.

Norris: At least for the foreseeable future, it’s going to be nuclear or coal. My preference certainly is to reduce greenhouse gases. For the long term, that’s nuclear, but it’s extremely expensive to build right now and an extremely lengthy process to build.

Q: Is there anything the state can do to encourage construction of nuclear plants or is that solely a federal responsibility?

Norris: We’re certainly open to a nuclear application, but still don’t expect it tomorrow. I know Mid-American looked closely at it, but decided costs, the time and the building issues are just prohibitive. Mid-American is a very progressive company in looking at new alternatives. It makes me a little concerned about how the country as a whole is going to solve our base-load problems. Nuclear certainly will help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Some people have suggested to me that John Norris would prefer for the coal plant not to be built, but his comments to the Des Moines Register do not support that speculation. It sounds as if he is resigned to expanding our use of coal because the utilities are not currently pursuing the alternative he prefers, nuclear power.

I believe that renewable energy technologies like wind and solar power can meet more of our electricity needs than IUB members expect.

But we also need to aggressively pursue conservation through government regulations, incentives and public-education campaigns. Conservation measures can dramatically reduce the demand for electricity, and do it quickly.

Residents of Juneau, Alaska cut their electricity use by about 30 percent in a week this spring. Click the link to read about how Brazilians reduced their use of electricity by 20 percent in two months in 2001.

The IUB is not in charge of our state’s energy policy, but maybe its members would not be inclined to approve new coal-fired power plants if they believed that future demand for electricity would be lower than currently projected.

State legislators and officials should take more steps to promote energy efficiency and conservation, as well as increasing our use of wind and solar power.

Here are some easy ways for individuals to reduce their own use of electricity. Simple things like unplugging appliances you are not using can save a lot.

P.S.–I cannot agree with Norris’s implication that expanding nuclear power would be the best way to meet demand for electricity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Here is a link to a 74-page report from the Union of Concerned Scientists on nuclear power. But if you’re too busy to read it, here is the key finding in less than 30 words:

The life cycle of nuclear power results in relatively little global warming pollution, but building a new fleet of plants could increase threats to public safety and national security.

A position paper on nuclear power and global warming notes that

Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

Friends of the Earth makes even stronger arguments against expanding nuclear power as a response to global warming:

It Would Set Back the Fight Against Global Warming: Experts suggest that we must triple the number of nuclear reactors in the U.S. in order to make a dent in global warming.  With a price tag of $5 billion per reactor and a historic construction timeline around 10 years, we’re not likely to see the 200-300 needed new reactors anytime soon.  (We currently have just over 100 reactors and many of those would have to be replaced as they reach retirement age.)  Alternatives, like wind, solar and conservation programs can produce results more quickly and affordably.

That was a long post-script, but we need to get out of the mindset that nuclear power is a solution to global warming, especially since both John McCain and Barack Obama are open to expanding nuclear power in this country.

Last month, while writing about Iowa getting an “F” grade for its open-records law, I commented:

The Register’s editorial board writes a lot about open-records law, and I give them credit for that. Unfortunately, under Gannett’s ownership, the Register hasn’t devoted nearly enough resources to solid investigative reporting.

I wish the editors were assigning more reporters to dig into the information that’s already publicly available.

Former Register editorial page editor Gil Cranberg develops that thought in an op-ed for the independent weekly Cityview, which asks why journalists did not uncover wrongdoing at the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium (CIETC):

The “CIETC scandal” was truly scandalous – as we’re reminded by the trials that kicked off last week – but it’s a mistake to blame it on a lack of “transparency” or to make it a poster child for Senate File 2378. The overpayments to CIETC executives were hiding in plain sight. The state auditor found them, and made a fuss, without having to issue subpoenas. For all of the ink spilled about CIETC I’m not aware of any that was used to explain how and why the press missed the huge overpayments until many months later when the auditor cried foul.

Sure, it helps to have strong laws to let the sunshine in. But inexperienced citizens can only do so much to uncover wrongdoing. If sunshine laws are to be effective, they have to be implemented by a press with the staff and space to make people sit up and take notice.

