President Barack Obama announced today that his administration will no longer deport some illegal immigrants who were brought to this country as children. Details on the policy are after the jump. Senator Tom Harkin welcomed the change, but Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative Steve King denounced what they called an “amnesty” policy. At this writing, other Iowa elected officials have not commented publicly on the issue.

The U.S. Senate voted today to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. All 53 members of the Democratic caucus voted for the bill, including Senator Tom Harkin. Fifteen Republican senators, including all five women, also voted yes. Chuck Grassley was one of the 31 Republican men who voted no.

Details on today’s votes and substantive changes to the Violence Against Women Act are after the jump, along with a lengthy floor statement by Grassley explaining his preference for a “consensus” measure over what he called a “political exercise” by Democrats.

The Iowa legislature’s second “funnel” deadline passed on Friday, which means that most non-appropriations bills are dead unless they have been approved in one chamber and in at least one committee in the other chamber. It’s time to catch up on the most significant bills being debated in the Iowa House and Senate.

U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose told members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday that she wasn’t a key decision maker regarding the May 2008 immigration raid in Postville, Iowa.

Last month President Barack Obama nominated Stephanie Rose, U.S. attorney for Iowa’s northern district, for a federal judgeship in Iowa’s southern district. If confirmed, Rose would become the first woman to serve as a district judge in Iowa’s southern district. Today the Des Moines Register published an opinion piece urging U.S. senators not to “rubber-stamp” Rose’s nomination.  

A new progressive super-PAC pledged today to support grassroots organizing in Iowa’s new fourth Congressional district against five-term Representative Steve King.

UPDATE: Added King’s reaction to this development below.

Seven Republican candidates take the stage tonight as Fox News and the Iowa GOP co-host a presidential debate in Sioux City. I’ll be live-blogging after the jump, where I’ve also posted some recent news about the race in Iowa.

UPDATE: Scroll down for the live-blog.

Yet another Republican presidential candidates’ debate takes place tonight in Washington. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer will moderate as eight candidates discuss foreign policy: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain, Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Senator Rick Santorum, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, and Representatives Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul.

A foreign policy debate should allow Paul to stand out from the crowd. My guess is that Santorum will take the lead in challenging his call to negotiate with potential enemies and end most U.S. military interventions.

The latest CNN/ORC International nationwide poll indicates that Newt Gingrich is indeed the new Republican flavor-of-the-week, leading Romney by 24 percent to 20 percent. I expect several rivals for the “not Romney” niche to take Gingrich on tonight. Romney will probably sail above the fray.

Share any thoughts about tonight’s debate or the Republican presidential race in this thread. UPDATE: I posted a few thoughts after the jump.

The CEO of The American Independent News Network announced plans this week to cease publication of most of the network’s state-based sites. That appears to include the Iowa Independent blog, a fixture on the Iowa political blogosphere since early 2007.

Jim Carley announced last week that he is running as a Republican in the new Iowa House district 30. Carley’s background is typical for a GOP statehouse candidate, but his announcement was unusual in one respect. A Republican incumbent already represents Iowa House district 30, and State Representative Kim Pearson has not decided yet whether to seek re-election.

Comments from both candidates about a possible primary contest are after the jump.

The public policy organization representing the Catholic Church in Iowa released its list of 2012 legislative priorities this week, along with a statement on “Labor and the Common Good.”

Public Policy Polling’s latest Iowa survey provides more evidence that former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain is gaining support among Republicans as Texas Governor Rick Perry and Representative Michele Bachmann lose ground.

Eight Republican presidential candidates will debate for the second time in less than a week tonight at 7 pm central time. I expect former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Representative Ron Paul to have a go at Texas Governor Rick Perry, like they did during last week’s debate. Representative Michele Bachmann has been trying to distinguish herself from Perry too lately. I see the other four candidates mainly fighting not to be ignored by the moderators.

I’ll update this post later, but meanwhile here’s a thread to talk about the debate or the presidential race in general.

UPDATE: First thoughts on the debate and excerpts from the transcript are after the jump.

Iowa House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Tom Sands did not face a Democratic opponent in 2010, but Sara Sedlacek announced this week that she is running against the five-term incumbent in the new House district 88.

I’ve seen a lot of hippie-punching by professional Democrats, but the Iowa Democratic Party’s attack on Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement yesterday was a particularly cynical example.  

