What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

As Ryan Koopmans first reported at On Brief: Iowa’s Appellate Blog, at least one Iowa Supreme Court justice seems to have changed his mind about the unanimous ruling issued last December in a gender discrimination case. The decision drew national media attention after justices determined that the plaintiff, Melissa Nelson, was not discriminated against for being a woman, but fired as “an isolated employment decision based on personal relations.” Koopmans wrote this week, “Chief Justice Cady issued an order withdrawing the December opinion and stating that the court would resubmit the case, without oral argument, this Wednesday, June 26.  There’s no indication of when the court will issue its new decision […].”

Nelson’s attorney filed a petition to rehear the case soon after the ruling was announced. The Iowa Supreme Court has granted only five requests for re-hearings in the past decade, Jeff Eckhoff reported for the Des Moines Register. Koopmans commented, “I expect that there will be at least one opinion coming out in favor of Melissa Nelson. The question is whether that opinion is the majority or the dissent.”

For those sympathetic to Paula Deen, who says she’s not a racist and no longer uses “the N-word,” I recommend reading what’s been alleged in the lawsuit filed against her. Her disturbing behavior goes way beyond using offensive language from time to time. She deserves to lose her Food Network show and her various endorsement contracts. I’ve disliked Deen ever since she started profiting from a diabetes drug after promoting an unhealthy diet for years. DeWayne Wickham said it well in this column, which I’ve excerpted after the jump.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome. Congratulations to the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s Todd Dorman on 20 years working in journalism.

The future of most U.S. farm programs is in question today, as the House of Representatives voted down a new five-year farm bill that had bipartisan support in the House Agriculture Committee. Background, details on today’s vote, and some Iowa reaction are after the jump.

Reanna Lewis of Des Moines delivered a brave and moving commencement address at Hoover High School this year. The Sunday Des Moines Register posted the audio of Lewis’ speech and published a partial transcript in the paper’s June 9 edition. The points she raised are so important that I’ve transcribed her whole speech after the jump.

How well do you focus on intellectual tasks when you are hungry, stressed out, or exhausted? Lewis spoke frankly about how her family’s emotional and financial struggles could have derailed her high school education. Child poverty and food insecurity are huge problems in Iowa. Nothing in the governor’s education reform blueprint or the final bill he signed last week will address those problems. Iowa students will not achieve on a world-class level until we improve our social safety net. Teacher training, classroom size, educational philosophy and student assessments can only go so far.

The Register’s lead editorial on Sunday pointed out, “Students can’t learn if they are hungry or sick. […] Students who drop out don’t necessarily do so because the courses are too difficult or teachers don’t have enough time for them. They leave because they are struggling outside school. From funding human services to helping families secure a living wage, Iowa can do more to help these families.” Amen to that.

As Iowa’s economy has improved this year, the unemployment rate has dropped slightly, and state tax revenues have increased. But a recent report on children’s well-being in Iowa shows that child poverty rose significantly over the past decade. Highlights from the “Iowa Kids Count 2011” report by the Des Moines-based Child & Family Policy Center are after the jump.

Governor Terry Branstad wants to use much of Iowa’s projected budget surplus for corporate tax cuts; he would also use part of the money to fund proposed changes to teacher pay. When state lawmakers consider how to use surplus funds, they should remember the Iowans most adversely affected by the “Great Recession,” who are least able to help themselves. The Child & Family Policy Center’s Every Child Counts project endorses specific legislative action that would improve the well-being of children and families. Those priorities are identical to policies advocated before the 2012 legislative session. Let’s hope lawmakers are paying more attention this year.

Among the Iowans in Congress, Senator Tom Harkin has the strongest voting record on sustainable farming and food practices, according to the new National Food Policy Scorecard. Representative Steve King, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, and Representative Tom Latham had the lowest scores in the Iowa delegation.

Although Iowa’s unemployment rate is below the national average, and state government closed out the 2012 fiscal year with a record surplus, a growing number of Iowa children live in poverty and are hungry or malnourished at least some of the time. The Des Moines Register recently launched a series of reports on “unprecedented challenges for Iowa kids.” Follow me after the jump for some depressing highlights.

