On Friday the House of Representatives approved The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by 232 to 202. All three Iowa Democrats (Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell) voted for the bill. Tom Latham and Steve King joined their Republican colleagues, who unanimously voted no. A press release from Braley’s office summarized key provisions:

–      Creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) to protect Americans from unfair financial products and services.

–       Creation of an oversight council to identify and regulate large financial firms whose collapse would place the entire financial system at risk.

–       Establishes a process for dismantling institutions like AIG or Lehman Brothers that protects taxpayers and ends bailouts.

–       Enables regulators to prohibit excessive executive compensations.

The “unfair” financial products to be regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Agency include mortgages, credit cards and “payday” lenders. I would particularly like to see a crackdown on payday lending. Those high-interest loans have been shown to trap low-income borrowers in a cycle of debt.

The bill also includes some regulation of the derivatives market for the first time, but it sounds as if those provisions didn’t go far enough:

Consumer advocates cheered the survival of the consumer protection agency but said the overall legislation fell short, especially in the regulation of complex investment instruments known as derivatives.

The legislation aims to prevent manipulation and bring transparency to the $600 trillion global derivatives market. But an amendment by New York Democrat Scott Murphy, adopted 304-124 Thursday night, created an exception for nonfinancial companies that use derivatives as a hedge against market fluctuations rather than as a speculative investment. The amendment exempted businesses considered too small to be a risk to the financial system.

A Democratic effort to make more companies subject to derivatives regulations and to end abusive-trading rules failed.

When the Obama administration first proposed a package of regulations, it called for regulations of derivatives without any exceptions. But a potent lobbying coalition that included Boeing Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., Coca-Cola and other big companies persuaded lawmakers to dilute the restrictions.

“It’s a weakness in the bill and a win for Wall Street,” said Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America. “Hedge funds and others that are not bona fide hedgers of commercial risk will slip through this language.”

Although I’m disappointed that Congressional Democrats didn’t pass a stronger bill, I am disgusted by House Republican leaders who “met with more than 100 lobbyists” last week in a desperate attempt to derail any regulation of these practices.

Representative Boswell worked on the derivatives regulations, and a statement from his office on December 11 expressed pride in “the work that the Agriculture Committee did to bring greater oversight and transparency to the over-the-counter derivatives market while balancing the interests of Iowa’s farmers and business owners who utilize these markets to hedge operations costs and lock-in commodity prices for responsible business planning.”

After the jump I’ve posted part of this statement, which includes written remarks Boswell submitted regarding the derivatives regulations.

Big news yesterday from The Hill’s blog:

A federal judge today issued an injunction preventing the implementation of a congressional ban on funding for ACORN.

Judge Nina Gershon concluded that the ban amounted to a “bill of attainder” that unfairly singled out ACORN.

“[The plaintiffs] have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process of adjudicating guilt,” Gershon wrote in her decision.

Gershon said ACORN had demonstrated “irreperable harm” from the ban, while “the potential harm to the government, in granting the injunction, is less.

You can download a pdf file of the ruling at the Center for Constitutional Rights site.

Conservative heads are exploding. I await an outraged statement from ACORN-obsessed Representative Steve King (IA-05), even though ACORN has done nothing wrong.

Credit should go to the 75 House Democrats who had the courage to vote against this unconstitutional bill. Sadly, Iowa’s Democratic representatives Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell joined the stampede to cut off ACORN.

Speaking of which, Editor & Publisher recently published an outstanding piece by Christopher R. Martin and Peter Dreier on the media’s “false framing” of ACORN.

I was very sorry to read this week that Editor & Publisher is shutting down after more than 100 years in business.

UPDATE: I missed this story:

This week, an independent review of ACORN (pdf here), run by by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, found serious but correctable problems with the organization that were organizational, not criminal in nature, and that reflected an overall lack of coordinated national management and unified purpose–the exact opposite of the centralized, highly disciplined super-secret organization that conservatives have long fantasized about.

While the report pulls no punches in citing nine significant reports that need to be made, it says that “The following nine (9) recommendations, discussed in detail in Section VII, are neither an epitaph nor an absolution for ACORN, but are a roadmap to reform and renewal, if implemented in their entirety in concert with other measures to regain the public’s trust.”

Regarding the videos used to attack ACORN, the report finds that “The released videos offer no evidence of a pattern of illegal conduct by ACORN employees,” that “The ACORN employees captured on video were members or part-time staff. They were not organizers or supervisory level employees,” and that “There is no evidence that any action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by ACORN employees on behalf of the videographers.”

Jim Gibbons’ Congressional campaign hasn’t impressed me so far, but I’m even less impressed by supporters of Republican rivals who are trying to discredit Gibbons as a “carpet-bagger.” It’s supposed to be a big scandal that Gibbons recently moved from Boone County (part of IA-04 and a 20-minute drive from the Des Moines suburbs) to Polk County. This attack is an insult to the collective intelligence of third district voters.

So I almost didn’t click on Charlotte Eby’s blog post yesterday, “Candidate new resident of Iowa’s 3rd District.” But there was something interesting in the story after all:

Former Iowa State University wrestling coach Jim Gibbons moved into an apartment in Des Moines from a home in [a] rural area near Perry, said Nick Ryan, who responded on behalf of the campaign.

I’ve been hearing that Gibbons was Bruce Rastetter’s man in the Republican primary to face Representative Leonard Boswell, and Eby’s post contained the first piece of evidence supporting that rumor. Ryan was recently in the news speaking on behalf of the American Future Fund, but he “works primarily for Rastetter’s companies”. He accompanied Rastetter to meetings with Iowa House and Senate Republicans to talk political strategy during the 2009 legislative session.

If Ryan is taking press calls for the Gibbons campaign, it’s a safe bet that Rastetter’s money is on Gibbons. Why the ethanol baron would prefer him to State Senator Brad Zaun is still a mystery to me. Anyone with a good hypothesis is welcome to post a comment here or send me an e-mail: desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

UPDATE: In the comments, Bleeding Heartland user mirage points out that Cityview’s Civic Skinny and Iowa Progress have pushed the carpet-bagger angle. Point taken, though neither of them said that should be a reason for Republican primary voters to reject Gibbons. I’ve observed commenters at The Iowa Republican trying to use this argument, though.

Speaking of The Iowa Republican, they published a Gibbons press release today containing an idiotic tax proposal. Might appeal to some Republican primary voters, but it’s completely impractical.

The House of Representatives approved the Tax Extenders Act of 2009 on Wednesday by a vote of 241 to 181. As you can see from the roll call, all but ten Democrats voted for the bill, including Iowa’s Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell. All but two Republicans voted against it, including Iowa’s Tom Latham and Steve King. After the jump I’ve posted more details about the business tax credits that would be extended if this bill becomes law.

On December 3, the House passed the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families Farmers and Small Businesses Act, which caps the estate tax at 45 percent and exempts estates worth up to $3.5 million (preserving this tax at 2009 levels). Again, all of Iowa’s Democrats voted for the bill. Iowa’s Republicans voted against it. If Congress had not acted, the estate tax would have been repealed in 2010 and then would have reverted to its 2001 level in 2011 (a 55 percent tax on estates valued above $1 million).

Republicans claim the so-called “death tax” is a burden to small business owners and farmers. Candidate Jim Gibbons already used this canard in a press release targeting Boswell. Right-wingers can’t find any real-world families who had to sell the farm because of the estate tax. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has concluded (emphasis added),

If the 2009 estate tax rules are extended, only 100 small business and farm estates in the entire nation will owe any estate tax at all in 2011, according to the new estimates by the Tax Policy Center, and virtually none of those businesses and farms would have to be sold to pay the tax. […]

Under 2009 law, the estates of more than 997 of every 1,000 people who die will owe no estate tax whatsoever. […] In its latest analysis, the Tax Policy Center projects that only 0.25 percent of the estates of people who die in 2011 – i.e., the estates of 1 of every 400 people who die – will be subject to the estate tax if the 2009 estate tax rules are continued.