Representative Steve King is demanding Congressional hearings on what he described as the Obama administration’s new policy of “executive amnesty to illegal aliens.” My only question is, what took him so long?

Iowa Workforce Development officials can move ahead with closing 37 36 of the agency’s 55 field offices around Iowa, thanks to a line-item veto by Governor Terry Branstad. State lawmakers included language in the economic development appropriations bill to require Iowa Workforce Development to maintain its current number of field offices through the 2012 fiscal year. However, Branstad rejected that provision yesterday:

“This item would prohibit Iowa Workforce Development from putting forth an enhanced delivery system that broadens access to Iowans across the state in fiscal year 2012,” Branstad said. “In order to develop a sustainable delivery system in light of continually fluctuating federal funding, the department must put forth a system that embraces the use of technology while providing enhanced benefits through maximum efficiencies.”

Branstad said Iowa Workforce Development has more than 190 “virtual access point workstations” in over 60 new locations throughout the state to increase access to these critica services. He says Iowans are already using the expanded hours of operation, six days a week.

“At my direction, IWD will have hundreds of additional virtual access points by the end of fiscal year 2012,” he said.

I doubt many unemployed Iowans would consider a computer terminal “enhanced” access, compared to an office staffed by a real person explaining the available services.

Controversy over shutting down these offices nearly derailed the Iowa Senate confirmation of Teresa Wahlert. Opposition from lawmakers of both parties didn’t persuade her, although two of the 39 field offices originally targeted will be spared. Iowa Workforce Development started closing some of its field offices even before legislators had adopted a final budget. In early July, the agency laid off 13 employees as part of the planned reorganization. Iowa Workforce Development Communications Coordinator Katie Hommer communications director was unable to tell me today when the agency will finish shutting down the offices slated for closure. She said staff are still going through the signed budget, which they only just received.

Hommer also did not know whether enough funds were provided for the agency to keep open its New Iowan Centers, which offer specialized services for recent immigrants. Those centers are currently located in Muscatine, Ottumwa, Marshalltown, Mt. Pleasant, Iowa City, Des Moines, Sioux City, Storm Lake, Council Bluffs, Mason City and Denison.

On a related note, Branstad’s love for streamlining government doesn’t extend to the U.S. Postal Service, which may close as many as 178 Iowa post offices. The downsizing is part of a plan to eliminate 3,700 of nearly 32,000 post offices nationwide. Branstad has repeatedly criticized plans to eliminate rural Iowa post offices, and yesterday he told Radio Iowa that the postal service is not using “common sense.” He wants the independent federal agency to explore alternatives to closing offices that small-town residents rely on.

Conservatives talk a good game about running government like a business, but a private business with declining revenues could never afford to operate retail outlets in as many locations as the U.S. Postal Service. The independent agency gets almost all of its revenues from postal fees (not federal budget allocations). As Americans send fewer paper letters and documents, postal service revenues have declined.

Branstad and his wife own 12 Iowa buildings that are leased to the U.S. Postal Service. So far only one of those, in Lohrville, is on the list of post offices to be closed.

UPDATE: Iowa House and Senate Democrats will reach out to Republicans to convene a special legislative session “with the sole purpose of overriding Governor Branstad’s line-item vetoes of legislation prohibiting the closure of the [Iowa Workforce Development] offices.” Details are in a press release I’ve posted after the jump. That document lists all the towns that would lose Iowa Workforce Development offices, as well as the county unemployment rate in each area.

SECOND UPDATE: Sounds like Republicans are not game for a special session to deal with this narrow issue. I’ve added Iowa Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley’s statement below.

THIRD UPDATE: Only 36 field offices will be closed, because federal funding came through to keep the Webster City office open. The closure of the Electrolux factory has been a particular hardship for Iowans in the local area. After the jump I’ve posted an Iowa Workforce Development press release, which lists all the cities and towns that will have the “regional integrated one-stop offices,” as well as all the localities that will lose their field offices.

Meanwhile, Iowa House and Senate Democrats formally called for a special session on July 29. Republicans are not interested. Expect these office closures to become a campaign issue in a bunch of statehouse races next year. The Golden Dome Blog found a video of Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds praising a “phenomenal” and “user friendly” workforce development office during last year’s gubernatorial campaign.