Unfortunately, the press is deep into retrenchment mode. Notice how page widths have narrowed? That means less space for news coverage. It’s the rare paper that trumpets how many fewer reporters, copy editors and editors it has, but loss of staff is unmistakable.

In the same issue of Cityview, the author of the “Civic Skinny” column delights in noting that the Des Moines Register just got shut out of the Pulitzers again,

as it has been every year since 1991. What’s more, alack, no Gannett newspaper won a Pulitzer – or was even a finalist this year.

If you want to win a Pulitzer, it helps to put some resources into investigative reporting.

Last week was disappointing for Iowa environmentalists in several ways, which I’ll discuss in future posts. Thankfully, I opened the Des Moines Register today to find an editorial opposing plans to build a new coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown:

Five years ago, when MidAmerican started construction at Council Bluffs, a Register editorial made just one reference to global warming and declared that Iowa “is on the right course by encouraging development of modern, cleaner-burning coal plants while pursuing renewable fuels and rewarding consumers who use less energy.” The newspaper also praised Alliant’s plans for new generating capacity.

Today, the editorial board has concluded that building a coal-fired plant in Marshalltown is not now the right course for Iowa. The right course would place far greater emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable sources of generation, particularly wind. For power plants, it would encourage a harder look at natural gas, which emits much less carbon dioxide, and would specify that any new “cleaner-burning coal plants” must be able, at least on the near horizon, to capture and sequester carbon dioxide.

For background on strengthening energy efficiency and finding alternatives to coal in Iowa, check out this page on the Iowa Environmental Council’s website.

On the right side of the screen you can click on a pdf file, which is a position paper specifically about coal-fired power plants.

For much more information about coal, including the costs of coal and the impacts of coal-fired generation of electricity, the Union of Concerned Scientists website has comprehensive information.

Thursday’s Des Moines Register contains a lengthy report on Governor Chet Culver’s recent vacation stay at a Florida condominium owned by Bill Knapp, a leading donor to Democrats in Iowa.

Knapp has been a friend to the Culver family for decades and “was the biggest individual contributor to Culver’s gubernatorial campaign in 2006, donating $112,500.”

The article quotes Knapp as saying Culver pays $1,000 per week in advance when his family stays at the condo. It then quotes a real estate broker in Florida as estimating a comparable condo would rent for $2,700 per week.

Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board, said he didn’t have enough information to say whether Knapp is a restricted donor or whether ethics rules were broken. “Ultimately, that’s the board’s decision to make,” Smithson said.

Smithson said no one has complained about the condo deal, but the board would have to look into it if someone did.

I doubt there will be any formal complaint regarding this issue, because the Register also reports that State Representative John Putney, a Republican and personal friend to Knapp, stayed at the condo during this year’s legislative session as well.

Unlike Culver, Putney did not pay up front for the use of the condo. Instead, he says that he treated members of the Knapp family to expensive dinners (costing about $600 per evening) in exchange for the use of the condo.

The Register quotes Putney as saying Knapp “has never asked me for one thing legislatively,” and quotes Knapp as saying he doesn’t ask Culver for anything or offer him gifts.

Although it’s natural to stay at the home of a close family friend, it would be prudent for elected officials or appointees to pay market rates for those vacation stays, so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety–especially when the owner of the vacation home is a large campaign donor.

You couldn’t miss this front-page story in the Des Moines Register on Monday:

Plan to reshape Ankeny tackles troubled spots

City officials and developer DRA Properties are transforming a 1,031-acre World War II munitions plant site into a live-work-play development called Prairie Trail. They expect 10,000 people to move there by 2020.

To realize their new urbanist dream, however, the developer and others are working to eliminate concerns about the land, some of which has been designated as a Superfund site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It’s a designation the EPA gives to uncontrolled hazardous waste sites identified as risks to human health.

[…]

There are two primary environmental concerns within the development, said Iowa DNR and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials.

The most critical is the 38-acre parcel to be converted into a city park. The land was used as a landfill and industrial lagoon decades ago by the Army, John Deere and the city. The area is where production waste of mainly metal particles and oils was disposed. Spots within the site, including toxic sludge left in the old industrial lagoons, contain unsafe levels of metals such as lead, chromium, copper, arsenic, manganese and antimony, according to the EPA.