Less than 1 percent of estates in Iowa were subject to the estate tax in recent years.

To sum up: Republicans are for saving farmers and small business owners from the so-called “death tax” that doesn’t apply to them. But when they had a chance on Wednesday to extend tax credits affecting farms and small businesses, House Republicans said no.

Why am I not surprised?

John Deeth brought this piece by Hotline’s Reid Wilson to my attention.

An informal list of 17 members the NRCC believes can be convinced to step down, privately called the “Dem Retirement Assault List,” makes clear the party needs Dem incumbents to step aside if they have hopes of taking back the majority. The NRCC has taken pains to attack those lawmakers in recent weeks.

The list includes 14 members whose districts voted for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in ’08. […]

The NRCC has also begun targeting Reps. Sanford Bishop (D-GA), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Leonard Boswell (D-IA), three members who already have credible opponents but who occupy seats Pres. Obama won in ’08.

2008 would have been a perfect time for Boswell to retire. Tons of voters in Iowa’s third Congressional district registered as Democrats in order to participate in the Iowa caucuses, and any number of candidates could have held this seat easily. Statewide, turnout in November 2008 was about the same as in 2004, but turnout in Polk County was significantly higher in 2008.

I don’t know anyone who expects Boswell to step down next year, but if he did, this might be a tough hold, since Democratic turnout tends to be lower in off-year elections. On the other hand, much would depend on the Democratic nominee. One possible candidate is former First Lady Christie Vilsack, who seemed to leave the door open for a future campaign when she ruled out running against Senator Chuck Grassley. Someone with high name recognition and no voting record to attack might even do better than Boswell against Brad Zaun or Jim Gibbons.  

Members of the House Populist Caucus, chaired by Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01), held a press conference on Thursday to endorse a bill that would “assess a small fee on Wall Street day traders to pay down the national deficit and invest in America’s middle class families.”

Details about the bill are after the jump.

Brad Zaun made the news yesterday when he officially entered the race against Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third Congressional district, and rival Republican candidate Jim Gibbons apparently wanted a little attention too. So Gibbons put out a press release accusing Boswell of not working hard enough.

After the jump I have more on that lame accusation, as well as speculation about who’s backing Gibbons against Zaun.  

State Senator Brad Zaun formally announced today that he is running against Representative Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third Congressional distirct. Charlotte Eby was there:

Zaun, 47, highlighted his experience as a legislator, small business owner and former mayor in his announcement speech.

Zaun cited a growing national deficit as one of his reasons for running and called what is going on in Washington dysfunctional.

“We need to fix this because what’s going to happen is these young people here and all of us in this room are going to be paying for this irresponsibility that’s going on in Washington, D.C.,” Zaun said. “I truly believe that I can make a difference.” […]

Zaun said incumbents are vulnerable next year, something he said is evident the “tea party” movement and town hall meetings this summer.

“I think people are just saying they’ve had enough with the insiders and what’s going on,” Zaun said.

Speaking of insiders, Iowa Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley praised Zaun at today’s event. I’ll be interested to see who in the GOP establishment sides with Jim Gibbons in the primary to run against Boswell.

UPDATE: Kathie Obradovich published Zaun’s press release at the Des Moines Register blog.

So many campaign stories the past few days, so little time.

After the jump you’ll find lots of links about various campaigns for U.S. Senate, House, governor and state treasurer.

State Senator Brad Zaun of Urbandale has filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to run for Congress in Iowa’s third district next year, The Iowa Republican reported today. Zaun has also revamped his campaign website. Before he can face seven-term incumbent Leonard Boswell, Zaun must win a Republican primary, where his main opponent is likely to be former Iowa State University wrestling coach Jim Gibbons.

Judging from various comment threads at The Iowa Republican, supporters of Gibbons feel Zaun is too “moderate.” There have been a couple of references to “pro-gay” votes by Zaun, but I have no idea what they are talking about. Zaun voted against the 2007 bill that amended the Iowa Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination because of sexual orientation (click here for the bill history). Zaun is also on record opposing same-sex marriage rights.

I would expect both Zaun and Gibbons to be able to raise substantial campaign funding. The eventual nominee will need it, because the National Republican Congressional Committee has a lot less cash on hand than its Democratic counterpart and has many more enticing targets than IA-03.

UPDATE: From Radio Iowa:

Boswell was not among the congressional Democrats targeted, nationally, by the G-O-P in 2008, but Zaun says he’s been assured the National Republican Congressional Committee will invest money to defeat Boswell in 2010.

“They’ve told me that this is going to be a priority and this seat is going to be one of the top targeted seats,” Zaun says.

They’ll have to step up their fundraising to keep that promise.

UPDATE: CQ Politics reports that Maske “has filed candidacy paperwork with the Federal Election Commission.”

At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner on Saturday I was pleased to meet Bill Maske of Truro (Madison County), who is running against Representative Tom Latham in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. I don’t know whether there will be a contested Democratic primary; I didn’t see stickers or campaign literature for any other Democrat looking at this race. After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from the material Maske’s volunteers were handing out. He plans to make a formal campaign announcement soon.

Latham is generally considered a safe incumbent after beating Becky Greenwald last year by 20 points in a district Barack Obama won. Still, it will be important to have a Democrat out there highlighting Latham’s bad votes. In 2012, Latham will either be thrown into the same district as Steve King or, more likely, will have to run in a new third district containing Polk County. We can’t afford to leave him unchallenged next year.

Speaking of King, it looks like there will be a contested Democratic primary in the fifth Congressional district. Attorney Matt Campbell has put up a campaign website for this race. He joins Mike Denklau, who has already started campaigning.

Next spring, Iowa’s third Congressional district will see its first competitive Republican primary in some time. State Senator Brad Zaun of Urbandale told CQ Politics today that he plans to run against seven-term incumbent Representative Leonard Boswell. Zaun said he will formally announce his candidacy sometime after December 1.

Earlier today, The Iowa Republican blog reported that former Iowa State wrestling coach Jim Gibbons is quitting his job at Wells Fargo to run for Congress against Boswell. One of the previously announced candidates, Dave Funk of Runnells, indicated in this comment thread that he will stay in the race. Until this week, Funk and Pat Bertroche of Clive were the only confirmed Republican candidates against Boswell.

Zaun was just re-elected to the Iowa Senate in 2008, so he won’t have to give up his seat in the upper chamber if he loses the GOP primary or the general election.

CQ Politics suggested that with Gibbons and Zaun in the race, it may change its rating on this district from “safe Democratic.” I tend to agree with the statement that Gabby Adler of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent to CQ Politics:

“Each year Republicans claim they have Congressman Boswell in their sights, and each year they never live up to their own hype – there is no reason to believe this time will be any different,” Adler said.

As I’ve previously written, I do not consider Boswell an endangered incumbent this cycle. That said, the prospect of continuing job losses throughout 2010 could put many Democratic incumbents at risk.

What puzzles me is why so many Republicans are seeking this position. Even if a Republican beats Boswell, he is likely to be thrown into a 2012 primary against Tom Latham in a redrawn IA-03. Few people would choose a freshman over a nine-term incumbent with a seat on the House Appropriations Committee.  

The mystery “top-rate” Republican recruit against Representative Leonard Boswell emerged today. According to The Iowa Republican blog, former Iowa State University wrestling coach Jim Gibbons will file papers with the Federal Election Commission to run in Iowa’s third Congressional district.

At Ames High School, he won three state titles. At Iowa State University, he was a three-time All-American and won a national championship during his junior year.

When his collegiate wrestling career was over, then-ISU coach Dr. Harold Nichols, offered Gibbons a job as an assistant coach. When Nichols retired in 1986, Gibbons was named head coach. He coached seven individual NCAA champions while compiling a 96-32-1 career coaching mark. After winning the NCAA Championships in 1987, Gibbons was named national coach of the year. He was named Big Eight Coach of the Year in 1991 and retired from coaching after the 1992 season.