Democratic State Representative Dave Jacoby serves on the Iowa Workforce Development Board and is angry that board didn’t get to weigh in on whether these field offices should be closed.

No matter what happens during the ongoing state budget negotiations, Iowa Workforce Development will close 37 of its 55 field offices around the state, barely budging from initial plans to close 39 offices. The agency will maintain 16 full-service regional offices and two smaller field offices. State legislators aren’t happy about the consolidation plans, which will force many unemployed Iowans to drive further for personal assistance. Agency officials counter that budget constraints forced their hand.

More details and background on this controversy are after the jump.  

Former First Lady Christie Vilsack announced Wednesday that she will move to Ames next month and “continue to explore the possibility of representing Iowa in the US House of Representatives.” A Christie Vilsack for Iowa Facebook page and Christie Vilsack for Iowa website launched today as well. Vilsack’s statement and more news on the IA-04 race are after the jump.

This week, it’s the 104th anniversary of Ellis Island’s one-day peak – the day when more immigrants were welcomed than any other in American history. On April 17, 1907, 11,747 immigrants became Americans – and that was just at Ellis Island.

Today, 104 years later, America is stuck in the mud with a broken immigration system. Americans want reform that unites families, promotes fair employment practices, and restores America’s place as a nation that welcomes those seeking freedom from persecution and a better way of life.

This week, Immigrants' List -– a bipartisan political action committee dedicated to electing pro-immigration lawmakers – unveiled the 2011 inductees into the Immigration Hall of Shame. Sadly, Iowa Congressman Steve King is #1 on the list.

The days are getting warmer and longer, early wildflowers are starting to come up, and two of my favorite spring events in Iowa are happening the next two weekends. The Planned Parenthood spring book sale starts this Thursday and continues through Monday at the State Fairgrounds (4H building). This semi-annual sale supports the education and community outreach programs of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, covering most of Iowa and part of Nebraska. Come Thursday night or Friday for the best selection, Sunday or Monday for the lowest prices.

The sixth annual Natural Living Expo will be held April 2 and 3 at the Polk County Convention Complex in Des Moines. This free event showcases more than 100 natural and/or environmentally friendly Iowa businesses and community organizations. I’ll be helping staff the tables for a couple of non-profits, but I always look forward to browsing during my break times.

Like many in the Bleeding Heartland community, I’m excited to see the new map of Iowa political boundaries, which the Legislative Services Agency will release on March 31. The LSA will hold public meetings around the state on April 4 to discuss the proposed map.

Details on those events and much more are after the jump. As always, please post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of an event that should be added to this calendar.

Sunday, February 6 would have been Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday, and the occasion will be marked by a graveside ceremony in California and a tribute video to be aired during the Superbowl. I try not to speak ill of the dead, but I honestly struggle to think of anything Reagan did that benefited the country, besides signing the arms control treaty with the USSR. Not only was he nowhere near one of the great presidents, his main legacy was massive income inequality. He cut programs aimed at helping the poor and demonized welfare recipients successfully, paving the way for the welfare reforms of the 1990s. I disliked Reagan’s politics so much that Barack Obama’s rhetorical similarity to the Gipper was a big reason I never could warm up to Obama’s “inspiring” speeches.

The Reagan-worship in today’s Republican Party is comical. If Reagan were a candidate today, he’d be assailed as a “RINO” for his tax-raising, big-spending policies. Yes, Reagan raised many taxes as governor and as president, not that many Republicans would admit that today. At Think Progress, Alex Seitz-Wald published “10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan,” and one of them was news to me, even though I remember the 1980s well: “Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. […] The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency.”

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: I like Robert Borosage’s post on “The Reagan Ruins.”

SECOND UPDATE: Daily Kos user Clarknt67 on Reagan’s years-long non-response to the AIDS epidemic.

When Representative Steve King got passed over for the chairman’s post on the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration last Friday, he suggested that House Speaker John Boehner made the call. In an interview with the National Journal this week, King made clear that he isn’t happy with Boehner (hat tip to the America’s Voice blog):

   “I’m going to be OK with it. I’m going to be OK,” King told National Journal in a 40-minute interview. Even in the wake of the “unbelievably tragic” news of the Arizona massacre, King was obviously still smarting from the subcommittee rebuff. He didn’t mince words in placing the blame directly at House Speaker John Boehner. “The speaker holds the big gavel, and he decides who gets the other gavels,” King said. “It makes it very clear that it’s not a meritocracy.” […]

   “John Boehner isn’t very aggressive on immigration,” King said, noting that the GOP “Pledge to America” barely mentions immigration or border security. “It’s the tiniest section,” he said.