EPA officials said the metals will have to be put out of human contact. Under a proposed plan, that would be done by a combination of removing soil and sealing the ground with a thick plastic barrier and clay cap.

Today, one in 10,000 people has a chance of getting cancer from a lifetime’s worth of exposure at the site, EPA toxicologist Jeremy Johnson said. After the cleanup, he said, those odds will be one in 1 million. “Those cancer risks won’t be there,” he said.

The landfill and lagoon area is a Superfund site. It is not on the Superfund national priority list, which identifies the country’s worst hazards.

However, it is not known whether the site would qualify for the national priority list, said Gene Gunn, a branch chief in the EPA Superfund program. It is not being considered for the list, which is largely a designation for projects to receive federal money, because the parties responsible for the contamination have voluntarily agreed to pay for the cleanup.

“I wouldn’t be very concerned with it,” Gunn said of the site as it would be after the cleanup. “The action that’s going to take place there will leave it in a protective state.”

Under a draft proposal, a covenant on the land would prevent houses from being built on the lagoon and landfill site, and the groundwater near there would be monitored for 30 years.

The Prairie Trail development is a great concept: a mix of residential, retail and public space in the center of town, easily navigated by foot or bicycle for those who choose not to drive.

However, community activists were raising concerns two years ago about the potential for schools, parks and houses to be placed on contaminated ground. I wish the Register had given the story prominent coverage at that time.

I hope they do a good job cleaning up this site, but frankly, I would hesitate to buy a home anywhere near that lagoon or landfill.

Iowa was one of 38 states to get an “F” on its open records law, according to this front-page article in Thursday’s Des Moines Register.

“The question posed was: Do states have a good apparatus built to … make it easier to further a complaint short of litigating?” said Charles Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. The group helped sponsor the study, which was conducted by the Better Government Association last year.

Sponsors of the study stressed the research attempted to measure how easy it was for citizens to obtain access to records, not the strength of state open records laws themselves.

There are a lot of interesting details in the article, so if freedom of information is a big issue for you, click the link.

The Register’s editorial board writes a lot about open-records law, and I give them credit for that. Unfortunately, under Gannett’s ownership, the Register hasn’t devoted nearly enough resources to solid investigative reporting.

I wish the editors were assigning more reporters to dig into the information that’s already publicly available.

Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

Maybe I’ve missed something in my absences from blogging over the past few months, but has the Register ever really done a serious news or feature piece on Iowa’s bloggers and citizen journalists?  I mean, I know we threaten their credibility and their readership by getting scoops, insight, and news out faster sometimes–not to mention that our commentary is sometimes more consistent and better written than their columnists’–but it almost seems like there is an intent to ignore the contributions that bloggers in Iowa have had both before the caucuses and in previous elections or issues.  Today, in their features section, they profile one citizen journalist who has been vlogging for PurpleStates.tv (she had to audition to get the gig) and one guy who has been doing it for MTV.  Don’t get me wrong, their efforts are valuable…but what about the folks who do this on their own time and don’t necessarily live off of it?

The folks at Iowa Independent have been doing regular news and political reporting since May, and other bloggers on both sides of the aisle have been part of the debate and policy discussion in Iowa politics for a few years now.  Other papers across the state, as well as national papers and news magazines, have highlighted our growth and commented on our contributions.

Simply put, why can’t Iowa’s paper of record recognize or examine the Iowa online community for what it is and report back to the people of Iowa on it?  I don’t want the media attention, the scrutiny, the interviews, the publicity; I just think that some of us deserve the recognition for the contributions we make.  Two of my former colleagues at Iowa Independent have already talked a bit about this subject (see Chase Martyn’s initial post here and read Ben Weyl’s abbreviated response here) and I think it is one worth further discussion as we continue to build Iowa’s blogosphere.

A day before the Iowa caucus, the Des Moines Register is running a long profile piece on Senator Dodd. The article goes into great detail on his record of bringing people together to get results and be a force for positive, progressive change over his twenty-six year career in the Senate.

Here's a clip from the article:

Chris Dodd says voters want more than a symbol of change – they want real change.

Dodd, a U.S. senator from Connecticut, has relied on his experience as he has pursued a longshot bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

He often points to changes he has made in the American policy landscape, including writing the Family and Medical Leave Act and helping reform election laws.