Since leaving coaching, Gibbons has been a financial advisor, most recently with Wells Fargo Advisors in West Des Moines. He also serves as a television commentator, providing color commentary for ESPN, The Big Ten Network, and Iowa Public Television. In 2003, he was named broadcaster of the year by the National Wrestling Media Association.

Gibbons says he is retiring from Wells Fargo to run for Congress full-time. He opposed the federal stimulus package and Democratic bills on health care reform and climate change.

I’m guessing that this means State Senator Brad Zaun and former Iowa GOP chairman Mike Mahaffey will not seek the Republican nomination to challenge Boswell. Gibbons can probably raise a decent amount of money and may even be able to self-fund his campaign. The National Republican Congressional Committee is unlikely to invest a lot of money in this district in my opinion.

College wrestling is a popular sport in Iowa, but I still don’t see Boswell as a likely casualty next year. If unemployment keeps rising, though, who knows? Any comments about this or other House races are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: In the comments, Bleeding Heartland user mirage, who is a Republican, believes Zaun would be a stronger candidate than Gibbons. Zaun was mayor of Urbandale, a heavily Republican suburb of Des Moines, before winning a seat in the Iowa Senate in 2004.

SECOND UPDATE: I was wrong about Zaun. He told CQ Politics today that he plans to run against Boswell and will announce his candidacy sometime after December 1.

Iowa’s second Congressional district is the most Democratic-leaning of our five districts. It has a partisan voting index of D+7, which means that in any given year, we would expect this district to vote about 7 point more Democratic than the country as a whole. In 2008, Dave Loebsack won re-election in IA-02 with about 57 percent of the vote against Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who couldn’t crack 40 percent.

Today Republican blogger Craig Robinson previews the GOP primary to take on Loebsack. His piece is a good reminder of how small the Republican tent has become in a district once represented by Jim Leach.  

Few problems require federal action more urgently than global warming. I admire the members of Congress who have been trying to address this issue. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman tried to get the best deal he could. Senator John Kerry has tried to keep things moving in the upper chamber. Senator Lindsey Graham is getting tons of grief from fellow Republicans because he admits that climate change is a problem.

I want to support these people and their efforts to get a bill on the president’s desk. Unfortunately, the time has come to accept that Congress is too influenced by corporate interests to deal with climate change in any serious way. Pretending to fight global warming won’t solve the problem and may even be counter-productive.

This depressing post continues after the jump.

Republicans are trying to recruit a strong challenger against Congressman Leonard Boswell, and by the end of the year State Senator Brad Zaun, former Iowa GOP head Mike Mahaffey, or perhaps some other prominent figure will throw his hat in the ring. However, I continue to believe that Iowa’s third Congressional district will not be a close contest next year, and I’ll explain why after the jump.  

Health Care for America NOW and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees are running television ads this week thanking 20 Democrats in relatively tough districts who voted for the House health care reform bill last Saturday. If you live in the Des Moines viewing area, you may have seen this commercial about Congressman Leonard Boswell:

Corporate-funded conservative groups have targeted Boswell in negative ads this year because of his vote for the climate-change bill in June. Ads attacking the health care reform project (many funded by insurance industry fronts or the Chamber of Commerce) have been plentiful this summer and fall too. It makes sense for reform advocates to thank Boswell, as Iowa Republicans are gearing up to challenge him with State Senator Brad Zaun or some other well-known figure.  

In other health care reform news, Tom Harkin is among the Senate Democrats trying to keep the "Stupak amendment" language on abortion out of the Senate's version of health care reform. He's absolutely right that some people pushing amendments are trying to kill the bill rather than make it better. A lot of questions have been raised about whether defeating the bill was Representative Bart Stupak's main goal. Since 1992, Stupak has been involved with the fundamentalist Christian "Family" group and has lived in their house on C Street in Washington.  

Stupak claims that as many as 40 House Democrats would reject health care reform without his amendment, but yesterday House Whip James Clyburn said the Stupak amendment only gained 10 votes for the bill. Meanwhile, more than 40 House liberals are threatening to vote down the final bill out of conference if it contains the Stupak language.  

Final note: MyDD user Bruce Webb wrote an interesting piece about what he views as "the most important and overlooked sentence" in the House health care reform bill:  

Most of the criticism of HR3962 coming from the left revolves around the belief that the House bill has no premium and so no profit controls, that it in effect delivers millions of Americans into the hands of insurance companies who can continue to raise premiums at will while denying care by managing the risk pool in favor of those unlikely to make claims. This just is not true, not if the provision in this one sentence is properly implemented. In a stroke it guts the entire current business model of the insurance companies, based as it is on predation and selective coverage, and replaces it with a model where you can only make money by extending coverage to the widest range of customers and or delivering that coverage in a more efficient way.

 Like they say, go read the whole thing.
 

After many hours of debate, the House of Representatives approved HR 2962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act tonight by a vote of 220-215. In a nice touch, Representative John Dingell (MI-15) presided over the chamber today. He was one of the architects of the original Medicare bill.

President Barack Obama went to the Capitol this morning to urge House Democrats to pass the bill. But as you can see from the roll call, 39 Democrats voted no. All of Iowa’s Democrats voted “aye.” Only one House Republican voted for the bill (Joseph Cao, representing the heavily Democratic LA-02).

I am upset that no House Progressives were allowed to offer amendments today, but Bart Stupak (MI-01) was able to further restrict women’s access to abortion services. His amendment is a very bad deal for women. I’m with Angry Mouse: this is not okay.

The Stupak amendment passed 240-194, gaining 64 Democratic votes (roll call here). That’s almost a quarter of the House Democrats. An embarrassing number of Democrats who aren’t even in the Blue Dog caucus voted for it. As Natasha Chart tweeted tonight, the Stupak amendment is exactly the kind of thing a Democratic majority was supposed to stop from coming to the floor. The DCCC won’t get a dime from me this cycle.

Supposedly Obama told progressives this morning he will try to have the Stupak provision removed from the bill in conference. I would bet money against that happening. I expect to see bipartisan movement to include a similar clause in the Senate health care bill.

According to Jane Hamsher, the AFL-CIO may cut off contributions to Democrats who vote against health care reform. Again, I would bet money against this happening, but some Blue Dogs would have trouble funding their re-election campaigns without support from organized labor.

Speaking of Blue Dogs, I want to give special credit to Leonard Boswell (IA-03) tonight. Unlike most of his fellow Blue Dogs, he voted no on the Stupak amendment and yes on passing the bill.

Bruce Braley (IA-01) noted tonight that we hear a lot of Republican talk about medical liability, but not one word about medical safety.

Also worth noting: the future of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program is uncertain. As fairleft2 notes in this diary, the House bill moves children either to Medicaid or into private plans. It’s not clear whether this provision could pass the Senate.

Meanwhile, a new poll from Virginia suggests opposing the public health insurance option was disastrous for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds.

Share your own health care reform thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Jacob Hacker, “godfather” of the public health insurance option, thinks the House bill is worth supporting. Whether the public option can survive a House/Senate conference committee is another question. A few days ago the Stupak amendment was considered a “poison pill” that would doom the health care reform effort, but last night House Progressives almost all voted for the bill even after the Stupak amendment passed. I think that signals the death of the “progressive block” strategy for demanding a public option in the final version of health care reform.

Representative Steve King (IA-05) enjoyed Thursday’s “House call” rally against health care reform so much that he organized another rally at the Capitol today to “kill the bill.” Unfortunately for fellow Republicans, King and several other wingnuts blew off a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday. In their absence, several Republican amendments to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill failed to pass:

Those votes took place, a committee staffer confirmed, between noon and two — the very time when Republican lawmakers were rallying the Tea Party troops on the Capitol steps.

One measure, offered by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee, would have extended the “lone wolf” provisions of the Act, which would allow the FBI to surveil or search foreign nationals even if it can’t be shown that the person is an agent of a foreign power. Many believe that had this been in effect before 9/11, the FBI might have caught Zacarias Moussaoui. And Republicans had said that extending the lone wolf provision this time around was crucial to protecting national security. Even some Democrats supported the measure, giving it a good chance of passage. But it failed by a single vote, 15-15. Reps. King and Gohmert were absent.