Not a meritocracy?

This week is a big one in Iowa politics, with the state legislature’s 2011 session starting Monday and Terry Branstad’s inauguration for a fifth term as governor on Friday. Several non-profits are organizing members and supporters to lobby legislators as well. Event details are after the jump.

One of my new year’s resolutions is to post event calendars regularly at Bleeding Heartland. Activists and politicians can help by sending your event notices to me: desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com. Please post a comment if you know of something I’ve left out.

The Republican takeover of the House of Representatives put Iowa’s Steve King in line to chair the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. Immigration is one of King’s primary concerns, and he was raring to get to work on the issue. His top priority was ending “birthright citizenship” guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Yesterday (the first day the 112th Congress was in session), King and several colleagues introduced a bill to that effect.

But King won’t be able to push that agenda as a subcommittee chair, because House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith selected Representative Elton Gallegly of California to chair the immigration subcommittee instead.

King, who served as the ranking Republican on the Immigration subcommittee since 2007, was selected as vice chairman of the panel.

Gallegly has been in Congress three times as long as King and doesn’t regularly make the news by saying offensive things about immigrants, or outlandish remarks in general.

A few thoughts on today’s news are after the jump.

The U.S. Senate rejected a cloture motion on the DREAM Act today by a vote of 55 to 41. At least 60 yes votes were needed to move forward the bill, which would give some undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children a path to citizenship. Iowa’s Tom Harkin voted yes, as did most of the Democratic caucus. Chuck Grassley voted no, along with most Senate Republicans. Six cowardly and mean-spirited Democrats voted no: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana. (Correction: it looks like Manchin missed the vote, but his office released a statement this morning saying he could not support the bill because it didn’t require people seeking citizenship to receive a college degree. Jackass.)

Only three Republicans voted yes on the DREAM Act: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Bob Bennett of Utah. Fake GOP moderates Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois all voted against the bill. Sickening. President Barack Obama nominally supports the DREAM Act, but as far as I can tell, the White House did nothing to convince wavering senators to vote for it.

After the DREAM Act failed, the Senate moved to a cloture motion on a stand-alone bill to repeal the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. The Senate approved that cloture motion 63 to 33, with Iowa’s senators splitting the usual way (Harkin for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Grassley against). The Senate will vote on the bill itself early next week later today, and it should easily pass.

UPDATE: Click here for the roll call on the DREAM Act cloture motion. The roll call for the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell vote is here. Congratulations, Chuck Grassley, you put yourself on the wrong side of history twice in one day.

SECOND UPDATE: The bill repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell passed the Senate by 65 to 31 (roll call). Harkin yes, Grassley no, of course. After the jump I’ve posted Harkin’s statements on the DREAM Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Grassley’s office hasn’t issued a statement on either vote; typically he sends out a press release every time the Senate considers major legislation.

Harkin’s statement on DREAM noted that the original 2003 bill had 15 Republican co-sponsors, which prompted me to look them up here. Lo and behold, there’s our Chuck Grassley, one of 47 sponsors of Senator Orrin Hatch’s “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003.” No wonder he doesn’t want to explain his vote today to block the bill from consideration.

The House of Representatives approved the DREAM Act on December 8 by a vote of 216 to 198. The bill would give some undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children a path to citizenship. Eligible people could obtain “conditional” status for six years provided they have no criminal record, have lived in the country for at least five years, and have graduated from high school or received a GED. To maintain legal status, people would have to pass a criminal background check and demonstrate that they have either attended college or served in the military for at least two years. Although 38 House Democrats opposed the DREAM Act yesterday, all three Iowa Democrats (Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell) voted for it. Only eight House Republicans crossed party lines to support this bill, and those did not include Tom Latham or Steve King. In recent weeks, King has slammed the DREAM Act as a “multi-billion dollar amnesty nightmare.”