He was one of the authors of the Help America Vote Act, which his staff said was the first major step the country took toward reforming election law after the controversial 2000 election in Florida.

That act provided grant money to states to upgrade their election systems and put provisions in place to make polling more accessible for the disabled.

“I'm a great advocate of change, and on the cutting edge of it,” Dodd said.

The Family and Medical Leave Act requires employers to grant eligible employees a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave for reasons such as the birth of a child or to care for an immediate family member with a serious health condition.

Dodd calls the legislation the “most significant health care reform since Medicare reform” and as president, said he wants to expand the coverage to include paid leave.

Dodd's policy vision is also punctuated by his often-stated concern to preserve the Constitution, a copy of which he carries in his pocket every day.

It's always interesting to see which pieces of legislation or achievements reporters choose to highlight from Chris Dodd's record. Frankly, with a leader who's gotten as much done as Dodd has throughout his career, the task his daunting. Just ask Mike Caulfield about how many hours it took for him to whittle down the scores of stories he researched while writing his endorsement post.

In the article Dodd also talks about the virtue of public service as a calling for those who want to help as many people as they can.

“He said there's no other calling in life where you can do as much for as many people as you can through public service,” Dodd said at the debate. “Lawyers only have so many clients, doctors only so many patients, but a well-intentioned public servant can make a difference in the lives of millions of people. That's my motivation. I want to carry that tradition on. That's why I'm running for president.”

I can't think of a more admirable reason for a person to seek the presidency than this – it's one of the reasons I'm proud to be working for Chris Dodd.

I can be tough on David Yepsen from time to time, but the worst columnist at the Des Moines Register has to be John Carlson. It wouldn’t be so bad if he stuck to his usual human-interest columns, but whenever he strays into the political arena, the results are embarrassing.

His latest column on Christmas wishes has this passage buried in the middle:

To Mike Huckabee and Joe Biden. Huckabee, because he showed that an unknown with very little cash can travel Iowa, deliver a popular message and become a national political figure. It is the point of our first-in-the-nation caucuses. Biden, because he is possibly the most qualified and thoughtful of all the candidates running for president, and, sadly, he’s losing out to celebrity and money.

Excuse me? Carlson is now disappointed that a qualified and thoughtful candidate hasn’t broken out?

Is this the same Carlson who just a week ago was making fun of campaign staffers who call him about the caucuses?

The same Carlson whose column after the Des Moines Register-sponsored debate was full of approving quotes from cynical people who watched the debate while getting their haircut? The tone of that column is classic Carlson: while politicians are yakking, most Iowans (read: normal people) have better things to do and don’t believe anything the politicians say.

Carlson should stick to writing about church suppers and heart-warming charity projects. If he’s such a fan of Joe Biden, he could have done more during the year to encourage his readers to take the campaign seriously, get out there and listen to the second-tier candidates.  

They are revealing.

Looking at this piece by the editorial page editor, Carol Hunter, you can see that even they feel a little guilty that they didn’t endorse Biden:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

Also, this piece on “rating the other candidates” has some fascinating passages:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

It’s clear that they almost went with Biden:

Even in our last major round of deliberations, we kept coming back to the question, “Why not Joe Biden?”

Many of the arguments we have made on behalf of the tested leadership of Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain apply to Biden as well. He knows how to get legislation passed. He, too, has deep foreign-policy expertise. We’re inspired by his fierce defense of civil liberties. His work on legislation to combat domestic violence has no doubt prevented injuries and saved lives. He might, indeed, make a good president.

But spending virtually his entire adult life in the Senate also makes his experience somewhat narrower than that of some other candidates. And in making sometimes slim distinctions in this talented bunch, we see his well-known loquaciousness as a weakness. It reflects a certain lack of discipline, and it’s gotten him into trouble on occasion with ill-considered remarks related to race. (We do, however, wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment expressed uniformly by his campaign rivals that his heart is in the right place.)

It’s also clear that they don’t disagree with Edwards on anything of substance:

We still believe he’s right about two Americas, the one for people who have everything they need and the one for people who struggle to get by. He’s right about the stagnation of middle-class wages. He’s right that the tax system and overall economic policy have become too tilted toward the affluent, making it virtually impossible for poor and middle-class families to get ahead.