Another measure, offered by Rep. Dan Lundgren (R-CA), failed by a vote of 11 to 8. Reps. King, Gohmert, Jordan, and Poe were all missing.

And a third, brought by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL), which would have bolstered the ability of local law enforcement to use a device that records phone numbers from a particular phone, failed by 12 to 10, with King, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, and Franks all absent. (A subsequent amendment that did essentially the same thing later passed, it’s worth noting.)

Several other members of both parties missed some of these votes as well, but there’s no evidence they were Tea Partying.

I guess King likes preaching to the converted more than doing his job.

UPDATE: In fairness to King, he is apparently missing his son’s wedding today in order to be in Washington for the health care debate.

Conservative activists gathered in Washington yesterday to protest Democratic-backed health care reform proposals. As usual, right-wingers are completely wrong about the substance of the bills, crying “socialism” when the real problem is not enough government-backed competition for private insurers. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a key figure in the “tea party” movement, claims to believe that “The largest empirical problem we have in health care today is too many people are too overinsured.”

Anyway, when ill-informed right-wingers are causing a spectacle inside the beltway, you can count on finding Representative Steve King (IA-05) nearby. Hey, it’s been almost three weeks since national media last paid attention to his unfounded allegations.

So King gets on MSNBC yesterday and falsely claims that the House Democrats’ bill would cancel every private insurance contract in America. You can watch the clip on the Iowa Democratic Party’s site.

Not only do the Democratic bills not void private insurance contracts, they prevent Americans covered by private insurance from choosing a public health insurance option.

Politifact should add this gem to their fact-checking page on King. I noticed that Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06) is way ahead of him in terms of the number of “false” and “pants on fire” claims subjected to Politifact’s Truth-o-meter, but it shouldn’t take long for King to catch up.

By the way, I recommend watching the video of Mike Stark’s brief interview with King outside the Capitol, recorded a few days ago. King doesn’t know how many uninsured people live in his district (approximately 83,000), and he doesn’t know how many bankruptcies in his district are related to medical costs (about 700 last year), but he does know that “my people want freedom” from health care reform.

State Senator Brad Zaun may not be the Republican establishment’s favorite choice to run against Representative Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third Congressional district next year. The first hint was Krusty Konservative’s complaint last week that Zaun’s trial balloon “isn’t very well thought out,” because when you’re in charge of recruiting Republican candidates for the Iowa Senate, you can’t “bail on them and run for Congress.”

Now, Krusty can be a loose cannon, but the top story at The Iowa Republican today makes me think heavyweights in the GOP want Zaun to stay where he is. Craig Robinson speculates about GOP recruiting against Boswell, and he isn’t sold on Zaun:

First, Zaun is one of the Republican state senators who has been tasked to recruit candidates. In a year when 19 of the 25 seats that are up for election are under Democratic control, this is no easy task. Also, if Zaun runs for Congress, it means one less incumbent raising money and mentoring new candidates, something Republicans in the senate desperately need him to do.

Zaun is also not a prolific fundraiser. While he needed to raise significant funds to win his senate seat, it’s not a task that he necessarily enjoyed. While Zaun would bring more donor contacts than the current candidates in the race, it would probably be difficult for him to raise the million plus dollars that it will take to run a competitive race against Congressman Boswell.

While some might think that Iowa Republicans are destined to only recruit token opposition against Boswell, TheIowaRepublican.com has heard rumors that a well known, top-rate recruit will announce before the year ends. TheIowaRepublican.com can also confirm that the recruit is not Senator Zaun.

A top-notch candidate with the ability to raise significant amounts of money would elevate the 3rd District Congressional race to a point where it could be targeted by the National Republican Congressional Committee next fall. If that were to occur, not only would Republicans have a chance at picking up the seat, but it could also help in the statewide U.S. Senate and gubernatorial campaigns, as well as local down-ballot contests.

Any idea who this great fundraiser and “top-rate recruit” may be? Former state GOP chairman Mike Mahaffey has been thinking about this race, and he probably could raise a lot of money, but it sounds as if Robinson is talking about a surprise candidate.

Zaun has said he’ll decide within the next few weeks whether to run against Boswell. I don’t consider him a major threat, while Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 somewhat disagrees. I am skeptical about the NRCC pouring money into this race, because they have plenty of other targets, as well as a handful of tough House seats to defend. Also, even if a Republican beats Boswell in 2010, that wouldn’t be a long-term net gain for the GOP, because redistricting will probably pit the IA-03 winner against Representative Tom Latham in the 2012 primary.

Put your own speculation in this thread.

This thread is for any comments or predictions about any election happening today. I expect turnout in Windsor Heights to be relatively high for a local election; this is the most competitive race for mayor and city council that I can remember. I’ve received GOTV calls on behalf of several candidates.

The Virginia governor’s race looks like a blowout for Republican Bob McDonnell. The conservative Creigh Deeds won the primary on an electability argument, but we might have been better off with a candidate who excited the Democratic base more. Probably we would have lost the governor’s race, but with less damage done down-ticket.

The New Jersey governor’s race is a dead heat according to the Pollster.com polling average, but my hunch is that Republican Chris Christie is going to pull out a narrow win. The independent candidate, Chris Daggett, will be buried way down the ballot with a bunch of no-hopers, and I feel that a lot of his leaners will land with Christie when the ballot is in front of them. Given where the race stood in the summer, it’s a miracle that Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine has any prayer of pulling this out in the middle of a severe recession.

Mark “mystery pollster Blumenthal and Chris Bowers also give a slight edge to Christie in this race.

I am cautiously optimistic about no winning the Prop 1 battle in Maine, although the most recent poll of that race showed the yes position ahead. A “yes” vote would overturn same-sex marriage rights, which the Maine legislature approved and the governor signed into law earlier this year. The No on 1 forces have a strong ground game and appear to have banked a lot of early votes there. The main problem is that younger voters are less likely to turn out for an off-year election, and older voters are less likely to support marriage equality. Adam Bink reports from the ground:

The field team is firing on all cylinders. Biggest concern is youth turnout in off-year. In 2005, an anti-discrimination ballot initiative went our way and we had one campus field organizer for the whole state. This year we have nine. But the numbers are tight as hell, and if turnout is like a normal election year, we’ll lose. Everyone is saying we have to execute a flawless [GOTV] program.

New York’s 23rd district will be an easy win for conservative candidate Doug Hoffman, who forced moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava out of the race over the weekend. Although Scozzafava endorsed Democrat Bill Owens and recorded a robocall on his behalf, this district just has too strong a Republican lean for a Democrat to win, in my opinion.

Looking on the bright side, the parade of national Republican politicians and commentators behind Hoffman will crush future GOP recruiting efforts in districts where they need moderates to win. There could be no clearer sign that moderates are unwelcome in the Republican Party. I expect the fallout to affect recruiting for state-level races as well as Congressional ones.

What do you think about any of these races, or local elections in your community?

UPDATE: Unusually heavy turnout (for a local election) in Windsor Heights today. I voted around 3:15 and was voter number 241. An election worker told me there are 1,211 registered voters in my precinct, so even before the after-work rush, turnout was above 20 percent.  

So, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin won’t headline the Iowa Family Policy Center’s fundraiser on November 21, but she will headline an event for the group some other time. Contrary to what you may have read in this shoddy piece by Jonathan Martin, Palin apparently didn’t demand her usual speaking fee from the Iowa Family Policy Center and won’t charge the group for her future appearance. Consider this another lesson on the need to take Politico reporting with a grain of salt.

In any event, Palin will come back to Iowa sometime. I’ve always believed that having her in the spotlight would be good for Democrats, and quitting her job has further lowered her favorability ratings.

All the same, I have one request for her Iowa detractors: please avoid sexist nicknames for Palin.  