The White House supports the DREAM Act, and the administration has mostly exempted students even as deportations of undocumented immigrants increased since President Barack Obama took office. However, Obama didn’t insist on passage of the DREAM Act as part of his tax cut deal with Congressional Republican leaders. The Senate is expected to vote on the House version of this bill next week. Although some Republicans support the DREAM Act, including Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, I would be surprised if it passes during the lame duck session.

Incidentally, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has supported legislation like the DREAM Act in the last, but last week he said he opposed current bill before Congress. He must be aware that if he runs for president again, he’ll need to win over GOP primary voters and caucus-goers who overwhelmingly oppose what conservatives call “amnesty.”

Also on December 8, the House voted on the Seniors Protection Act. According to a statement from Braley’s office, that bill “would have provided a one-time $250 payment to seniors on Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), railroad retirement, and veterans disability compensation or pension benefits due to the lack of a cost-of-living adjustment for 2011 (COLA).” The bill received 254 votes in favor and 153 votes against but still failed, because it was brought to the House floor under a suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote to pass. The Iowa delegation again split on party lines.

Meanwhile, the offices of Representatives Braley, Loebsack and Boswell still have not responded to my requests for comment on Obama’s tax deal with Republicans. On December 9 the House Democratic caucus reportedly voted against bringing the deal to the floor, but that was a non-binding resolution. The bill could still pass with a minority of Democratic votes and a majority of Republicans. On the Senate side, Republican Chuck Grassley says the deal is better than doing nothing. Democrat Tom Harkin says he is working behind the scenes to improve the deal and is inclined to vote no without some changes. However, even as he criticized Obama’s negotiating strategy, Harkin didn’t rule out supporting the deal until he sees the final package.

UPDATE: Braley released this noncommittal statement on December 9:

“As the tax cut package takes shape, I want to reiterate my support for a tax cut extension for every American family on incomes up to $250,000.  I continue to fight for an extension of unemployment benefits, especially during the holiday season.  I remain extremely concerned that extending Bush’s tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans will explode the deficit.”

“I continue to fight to cut taxes for Iowa’s families and I am working to ensure our future generations are not saddled with extreme debt.  I look forward to reading the legislative language produced on the bill before making a final decision on these important issues.”

SECOND UPDATE: Steve King talked to the Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth:

King said he dislikes that the tax cuts are only extended for two years. He said he wouldn’t go to the mat to extend the tax cuts permanently, but that they should be at a minimum extended five years so people sitting on capital to invest will know their tax liabilities for a longer period.

Further, King doesn’t like the unemployment benefits extension, since he said that only encourages people to not work and continue to receive those dollars.

THIRD UPDATE: Loebsack’s office says he “has consistently supported extending the middle-class tax cuts. He is also pleased to see that an extension of emergency unemployment benefits and additional tax cuts for hard-working families are included, along with potential extensions of renewable energy tax credits.  He is actively working to improve the proposal as it develops in order to ensure that the best interests of Iowans are being served.”  

Representative Steve King’s never had trouble calling attention to himself, even as a not very powerful member of the House minority. With Republicans in charge of the House beginning in January, King’s national profile will rise further as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration. One of his top priorities will be moving a bill to restrict birthright citizenship.  

Senator Chuck Grassley will become ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, Ed Tibbetts of the Quad-City Times reported on November 11. Grassley and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama made a deal in May 2009 to let Sessions be ranking member on Judiciary temporarily. The position became open when Arlen Specter switched to the Democratic Party, but Grassley (who is senior to Sessions) wanted to remain the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee through the end of 2010. Sessions is now expected to become ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. The GOP Senate caucus term-limits its committee chairs and ranking members.

Speaking to Tibbetts on November 10, Grassley said,

“I would hope to be doing roughly the same things on health care in the Judiciary Committee as I did in the Finance Committee,” he said.

Grassley has been a tenacious investigator of the Food and Drug Administration and the pharmaceutical industry. He also said he would remain active overseeing nonprofits.

Grassley said fraud-related issues are squarely within the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction.

Also, the New Hartford Republican has a history of casting a wide net in his oversight activities. In the 1980s, Grassley targeted waste in the Pentagon budget while he sat on a subcommittee of Judiciary, not a Defense-related panel.

In his new role, Grassley will be a more prominent figure in battles over confirming President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees as well.