Following a month-long summer recess, members of the U.S. House and Senate worked for less than three weeks before adjourning in late September until after the general election. Congress will hold only “pro-forma” sessions for the next month, presumably to prevent President Barack Obama from making recess appointments.

Follow me after the jump for a review of how the Iowans voted (or did not vote) on the most significant legislation that came up during the past few weeks.  

No one could have predicted that the Food Bank of Iowa would have trouble this summer getting adequate supplies to “a network of 280 organizations providing food to people in 42 counties.” Oh wait, everyone could have predicted that, because donations to food banks typically drop during the warm months, not only in Iowa but all over the country. Meanwhile, demand for food banks increases, particularly among families with hungry children not receiving free school lunches during the summer.

The $500,000 state appropriation to the Iowa Food Bank Association, which Governor Terry Branstad blocked, wouldn’t have entirely filled the gap for the Food Bank of Iowa and seven other food banks around the state, but it would have provided more supplies to an organization that is “starving for donations.” Nothing wrong with the governor encouraging private gifts to the Food Bank of Iowa, but the unmet need would be smaller with state funds added to the mix. UPDATE: Radio Iowa reports on shortages at the Omaha-based food bank that serves 16 Iowa counties. Federal funding cuts are an issue, which is all the more reason for state government to step up and help.

Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds defended Governor Terry Branstad’s veto of $500,000 allocated to funding Iowa’s food bank network yesterday while rolling out a fundraising drive for the Food Bank of Iowa.

Friday before holiday weekend news dump, part 2: Governor Terry Branstad line-item vetoed a $500,000 appropriation for the Food Bank of Iowa Iowa Food Bank Association (see clarification below). It was a surprisingly heartless play by the politician who said in September 2011, “If we want to be the healthiest state in the nation, we have to confront the issue of hunger in our communities.”

Over the weekend I looked into what an extra half million dollars might have meant to the growing number of Iowans who can’t always buy enough food.  

I don’t write many posts in the “wacky and mean-spirited things conservative say” genre, but I’m making an exception today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Thanksgiving, Bleeding Heartland readers! Hope you are enjoying a day off with good food and friends or family.

Millions of Americans have had less to be thankful for lately. The USDA’s report on food insecurity in 2009 found:

Eighty-five percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2009, meaning that they had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households (14.7 percent) were food insecure at least some time during the year, including 5.7 percent with very low food security. In households with very low food security, the food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food. Prevalence rates of food insecurity and very low food security were essentially unchanged from 14.6 percent and 5.7 percent, respectively, in 2008, and remained at the highest recorded levels since 1995, when the first national food security survey was conducted. The typical food-secure household spent 33 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. Fifty-seven percent of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance programs during the month prior to the 2009 survey.

The number of Iowa children living in poverty has risen too. According to the state Department of Education’s 2010 condition of education report, 37 percent of students are “eligible for free-and-reduced lunch, up from 26.7% ten years ago.”

According to Claire Celsi, the Des Moines Area Religious Council food pantry “says they can buy 2/3 more food wholesale with your cash donation. Please consider giving cash this holiday season.” I assume the same applies to other food banks.

Senator Tom Harkin cited the USDA’s “food insecurity” statistics as proof of the urgent need to pass a $4.5 billion federal child nutrition bill. The legislation may provide healthier school lunches to many children. The Senate approved the bill this summer, and Harkin was a key supporter. The legislation stalled in the House because, shamefully, the Senate version used food stamp money to fund some of the programs. However, House Democrats who were blocking the bill may be willing to move it during the lame-duck session, because the White House has supposedly promised to restore the food stamp money through some other vehicle. (I’m not convinced that will happen.) At La Vida Locavore, Jill Richardson argues that it’s time to get behind the “better than nothing” school lunch bill.

Richardson also posted an interesting piece on the history of Americans eating turkey for Thanksgiving.