Senate HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin told reporters yesterday that he does not expect Senator Joe Lieberman to join a Republican filibuster to block the health care reform bill. He also hinted that Lieberman has a lot to lose by sinking this bill.

I heard it first from Bleeding Heartland user mirage, and now IowaPolitics.com confirms that State Senator Brad Zaun is thinking about challenging Representative Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third Congressional district next year. Zaun was mayor of Urbandale, a heavily Republican suburb of Des Moines, before winning a hard-fought race in Iowa Senate district 32 in 2004. He was re-elected to a four-year term in 2008, so he wouldn’t risk losing his seat in the upper chamber by running against Boswell.

According to IowaPolitics.com, Zaun will decide in the next few weeks whether to run:

Zaun said Boswell’s speaking out against cap-and-trade legislation this past summer but then voting for it concerned him and sparked his interest in a run for Congress.

“I’m frustrated because I think Leonard as well as so many other elected officials in Washington, D.C. don’t listen to their constituents and don’t represent where their constituents are on issues,” Zaun said. “Most elected officials in Washington, D.C. are out of touch with people they represent.”

Zaun is vice president of R&R Realty and has not yet formed an exploratory committee for the U.S. House. He said his biggest consideration on whether to run is his family. He and his wife have five kids ages 22, 21, 18, 13 and 11. “I’ve had long, long conversations with my wife,” he said.

Conservative and corporate-funded groups ran advertisements against Boswell this summer after he voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

IowaPolitics.com also quoted Mike Mahaffey, a former chairman of the Iowa GOP, as saying “he’ll decide by next week whether he will run” against Boswell. He’s been thinking about the race for several months. Mahaffey was the Republican candidate in IA-03 the first time Boswell won the district in 1996. However, the district was quite different then and did not include Polk County.

Some political analysts, like Isaac Wood and Larry Sabato, consider IA-03 potentially competitive but give a strong advantage to the incumbent. CQ Politics is among the odds-makers who consider IA-03 a “safe Democratic” seat. I tend to agree that Boswell is not vulnerable in 2010. Republicans ran hard against him in 2002, 2004 and 2006 but came up short.

If this race did become competitive, I think a challenger with a strong base in Polk County, like Zaun, would stand a better chance than someone from one of the smaller counties in the district. Mahaffey is from Montezuma in Poweshiek County. But if Zaun doesn’t run, Mahaffey has the connections to put together a stronger campaign than the two currently declared candidates, Dave Funk and Pat Bertroche.

Former First Lady Christie Vilsack released a statement today confirming that she will not challenge Senator Chuck Grassley next year. Excerpt:

Commiting to a campaign for the US Senate next year requires more than the confidence that I have the right experience, the necessary support and the resources to be successful. It must come with an understanding that it is the best way for me serve our State and my fellow Iowans in the most effective way possible at this time. I have decided not to run for the United States Senate in 2010. I will continue my work with the Iowa Initiative to Prevent Unintended Pregnancy and will be active in our Party and across the state in issues that affect the quality of life for all Iowans. […]

While I will not be a candidate for office in 2010, never doubt I am committed to a life of service and to Iowa.

So, the mystery challenger Iowa Democratic Party chair Michael Kiernan promised for Grassley is almost certainly Roxanne Conlin, who has said she’s leaning toward running.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see former Governor Tom Vilsack run for the U.S. Senate in the future. I expect Christie Vilsack to run for Congress when Leonard Boswell’s seat (IA-03) becomes open.

Speaking of Boswell’s district, I saw at Iowa Independent that CQ Politics is calling it a “safe Democratic” seat in the House.

According to Bleeding Heartland user mirage, State Senator Brad Zaun is planning to run against Boswell next year. (I am trying to confirm that rumor.) Zaun was mayor of Urbandale, a heavily Republican suburb of Des Moines, before getting elected to represent Iowa Senate district 32 in 2004. He was re-elected to a four-year term in 2008, so he wouldn’t risk losing his seat in the upper chamber by running against Boswell.

UPDATE: Kiernan approached Conlin way back in January about running against Grassley.

The House of Representatives will soon bring a health care reform bill up for a floor vote. All three relevant committees have approved bills containing a public health insurance option. In August, Jacob Hacker explained one of the key differences between those bills (pdf file):

The versions of the House bill approved by the House Ways and Means Committee and  House Education and Labor Committee contain a Medicare tie-in that has two crucial  characteristics:

    1.  Providers participating in Medicare would automatically be considered participating  providers in the new public plan, although they would have the right to opt out.

    2.  Initial payments to providers would be set at Medicare rates plus 5 percent. After  three years, the Secretary of Health and Human Services could adjust rates. But  during the crucial start-up period, the public plan would be able to piggyback on  Medicare’s payment methodology. 17    

     These are good provisions. They would be even better if they included an explicit  protection of providers’ rights to join the public plan. Private plans (at least those that  participate in the exchange) should be prohibited from setting as a condition of participation  in their networks that providers not join the public plan.

     By contrast, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the House bill  with amendments that preserve only the first of these two elements. 18 Providers participating  in Medicare would be presumed to participate in the new public plan (but, again, allowed to  opt out). 19 However, rather than setting the rates the public plan would pay providers on the  basis of Medicare rates, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would have to  “negotiate” rates directly with providers. 20 These rates in the aggregate would have to be  between Medicare rates and private rates, but no other details are given. 21 This is a not-so-good provision that could drive up individual premiums and federal costs, burdening  Americans as health care consumers and taxpayers alike. It threatens the viability of the  public plan because it may require the government to pay providers higher rates than they would otherwise accept if the rates were set.

Click here to download Hacker’s full report, which includes analysis of the Senate HELP Committee’s bill.

When the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a watered-down bill to placate Blue Dog Democrats, most people assumed that this compromise would be the health care reform bill sent to the House floor. However, House Progressives have been rounding up votes for the stronger public option provisions, and yesterday Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva claimed to have 210 votes supporting or leaning toward supporting the stronger bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t bring that bill to the floor unless she is sure she has the 218 votes needed to pass, however. As many as 19 House Democrats have not decided whether they would support the “Medicare plus 5 percent” public option.

Chris Bowers published a pdf file listing 36 House Democrats who are either undecided, “lean yes” or “lean no” on the stronger public option. Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) is on that list. It’s not clear whether he is undecided or leaning one way or the other. I have sought clarification from his office and will update this post when I hear back.

You know the drill. Boswell needs to hear from as many constituents as possible. The “Medicare plus 5 percent” version of the public option is better policy, and if the House approves it, our negotiating position in the Senate will be stronger. I would call Boswell’s office rather than e-mail, because phone calls are harder for staffers to ignore. Office contact information:

Washington DC Office

Phone: (202) 225-3806

Fax: (202) 225-5608

Iowa District Office

Phone: (515) 282-1909

Fax: (515) 282-1785

Toll Free Phone: (888) 432-1984

In related news, Boswell joined Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) today in announcing final legislative language to change “the way Medicare pays healthcare providers for services, from its current fee-for-service system into a quality and value-based system.” After the jump I’ve posted a joint press release explaining how this deal will affect Medicare reimbursement rates.

UPDATE: Supposedly there are at least 218 votes in the House for the “robust” public option. The deal on Medicare reimbursement rates helped secure some extra votes for the public option. Also, the House bill will strip the insurance industry of its anti-trust exemption.

CORRECTION: Apparently we don’t have 218 votes for the stronger public option after all.

When a bunch of national blogs write about Representative Steve King, you know it’s not for anything that will make Iowans proud. This week was no exception, as King led a group of more than 50 House Republicans demanding that Kevin Jennings resign as the White House official focusing on “safe schools.”

As you might expect, the basis for King’s campaign against Jennings is a canard, but he didn’t stop even after his office was informed that the allegations were false.

Steve Benen, Greg Sargent and Jed Lewison have more on King’s latest embarrassing crusade.

Council Bluffs resident Mike Denklau announced on October 15 that he is running against King in 2010. His official campaign website is here. Although this district leans strongly Republican, it’s important not to leave people like King unchallenged.