Over in the U.S. House, Steve King (IA-05) is set to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration. He has been ranking member on that subcommittee since 2007. John Deeth notes that a Hispanic Republican group based in the southwest is objecting due to King’s use of “defamatory language that is extremely offensive to Hispanics.” Good luck getting the House Republican caucus to care, even if Latino voters did swing last week’s elections to Democrats in Colorado, Nevada and California.

Cutting spending from the current-year budget as well as from the budget for fiscal year 2012 will be statehouse Republicans’ top priority, incoming Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen told journalists yesterday. Paulsen said Republicans will seek to reduce fiscal year 2011 spending by “hundreds of millions” of dollars.

Mid-year spending cuts would make sense if Iowa faced revenue shortfalls, like the declines that prompted Governor Chet Culver’s across the board budget cut in October 2009. However, state revenues have been coming in ahead of projections since fiscal year 2011 began, and the 2011 budget was balanced when Democratic legislators approved it in March. The Revenue Estimating Conference will meet again in December. If their projections show that Iowa’s finances are on solid ground, with revenues still exceeding expectations for the current-year budget, how will Republicans justify their planned cuts?

Paulsen asserts there are “several hundred million dollars in the current year’s budget of marginal or no value to Iowans,” but a large share of the budget goes toward education and human services. Todd Dorman posted the wish lists for spending cuts Iowa House Republicans offered during the last two legislative sessions. Some of the ideas are more realistic than others. Republicans could save tens of millions by scrapping the preschool program and the Power Fund. However, Iowa doesn’t spend anything like the $92.3 million Republicans claim we could save by ending “all state benefits to adult illegal immigrants.” I expect the Legislative Services Agency to point that out next year.

Republicans have said $18.5 million could be saved through privatizing the state’s vehicle fleet. However, Democrats have disputed those projections:

Since December 2009, the Department of Administrative Services has already achieved more than $10.5 million in cost savings under [Executive Order] 20 and [Senate File] 2088 on fleet management reforms. A 2007 Iowa Legislative Services Report concluded that selling off the entire state fleet would cost taxpayers millions of dollars, instead of saving money.

I doubt it would be workable to combine administrative functions at the University of Iowa, Iowa State and the University of Northern Iowa, which Republicans claim would save taxpayers $62 million.

Republican plans to save $4 million by eliminating “taxpayer-funded lobbyists” are misleading too. Although some state employees register as lobbyists during the legislative session to weigh in on bills that would affect their departments, the state does not hire any contract lobbyists. A Des Moines Register report from last summer identified $1.8 million in Iowa taxpayer-funded lobbying costs, but that figure included lobbying expenses of “state agencies, municipalities, county agencies and associations where member dues are paid by taxpayers, such as the Iowa League of Cities.”  

Any comments about the state budget are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: In the comments, willinIA points out that the $62 million in supposed savings from merging administrative functions at the regents universities was pulled out of the air by Ed Failor of Iowans for Tax Relief.

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

Yesterday Stephen Colbert testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee about the need to provide more visas and better working conditions for migrant farm workers. He was in character, cracking jokes, during part of the hearing, but answered seriously when asked why he took an interest in this issue:

“I like talking about people who don’t have any power and it seems like one of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work but don’t have any rights as a result. But yet we still invite them to come here and at the same time ask them to leave. […] Migrant workers suffer and have no rights.”

Representative Steve King was at the hearing and didn’t care for Colbert’s stunt. He suggested that Colbert didn’t really spend a day working on a farm, as he claimed to have done, and accused Colbert of disparaging American workers who “perform the dirtiest, most difficult, most dangerous (jobs) that can be thrown at them.”

Maybe King was jealous that someone advocating for immigration reform grabbed a lot of media attention. Immigration has long been one of King’s pet issues. Fox News invited King on for a segment about whether Colbert’s testimony was appropriate.

Not surprisingly, media commentators seem more interested in the controversy surrounding Colbert’s appearance than in the topic at hand: an agriculture jobs bill that would give undocumented farm workers a path to U.S. citizenship.

This is an open thread.

UPDATE: Both Governor Chet Culver and Republican candidate Terry Branstad are scheduled to announce “major endorsements” on Monday morning. Who do you think those could be? My guess is the Branstad endorser will be a business person who has supported some Democrats in the past.  