He’s right that the baby-boomer generation risks breaking the “one moral commandment” of Americans: “To give our children a better future than we received.”

Edwards is most persuasive when he appeals to America’s goodness to do better by the vulnerable among us, as he did in last week’s Register Democratic debate:

“…Somewhere in America tonight, a child will go to bed hungry. Somewhere in America tonight, a family will have to go to the emergency room and beg for health care for a sick child. …Somewhere in America today, a father who’s worked for 30 or 40 years to support his family will lose his job. That’s what’s at stake in this election. What’s not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine, no matter what happens in this election. What’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.”

Edwards has set the ambitious goal of eliminating poverty in a generation. He’s developed creative proposals to help families save and make college more affordable. (Other Democrats have outlined similar plans.) Edwards or whoever is the party’s standard-bearer should work to take those plans to the White House.

The question on Edwards is whether a self-described fighter for change, who wants to “cast aside the bankrupt ways of Washington,” can get results in Washington. For someone trying to reunite the two Americas, would he be too divisive a figure?

This part of their analysis on Barack Obama also tells you a lot about the people on the Register editorial board:

One board member described the case for Obama in the Clinton vs. Obama discussion as a bank shot versus a straight shot in pool. Success is less certain with a bank shot, but the gamble (in this case for a more cohesive, hopeful country) might be worth it.

Another veteran editorial writer described the choice as similar to picking Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a calculating but masterful politician at maneuvering needed legislation through Congress, versus John F. Kennedy, whose youthful vigor inspired the nation to take on new challenges. That’s not a bad choice.

This endorsement shows how risk-averse the Register editors are. They were worried about a few gaffes Biden has made (as if Clinton doesn’t have 10 times as much baggage). They didn’t want someone who would antagonize corporate interests like Edwards, even though they can’t point to anything he’s wrong about. And they think Obama would be too big of a gamble.

They also fondly remember FDR for his “calculating” skills at maneuvering legislation through Congress.

Although I don’t doubt FDR’s talents in this area, I think of him first and foremost as someone who had tremendous vision. He didn’t shy away from proposing huge changes to deal with the crises of the day, even if they were a gamble, and even if they risked upsetting the powerful corporate interests of his day.

Also, FDR was a very combative and partisan president. He did his best to pin every economic failure onto the Republican Party, and his presidency succeeded in realigning American voters for a generation.

That’s very different from the Register’s praise of Hillary’s legislative skills in reaching across the aisle.

Just wanted to bring this piece to your attention.

I agree 100 percent with a column by David Yepsen. It's about how the “Destiny” tax proposal will lose and deserves to lose.

Here's the link to his piece in the Des Moines Register today. It's hard to know what to excerpt, because he makes a lot of good points. Here's one Chris Woods and I haven't discussed previously on this site:

The supporters' big hope now is that all the groups that will get additional money will vote for it, while those opponents will forget there's an election on July 10. That's what the supporters were trying to do when they scheduled this for a summertime special election – manipulate the outcome.

Which raises another issue for state lawmakers to consider. Why should governments and interest groups be allowed to schedule elections in an effort to affect the results? Got a tax increase or bond issue to get approved? Then schedule the election when people might not be paying attention – like mid-July – so a small handful of voters can push it through.

It amounts to governments playing games with their people. No wonder folks get cynical. Legislators should put a stop to it by adopting an idea Secretary of State Mike Mauro and Gov. Chet Culver have suggested: Governments should be required to hold bond elections and special ballot elections on just a handful of pre-determined dates. For example, once every six months, the state could specify a date on which all bond referendums, ballot initiatives or elections to fill vacancies must be held.

Also in the Sunday Register, you'll find a write-up of this opinion poll, which found that people in the three counties that will be voting oppose the Destiny proposal 2 to 1.

The question is, will these people turn out to vote? The groups that will benefit from the spending are working to get supporters to vote–as a member of the Des Moines Art Center, I got an e-mail recently containing an absentee ballot request form as an attachment.