I learned from Sioux City Journal columnist Bret Hayworth that a Democrat has already filed Federal Election Commission paperwork to run against Representative Steve King in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district:

Mike Denklau has eyed the possibility of running in the strong Republican district since early 2009, and after traveling western Iowa recently he decided to go all-in.

On Oct. 15, Denklau will announce his candidacy 55 weeks out from the election in stops here in Sioux City, Council Bluffs and Des Moines. Denklau will turn 27 next month – he was raised in Blue Grass near Davenport and graduated from the University of Iowa with majors in political science and finance. He worked in New York for two banking firms through June 2009, including Lehman Brothers, until moving to Council Bluffs recently.

Hayworth notes that it’s not clear whether Rob Hubler, King’s 2008 opponent, will run again. Although Democrats cannot realistically hope to defeat King in a district with a partisan voter index of R+9, an energetic challenger may help drive up Democratic turnout across the district. There will be several competitive state legislative races in the counties that make up IA-05.

Meanwhile, Craig Robinson reports at The Iowa Republican that Rod Blum of Dubuque is ready to challenge Representative Bruce Braley in the first Congressional district.

Blum has strong eastern Iowa roots. He graduated from Dubuque Senior High School in 1973, earned a bachelor’s degree from Loras College (Finance) in 1977, and received a Masters in Business Administration from Dubuque University in 1989. In 1989, Blum was one of the initial employees of Dubuque-based Eagle Point Software. In just five years, Eagle Point Software went public on NASDAQ and had 325 employees. In 2000, Digital Canal was created as a result of a leveraged buyout of Eagle Point Software. Digital Canal is a leading provider of home building and structural engineering software. Blum was also named the Iowa Entrepreneur of the Year in 1994.

While Blum has never run for elected office before, he has been making his political views known in eastern Iowa since 2001 as the Dubuque Telegraph Herald’s conservative columnist. Blum’s writings for the Telegraph Herald will be helpful for a couple of reasons. First, having a regular column in the local newspaper helps build credibility and name ID. Secondly, writing a political column means that he has well thought out positions on many of the issues facing our country today, something many first time candidates lack.

He’ll need more than conservative ideology and name ID in the Dubuque area to unseat Braley. Robinson notes that Republican Jim Nussle represented IA-01 before the 2006 election, but Nussle’s position as chairman of a House budget subcommittee helped him hang on in a Democratic-leaning district. That’s different from a Republican challenger trying to swim against the tide in a district with a partisan voting index of D+5. Republicans currently hold only two House disticts with that much of a Democratic lean: Delaware’s at-large seat, which the GOP will lose when Mike Castle runs for U.S. Senate next year, and Louisiana’s second district, which was a fluke in 2008 because of the Democratic incumbent’s apparent corruption.

Braley is a rising star and effective legislator with a spot on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He won re-election with more than 64 percent of the vote in 2008. Even if 2010 turns out to be a Republican year, Braley’s not losing in a district with 35,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans.

To my knowledge, Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) is Iowa’s only incumbent in Congress with no likely challenger yet. Steve Rathje and probably Mariannette Miller-Meeks will run against Dave Loebsack in IA-02, while Dave Funk and Pat Bertroche are challenging Leonard Boswell in IA-03. I don’t expect either of those districts to be competitive in 2010.

Senate Democrats have not given up on passing health care reform through normal procedures requiring at least 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster. The problem is, several conservative Senate Democrats are on record opposing a public health insurance option. Meanwhile, a bill with no public option will have trouble passing the House of Representatives, where the overwhelming majority of the Democratic caucus supports a robust public option tied to Medicare rates.

The obvious political solution is to include some watered-down public option in the bill, giving cover to Progressive Democrats who insist on a public option while placating House Blue Dogs and Senate conservatives who want to protect private insurers’ market share.

The “triggered” public option favored by many industry allies didn’t fly, because most Democrats understand that the trigger would never be pulled. This past week, a new possible compromise emerged:

It was pulled out of an alternative idea, put forth by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and, prior to him, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to give states the power to determine whether they want to implement a public insurance option.

But instead of starting with no national public option and giving state governments the right to develop their own, the newest compromise approaches the issue from the opposite direction: beginning with a national public option and giving state governments the right not to have one.

I consider this idea’s pros and cons after the jump.  

Representative Tom Latham has enjoyed some nice weekends on the dime of his For America’s Republican Majority PAC, I learned from a must-read piece by Jason Hancock at Iowa Independent.

A golf outing in West Virginia and a weekend getaway to Atlantic City, N.J., are just two of the trips taken this year by U.S. Rep. Tom Latham of Ames that have garnered the attention of campaign finance watchdogs.

That’s because the trips were paid for by Latham’s political action committee and touted as fundraising events, a practice that is legal but that government reform advocates contend turns the PAC into little more than a slush fund designed to skirt campaign finance law.

Go read Hancock’s piece for details on Latham’s fundraising trips to the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort in Atlantic City and various high-end golf resorts in West Virginia and California. Latham’s PAC “raised $205,447 during the 2008 election cycle, with almost all of it coming from lobbyists, PACs and corporate leaders.”

A new report by ProPublica explains how leadership PACs function:

Legally, lawmakers are free to spend the leadership PAC money pretty much as they wish.

Lobbyists and lawmakers can — and do — use it to travel together to play golf at Pebble Beach, ride snowmobiles in Montana’s Big Sky Country and go deep-sea fishing in the Florida Keys. The lobbyists don’t pay the costs directly. They contribute to the leadership PAC, which then pays the lawmaker’s resort and travel bills.

Leadership PACs have grown steadily since they began cropping up in the 1970s. What separates them from campaign committees is that lawmakers are supposed to pass along the bulk of the money to other members of their party for their campaigns. That way, lawmakers with leadership PACs can earn their beneficiaries’ support when it comes time to divvy up committee chairmanships and other party leadership posts.

This system helps party leaders spread money to candidates with less money or tighter races. On the other hand, it also fuels the Washington money chase, allocates power in Congress based on fundraising prowess, and encourages lawmakers and lobbyists to mingle socially and recreationally as political money changes hands.

In this tough economy, couldn’t Latham encourage his corporate lobbyist buddies to golf, gamble and spread political money around in Iowa?  

In case you’re wondering whether everyone in Congress does what Latham’s been doing with his PAC, ProPublica’s report has lots more information on hundreds of leadership PACs. But Hancock notes that Iowa’s other members of Congress have used their leadership PAC money for campaign contributions and various expenses, as opposed to trips to high-end casinos and golf resorts.

As expected, the Senate Finance Committee rejected two amendments yesterday that would have added a public health insurance option to the health care reform bill Chairman Max Baucus drafted with a big assist from industry lobbyists. Five Democrats voted with all the committee Republicans against Senator Jay Rockefeller’s amendment, which would have created a national public option tied to Medicare rates. Three Democrats also joined Republicans to vote down Senator Chuck Schumer’s much weaker “national level playing field” public option. CA Berkeley WV liveblogged yesterday’s hearing for Congress Matters.

Senator Chuck Grassley sang the same old song about the “government run plan” forcing private insurance companies out of business. He got a little tripped up when Senator Chuck Schumer asked him for his views on Medicare, though.

“I think that Medicare is part of the social fabric of America just like Social Security is,” Mr. Grassley said. “To say that I support it is not to say that it’s the best system that it could be.”

“But it is a government-run plan,” Mr. Schumer shot back.

Mr. Grassley, a veteran Senate debater, insisted that Medicare did not pose a threat to the private insurance industry. “It’s not easy to undo a Medicare plan without also hurting a lot of private initiatives that are coupled with it,” he said.

Chairman Baucus scored highest on the chutzpah meter, praising the public option even as he refused to support it. Grassley also held out false hope that maybe someday some other bill will accomplish that goal.

Several Senate Democrats, including Tom Harkin, insisted yesterday that they will get some kind of public option into the bill that reaches the Senate floor. After the jump you’ll find lots of links on the battles to come.