If you can find a farmer who raises heritage breed turkeys, I recommend giving them a try next year. We buy our turkeys from Griffeion Family Farms near Ankeny. The dark meat on heritage birds is darker and more flavorful than the standard broad-breasted white turkey.

For Bleeding Heartland readers in the Des Moines area: The Bake Shoppe at 66th and University in Windsor Heights is open Thanksgiving Day from 7 am to noon, in case you need any last-minute bread or sweets for your table. They make fantastic egg knots (dinner rolls) and desserts of all kinds. The pumpkin bars with cream cheese frosting are a huge hit with my relatives.

I know it’s the wrong holiday, but here’s an old Des Moines Register article that explains the local custom of kids telling riddles to get candy on Halloween. As a college freshman, I was shocked to learn that trick-or-treaters don’t do this in other parts of the country.

This is an open thread.

I’m looking forward to the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner this weekend. It will be live-streamed for those who can’t be there in person. The Iowa branch of Organizing for America is having a grand opening on Saturday as well, right before the JJ dinner.

Details for those and other events are after the jump. Post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you know if something I’ve left out.

Linn County Dems: Don’t forget that November 24 is the special election in Iowa House district 33.

One more “save the date”: the Culver-Judge campaign’s holiday party will be on Saturday, December 5 at the Val-Air Ballroom in West Des Moines from 7:30 pm to 11:00 pm. Tickets are just $35 for an individual, $10 for students and $50 for a family. Call 515-244-5151 or go to www.chetculver.com for more information.

Jill Richardson’s post on extremely low food stamp participation rates in San Diego got me wondering how well Iowa does in getting eligible people enrolled in this program.

Bleeding-heart liberal that I am, I’d like to see 100 percent of people who qualify for food stamps get them, just for the sake of reducing hunger in our communities.

But let’s leave ethical concerns aside for now. Economic researchers, most recently Moody’s Economy.com, have calculated that expanding the food-stamp program produces more economic stimulus than any other kind of government spending, and much more than any form of tax cuts.  Every additional dollar spent on food stamps translates into $1.73 circulating in the economy.

This page on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website contains links to many studies comparing the state participation rates for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (the official name for the food stamp program). All of the recent annual reports are pdf files you can download.

The report for 2004 put Iowa in 22nd place for food stamp participation and estimated that 61 percent of the 286,000 people eligible for food stamps were receiving them.

The report for 2005 ranked Iowa 24th and estimated that 66 percent of the 307,000 people eligible for food stamps were receiving them.

The report for 2006 ranked Iowa 20th and estimated that 71 percent of the 309,000 people eligible for food stamps were receiving them. Data for 2007 and 2008 are not yet available on the USDA site.

As you can see, Iowa is doing a little better at getting food stamps to the people who qualify for them, but we have a long way to go to match the states near the top. In the top three states, more than 90 percent of people eligible for food stamps are getting them. That figure is above 80 percent for the next five states.

Increasing Iowa’s food stamp enrollment rate from 71 percent to 80 percent would translate to nearly 30,000 more people receiving food stamps in our state. If we could get food stamp participation above 90 percent, roughly 60,000 more Iowans would be receiving food stamps. Those people would consequently have more to spend on other goods and services. Many retailers would benefit as the money flowed through the economy.

I don’t know exactly what needs to be done to further improve Iowa’s food stamp participation rate. There’s a lot of research on the USDA site on factors that affect enrollment. I would welcome comments or a diary from someone with expertise in this area about what Iowa’s doing well already and what we need to do better.

Given the multiplier effect of food stamp benefits on economic activity, this program merits attention from policy-makers looking to stimulate the economy. Government spending on infrastructure projects is worthwhile (as long as we fix what we have first), but let’s not ignore other efficient ways of sparking more economic activity.

To my conservative readers who start hyperventilating at the thought of more people receiving government assistance: don’t think of it as extra food for families struggling to get by. Think of it as a fast way to save jobs in the retail sector–with a lot more bang for the buck than tax cuts.