I think the “Destiny” proposal will go down in flames. It probably wouldn't have passed even if the promoters hadn't sent out misleading direct-mail pieces supporting it (the first one didn't mention the sales-tax hike, and another one included a quote from an elderly woman who later said she never made the comment attributed to her in the mailer). But those mistakes certainly hurt their cause too.

I read the Des Moines Register's write-up on Tom Tancredo's visit to NW Iowa in the Sunday edition, and I think it's time for reporters covering Tancredo to go beyond reporting his outrageous claims and ask him to provide some evidence to back them up.

We've known for a long time that Tancredo is a one-trick pony, playing on the right wing's resentment against Spanish-speaking immigrants, fanned by the conservative hate radio machine. 

But I hadn't realized before reading this article that Tancredo actually blames immigrants for every problem plaguing America. Tancredo seems to think the main problem in our education system is the hordes of illegal immigrants whose children flood our schools. Nowhere in the article do I see a hint that a reporter asked him about what percentage of our school districts serve a significant population of illegal immigrants. 

Here's Tancredo talking about health care, channeling Moe Siszlyak of The Simpsons (“I knew it was the immigints! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was the immigints!”):

Tancredo touted his support for “market-place competition” in health care and personal health savings accounts, but added that “were we to deal with the illegal immigration problem, we could significantly reduce our costs for health care.”

Really? Illegal immigrants are a significant reason that the US is spending 14 percent of our GDP on health care? Again, I see no sign that a reporter has asked Tancredo or a Tancredo staffer to provide evidence backing up this claim.

Tancredo linked immigration to our environmental problems, since immigration is largely responsible for our population growth:

“If we continue on this path, there will be a billion people here by the end of the century,” Tancredo added. “And if there are, what do you think that does to our environment? Americans consume more and produce more waste than anybody else. If you're worried about the environment, why aren't you worried about the fact we are bringing in millions and millions of people?

Kind of interesting to see this conservative, anti-choice Republican so concerned about population growth and U.S. consumption. Did the Register's correspondent ask Tancredo whether he has ever sponsored legislation aimed at reducing the amount of waste produced by American consumers?

Also, his population numbers seem way off. What credible source has predicted that the U.S. population will hit 1 billion by the end of this century?

The last straw for me was this passage:

Tancredo touched briefly on what he said was the increased number of vaccine-resistant diseases being introduced into the United States from other countries, then forged ahead to what he said is illegal immigration's impact on national security.

This is loathsome propaganda designed to dehumanize immigrants among the Republican electorate. Maybe the reporter or the DM Register's editors think that “what he said was” is sufficient to suggest to the reader that Tancredo's claim might not be true. But this was crying out for a follow-up by the correspondent–what vaccine-resistant diseases is Tancredo talking about? Are there any?

Did the Register contact the Centers for Disease Control to verify this claim?

Come on, campaign trail reporters, be more than stenographers.

UPDATE: Don at Cyclone Conservatives attended Tancredo's Sioux City immigration forum on Saturday and loved what he heard from Tancredo and his Iowa campaign director, Bill Salier. 

I understand why the Des Moines Register strives for ideological balance in its letters section, but one thing I can't figure out is how some letters, which deliberately miss the point of the article they are responding to, get past the editors.

A case in point is this letter, published in the Sunday Register, in which stay-at-home mom Lori Leporte of Des Moines attempted to strike a humorous tone. The letter is written as an apology to her four-year-old son:

I'm sorry that you're stuck with me and with the choice I've made to raise and educate you myself instead of letting the state of Iowa – which, according to Rekha Basu, is becoming a better parent – do it (“Iowa Becoming a Better Parent,” May 13 column).

She goes on to apologize for her plans to home-school her four-year-old, providing him with an individualized curriculum, etc.

And now, it seems that, should you choose to go to college, you will be doomed to a life of hard work and perseverance in order to pay your own way because you are cursed with living with a set of parents who love you and have taught you that you are not entitled to one dime of the taxpayers' money just because you got a bad rap in life, thereby rendering you ineligible for a free college education, courtesy of the state.

Anyone reading this letter without knowing the context would naturally think, whah? The state is providing free education to some kids but punishing those who have good parents? The Register's liberal columnist is saying that the state of Iowa is a better parent than I am?