I agree that the public option is not dead yet, but for it to survive, President Barack Obama and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid will need to do a lot more than they’ve done so far to lean on the Senate conservadems.  

On Tuesday the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009, which “would extend unemployment insurance benefits by 13 weeks in states that have jobless rates above 8.5 percent.” 27 states and the District of Columbia have unemployment rates exceeding that level.

The bill easily passed by a vote of 331 to 83, but as you can see from the roll call, Iowa’s House delegation was divided in an unusual way. Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) were among the 17 Democrats who voted against the bill. They opposed it because unemployed Iowans would be ineligible for the extended benefits. Although our state has the eighth-lowest unemployment rate in the country, we also have pockets of higher unemployment, especially in rural areas.

After the jump I’ve posted statements released by Braley and Boswell on this bill. Boswell noted that four counties in the third Congressional districts have unemployment rates above 9 percent. Braley noted, “When you’re unemployed, it doesn’t matter to you what your state’s unemployment rate is.  What matters is that you need to support your family.”

Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) did not vote yesterday, because he was meeting with Fema Administrator Craig Fugate and various state and local officials in Cedar Rapids to discuss flood recovery efforts. I contacted his office for comment on the unemployment bill. His spokesperson Sabrina Siddiqui told me that Loebsack had serious concerns about the way Iowans were excluded from the extended unemployment benefits, adding that Loebsack is working with House leaders to address the needs of unemployed Iowans in future legislation.

Extending unemployment benefits during a severe recession is good policy, not only to help struggling families, but because spending on unemployment benefits has a very high economic stimulus “bang for the buck.” That said, it’s unfair to penalize unemployed Iowans for the fact that our state is faring better than many others on the jobs front.

Iowa’s Republicans in the U.S. House were also divided on this bill, with Tom Latham (IA-04) voting yes and Steve King (IA-05) voting no.

The House of Representatives passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act on Thursday on a mostly party-line vote of 253 to 171 (roll call here). Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell all voted for the bill, while Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voted against it.

Click here to download a pdf file containing the House Education and Labor Committee’s estimates on how many students in each Congressional district will be able to receive Pell Grants during the 2010/2011 academic year under this reform. The estimate is 16,355 students in Iowa’s fourth district (Latham) and 16,301 students in Iowa’s fifth district (King).

Overall, just four Democrats voted against the bill: Allen Boyd (FL-02), Paul Kanjorski (PA-11), Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (SD-AL), and Mike McMahon (NY-13). Six Republicans voted for the bill: Vern Buchanan (FL-13), Joseph Cao (LA-02), Timothy Johnson (IL-15), Tom Petri (WI-06), Todd Platts (PA-19), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18). At Congress Matters, David Waldman posted details about the amendments proposed to this bill and which ones passed yesterday.

A press release from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee included these bullet points about the bill:

*The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act is the largest single federal investment in higher education in American history and will also be used to pay down the national debt (H.R. 3221, #719, 9/17/09)

*The measure will make federal student lending more efficient through a variety of reforms that will save the federal government $87 billion. Of those savings, $77 billion will be invested toward making college more affordable and $10 billion will be used to pay down the national debt.

*These savings will be achieved through a number of reforms including:

*Converting federal lending to the Direct Loan Program.

*Establishing a competitive bidding process, allowing the U.S. Department of Education to select lenders based on how well they serve borrowers.

*Allowing non-profit organizations to continue servicing student loans.

*This measure will increase the amount of Pell Grants in 2010 and 2011, lower the interest rates of federally subsidized student loans, expand the Perkins Loan program, and streamline the application form for financial aid.

Senate HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin is committed to passing student loan reforms this year.

UPDATE: Like Latham and King, all the House Republicans from Kentucky voted against this bill, and I agree with RDemocrat’s assessment at the Hillbilly Report:

I think this once again properly demonstrates the hypocrisy of Kentucky Republicans and the Republican Party as a whole. They constantly lecture us on spending, but they care little about money being wasted as long as it is being wasted on corporate welfare. When presented with a chance to both save money, and help working poor children afford college, they would rather waste that $80 billion.

BruceMcF breaks it down for you:

So: (1) Public Choice

“No Taxation without Representation”. Every single person facing an individual mandate must be provided with the choice of a publicly administered plan. Otherwise the government is forcing the citizen to pay without the elected representatives of the citizen controlling the spending.

You want to put a trigger on the public option. Fine, except the exact same trigger applies to the individual mandate.

You want to restrict access to the public option to some smaller group? Fine, except the same restriction applies to the individual mandate.

The system is not politically legitimate if it requires payment to for-profit commercial corporations.

(2) Robust

It cannot be lumbered down with any restrictions not faced by private insurers.

State by state public options? Really? You are really prepared to restrict the corporations to firms with no commercial activity across state lines? If they are free standing state by state public options, it has to be state by state for profit corporations. Oh, not allowing [United Healthcare] into the exchanges defeats the purpose of lining private pockets at the public expense? Yeah, kind of thought so.

BruceMcF has long been one of my favorite transportation bloggers and has written great stuff on health care reform too, including Axelrod: Government by Consent of the Corporation. His home blog is Burning the Midnight Oil, but he frequently cross-posts his work at Progressive Blue, Daily Kos, My Left Wing, Docudharma, and the Hillbilly Report.

Speaking of real and fake public options, Timothy Noah explains “the sorry history” of triggers enacted by Congress, and slinkerwink has suggestions and talking points to use when contacting House Progressives about health care reform. I still think it’s worth urging Populist Caucus members as well as Progressives to insist on a real, not fake or triggered, public option in the final health care bill.

Bruce Braley (IA-01) leads the Populist Caucus, and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) both belong to the caucus. All of them have advocated for the public option, but to my knowledge none has pledge to vote down any bill that lacks a public option.

For those interested in the nitty gritty of legislative wrangling, David Waldman ponders what might happen if the Senate Finance Committee members can’t agree and consequently fail to report out a health care bill.

Senator Tom Harkin told a crowd of nearly 2,000 people today that health care reform including a public health insurance option will pass before this Christmas. Speaking at his 32nd Annual Steak Fry in Indianola, Harkin joked,

“This is my kind of town-hall meeting,” […] because he didn’t see any Republicans standing up to say, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare.”

Harkin and event headliner Al Franken predicted that health care reform would pass with some Republican votes, which seems unlikely if the final version of the bill contains a public option. Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine has been the focus of White House courting on health care, but she opposes a public option, apparently because it has the potential to provide lower-cost health insurance.

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions passed a bill this summer containing a public option, but according to one critic, the HELP bill’s public option is anything but robust:

the actual provisions in the HELP Committee bill call for numerous “community health insurance options,” not the single “Medicare-like” plan promised by “public option” advocates. That means the individual “options” will probably be as small and weak as the co-ops now under discussion in the Senate Finance Committee. More importantly, these “community options” will almost certainly be run by insurance companies.

The public option in the bill that cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee, HR 3200, is also weak in several respects.

President Barack Obama met with 17 relatively conservative Democratic senators on Thursday, reinforcing many people’s fears that he was ready to discard the public option. The same day, Harkin assured the Progressive Populist blog that 51 votes can be found in the Senate for a bill with a public option.

So what about all the hubub about the Blue Dogs and/or Progressives opting out if the bill doesn’t meet their liking? Harkin said don’t put too much stock in those statements.

“Look, around here people are always jockeying for power. That’s all this is,” Harkin said.

The only chance of making this bill stronger, in my opinion, is getting a large bloc of House Democrats to draw a line in the sand. If you live in Iowa’s first, second or third Congressional districts, please contact Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack or Leonard Boswell to urge them not to accept any bill containing a “trigger” (which is guaranteed to fail) or some other fake public health insurance option. Organizing for America has a new petition out if you prefer that method of generating an e-mail to your member of Congress.

UPDATE: Don’t miss John Deeth’s entertaining liveblog from this event, with lots of photos. Braley and Loebsack praised Boswell for standing up for a public option (unlike many Blue Dogs).

From Chase Martyn’s write-up at Iowa Independent:

Boswell and fellow Democratic U.S. Reps. Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack also expressed optimism that a final bill would include measures to reform medicare reimbursement rates. Medicare currently pays doctors in rural states like Iowa less than what doctors in densely populated states receive for the same procedures.

Last year all five Iowa incumbents in the House of Representatives were re-elected by double-digit margins. The main challengers failed to win even 40 percent of the vote against Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02), as well as Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05).

I’ve long assumed that none of Iowa’s Congressional districts would be competitive in 2010. Although Republicans have put Leonard Boswell (IA-03) on their long list of House targets, several other analysts share my view that Boswell is safe for next year. To my knowledge, the only declared candidates against Boswell are the little-known Dave Funk and Pat Bertroche. Boswell’s 1996 opponent Mike Mahaffey is thinking it over too.

Isaac Wood and Larry Sabato released new House race rankings, and they included IA-03 among 47 Democratic-held districts that are “likely” to remain Democratic:

The “likely” category is reserved for those competitive races where one party has a distinct advantage over the other. Most of these races feature either strong challengers or weak incumbents, but not a combination of the two that would warrant a more competitive designation. Consider these races as a watch list which could turn into heated battle with a single misstep by an incumbent or positive fundraising report.

I could see Iowa’s third district becoming competitive, but only if the economy is in terrible shape next fall and Republicans fund a well-known candidate with a base in Polk County (the population center of the district).

I question Wood and Sabato’s decision to put Loebsack’s district in the “likely” category as well. So far right-winger Steve Rathje is definitely running against Loebsack (he narrowly lost the 2008 GOP primary for U.S. Senate). Mariannette Miller-Meeks is also considering a rematch. She’s an impressive woman, but I frankly can’t imagine this district becoming competitive in 2010. IA-02 has much stronger Democratic voting performance than IA-03, which tracks closely with the nationwide vote in presidential elections.

Share any thoughts or predictions in this thread.

President Barack Obama goes before Congress this evening to urge passage of health care reform this year. I will update this post later when the prepared text of the speech becomes available. White House officials say Obama will make the case for a public health insurance option, but it sounds as if he will still leave the door open for Congress to take a different approach. That doesn’t look like a strong negotiating position to me.

Various polling firms will survey people who watch Obama’s speech tonight. Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com discusses the methodology of instant reaction polls and gives a few reasons for you to be skeptical of their findings.

Speaking of polls, I was disappointed to learn from Greg Sargent that a recent White House memo omitted results from polls showing strong nationwide support for a public health insurance option. (Multiple polls earlier this summer also found majorities in favor of a public option. In fact, Republican pollster Rasmussen has found that support for health care reform drops sharply if there is no public option.

Still, expect to hear Republicans demagogue against government-run “Obamacare.” Yesterday The Iowa Republican blog hyped a new poll from the Winston Group showing that a plurality of Iowans oppose “Obama’s plan” for health care (whatever that is). I wasn’t surprised to read that the head of the Winston Group

has served as a strategic advisor to Senate and House Republican leadership for the past 10 years. He was formerly the Director of Planning for Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and advises center-right political parties throughout Europe. Additionally Winston was a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation where he did statistical policy and econometric modeling. He has served in a senior staff role to four RNC Chairmen.

Gee, I’m shocked that the Winston Group would produce a poll indicating that Obama’s plan is unpopular.

The president’s support has declined quite a bit among Democrats and independents recently. The obvious way for him to turn this situation around is to get behind a real health care reform package that doesn’t give away the store to corporate interests.

Speaking of giving away the store, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus finally made his health care plan public this week. Turns out K Street lobbyists had the draft before Baucus showed it to fellow senators or White House officials. Also, a Baucus staffer who used to work for WellPoint is the author of the document.

Ezra Klein thinks the Baucus plan isn’t as bad as you may have heard, but Chris Bowers explains why it is very, very bad. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell are correct, and the White House is sick of dealing with Baucus. But like Bowers, I am skeptical that Obama would push for any law encountering objections from the major industry it affects. Consequently, I have no confidence in Obama to reject the Baucus approach outright.

Post any thoughts about the president’s speech or health care reform in this thread.

UPDATE: The full text of the speech as prepared is after the jump. I didn’t watch, but I did read the speech and I am very disappointed. He made a big deal about the moral case for reform, then defended the public option by saying don’t worry, hardly anyone will sign up for it. The only veto threat he made was, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future.”

If we did health care reform right, we would save money and not add to the deficit. But on principle, I reject the idea that providing universal health care at reasonable cost is not worth doing if it adds to the deficit. Obama doesn’t mind expanding our commitment in Afghanistan, providing an open-ended bailout to Wall Street, extending most of the Bush tax cuts and any number of other things that add to the federal deficit. But for some reason, health care reform isn’t as important. Pathetic.

Corrupt Democrats will make sure that no real public option remains in the bill, which will drive up the cost, allowing Republicans to complain that Obama is breaking his promise not to add to the deficit. To keep costs down, Congress will probably reduce the subsidies available to citizens who will be forced to purchase private insurance. Huge bonanza for insurance companies, nothing to keep costs down, political suicide for the Democratic Party.

I don’t care what the instant reaction polls say; in my view this speech was a failure.

Not to be a wet blanket after yesterday’s great special election victory, but the latest Pew Research Center poll should set off some alarm bells at the DCCC and DSCC:

Americans are extremely displeased with Congress, and there are already some signs that this could take a toll on the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. Currently, 37% express a favorable opinion of Congress, while 52% hold an unfavorable view. Positive opinions of Congress have declined by 13 points since April and are now at one of their lowest points in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys.

At the same time, intentions to vote Democratic in the next midterm election are markedly lower than they have been over the past four years. Voters are about evenly divided when asked how they would vote if the election for Congress were being held today: 45% say they would vote for a Democratic candidate in their district, or lean Democratic, while 44% say they would vote for a Republican or lean Republican. At about this point four years ago, Democrats led in the generic congressional ballot by 52% to 40% and went on to win a majority of the popular vote and regain control of Congress the following November.

Meanwhile, the Research 2000 polling for Daily Kos finds the Democratic lead on the generic Congressional ballot down to 6 points, with Democratic intensity “lagging badly”:

With Independents potentially sitting this next election out (as the numbers hint at), we’re in bad shape in a base election. Core Republicans are engaged and solidly home. Democratic constituencies are wavering (look at those African American numbers). The only key Democratic constituency to have moved more Democratic are young voters — from +30 Democratic to +37, but only because they are abandoning Republicans at a bigger rate than Democrats. And even those gains are threatened by the (non) geniuses in DC seriously contemplating a health care mandate without cost controls (like the public option).

At current rates, any 2010 losses would not stem from any resurgence in conservative ideology — Republicans are simply not making any significant gains anywhere — but in a loss of confidence in Democrats. There’s a way to change that dynamic — deliver on the promises made the last two election cycles. Failure to do that would make cynics out of too many idealistic political newcomers, while turning off base activists who do the hard on-the-ground work of winning elections.

But why deliver on campaign promises when President Obama can score points with the Beltway wizards by backing away from a strong public health insurance option?

I’m not saying next year’s elections will be determined solely by whether the Democrats deliver on health care reform. The condition of the economy will obviously play an important role too. But Obama has less control over the economic recovery than he has over whether he sells out the Democratic base. The correct choice is clear, especially when you consider that a stronger public health insurance option would make it easier to pass the bill through the budget reconciliation process in the Senate.

Trish Nelson of Blog for Iowa forwarded to me a job listing from Democracy for America. They are hiring “public option field organizers” in 12 states, including Iowa. This is a short-term position but does include health benefits. You can apply here. I’ve posted the full listing after the jump.

Click here to see the list of 64 House Democrats who have promised to vote against any health care reform bill that does not include a public health insurance option. Click here to donate to Democracy for America.