Let's look at the Rekha Basu column that this letter is reacting to. The headline read, “Iowa Becoming a Better Parent.” But was Basu really saying that the state of Iowa is a better parent than a child's own mother and father? Not at all. She was talking about recent improvements for kids who age out of foster care:

For some Iowa kids, mother doesn't look like a woman. She looks like a logo of sun rising over a cornfield attached to the slogan “Iowa – Fields of Opportunities.” The state of Iowa itself is both mother and father to about 1,500 children in foster care.
[…]
But last week, the state of Iowa, as parent, gave its foster children a sort of Mother's Day gift. It became the first state in the nation, according to the bill's Senate floor manager, to promise to pick up the cost of college for any foster-care kid of college age. It was one of several new laws intended to strengthen the welfare of the children to whom Iowa is parent.

In the past, foster children who turned 18 or 19 were often literally turned out onto the street with no public assistance. Is this the future that Lori Leporte think these unfortunate children deserve, just because they have not been cared for by their own parents? Apparently so, since she alludes to teaching her son that “you are not entitled to one dime of the taxpayers' money just because you got a bad rap in life.” 

Here's another excerpt from Basu's column:

While the government can never take the place of real parents, another bill passed by the Legislature appropriates money for the Preparation for Adult Living Program, helping these young adults find a job or school or pay rent.

As we can see, Basu explicitly states that real parents are better for children, but also talks about one program that may mitigate some of the disadvantages kids who have aged out of foster care face. But Lori Leporte twists this and sarcastically writes to her son,

you don't really need me anyway – the state of Iowa will be there to watch you blow out the candles on your birthday cake and make all your wishes come true.

I'm a stay-at-home mom, as are many of my friends. Although my husband and I will send our children to the fine public schools in our area, I have many friends who are home-schooling or plan to home-school their kids. It's a free country.

But I can't imagine any of my friends saying that some government program to help foster kids is somehow unfair to their own kids, or devalues their own parenting.

Maybe Lori Leporte honestly didn't understand the point of Basu's column–if this is the case, I sure hope her home-schooled son turns out to be better at reading comprehension than his mother.

Or maybe she was deliberately distorting the message in order to make herself feel self-righteous and score some rhetorical points against big government.

I'm sure that the Register receives plenty of letters from conservatives who don't like Basu. Next time they decide to print one of these, the editors should choose one that bashes her with some semblance of understanding the point she was making in her column.

 And note to Lori Leporte: next time you feel like griping because some kids who have had difficult childhoods are going to get some financial assistance with college, ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

When I see that David Yepsen has written another column about Iowans being over-taxed, I usually don’t get past the first couple of paragraphs. These columns show up a few times a year, whenever Yepsen gets hold of a press release from some right-wing think tank. I figure, I know what he’s going to say without reading the whole piece.

But fortunately, West Des Moines resident John Norwood actually read Yepsen’s latest column on the subject (link no longer available on the free portion of the Register website) and put together a devastating rebuttal that appeared in the Des Moines Register’s Sunday edition:

David Yepsen’s April 17 column once again beats the drum that somehow Iowa’s state and local tax burden is driving our state to ruin (“Lighten Growing Tax Burden”). We’re a state with the 18th-highest tax burden in the nation.

Having grown up in Massachusetts and later having lived 10 years in the San Francisco Bay area, two of the country’s most expensive areas, I have trouble reconciling my personal experience with the conclusions of the Tax Foundation that Yepsen cites.

Even if we take the Tax Foundation report as gospel, the chart presented next to Yepsen’s column notes that there is really very little difference between the 44th most-taxed state, which is South Dakota at 9 percent, and Iowa, which comes in 18th at 11 percent.

The variance in state rates is actually pretty narrow across most of the distribution. Move to Missouri, save 0.9 percent and you’re in the driver’s seat at 34th.

How many Iowans, who have access to superior education and other community services, are ready to leave for South Dakota or Missouri for that 1 percent to 2 percent difference? There’s an old saw, Yepsen, “You get what you pay for.”

Iowa is doing pretty well, if you ask me.

– John Norwood,

West Des Moines.

The idea that anyone is deciding where to live based on a 1 or 2 percent difference in tax rates is laughable. Thanks to the letter-writer for spelling out why.