How low will Terry Branstad go in his efforts to score political points on the immigration issue? Before the primary election, he exaggerated how much undocumented immigrants cost the state budget and said he wouldn’t offer their children in-state college tuition. Earlier this month, he called for new enforcement that would copy Arizona’s “show your papers” approach but (magic pony style) wouldn’t leave Iowa taxpayers footing the bill for immigrants jailed.

Now Branstad is grandstanding against the U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows children of undocumented immigrants to attend public schools. Speaking on Jan Mickelson’s conservative talk radio show on July 27, the Republican nominee for governor said, “I believe that we need to see that [ruling] overturned.”

Branstad is taking a fairly extreme position here. The Plyler v. Doe decision, which struck down a Texas statute denying public education to children of undocumented immigrants, has been settled law for nearly 30 years. (Not that I’d put it past the current activist right-wing Supreme Court majority to overturn longstanding precedent.)

I haven’t seen any Branstad campaign press release declaring that he wants to take public education away from illegal immigrants, so maybe he was cynically throwing a bone to Mickelson’s listening audience. Governor Chet Culver’s campaign manager Donn Stanley pointed out that during the 16 years Branstad was governor after Plyler v Doe took effect, “He never had the state Department of Education oppose that ruling.”

But what an indictment of Branstad’s “family values” if he was speaking sincerely on Mickelson’s show. He would tell children no, we’re not going to educate you, because your parents did something bad. Stanley told the Des Moines Register, “It also just seems that having these kids in school instead of on the street would be better for society […] Speaking generally, punishing children for what their parents do illegally is not a value the governor has.”

Branstad should answer two follow-up questions. First, if elected governor, would he try to pass a law denying education benefits to children of undocumented immigrants? Such a law would be challenged in court, perhaps creating an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue.

Second, would Branstad take any other steps to restrict education opportunities for immigrant children? Republican attorney general candidate Brenna Findley recently told Mickelson that while Plyler v Doe applies to Iowa, she favored trying to “work with the Department of Education” to find ways our state could address this issue. Branstad talks up Findley everywhere he campaigns; would he work with her toward this end? Incidentally, even Findley didn’t go so far as to say that Plyler v Doe was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention this part of the Des Moines Register article:

“Gov. Branstad believes that people who are here illegally should not receive taxpayer-funded benefits because it drains our budget and is an added expense to taxpayers,” Branstad campaign spokesman Tim Albrecht said. “We’re talking about those children here illegally. We’re not talking about those born here.”

I haven’t seen any statistics on the estimated number of children in Iowa who were brought to this country illegally, as opposed to native-born Iowa children of undocumented immigrants. Even if Branstad got his wish and the Supreme Court revised its thinking on this issue, it would be difficult to implement the kind of distinction Albrecht is talking about. Theoretically, you could have school district denying enrollment to older siblings while educating younger siblings who were born in Iowa.  

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

I learned from the Cedar Rapids Gazette that above-average temperatures across Iowa this summer have mitigated flooding somewhat despite heavy rainfall in June and July. Let’s hope for dry weather in the coming week, especially in areas that have flooded recently and of course along the RAGBRAI route.

While RAGBRAI towns will showcase our state’s welcoming side, Iowa Republicans have lately sounded less open to outsiders. I had hoped the worst of the Republican pandering on immigration would pass with the demise of Bob Vander Plaats’ gubernatorial aspirations. But GOP nominee Terry Branstad is now borrowing from the Vander Plaats playbook. Earlier this month, Branstad told supporters at one campaign stop,

   “When people are stopped for a criminal violation or traffic violation, if they cannot show they are here legally, they ought to be detained and turned over to the federal government for deportation,” Branstad said.

   Branstad cautioned, however, that he didn’t want Iowa taxpayers to be left paying the bill for the process.

   “I think the challenge is getting the federal government to fulfill their end of the deal,” Branstad told a group of about 25 people at the Lied Public Library. “I don’t want the local property taxpayers to have to pay for them to be in a county jail for month after month after month. They need to step up and do their part of it.”

Todd Dorman saw this as one sign of a new gubernatorial candidate emerging, “Terry Vander Branstad.” I don’t see any significant shift, because even though Branstad didn’t embrace Arizona’s immigration law during the primary campaign, he was already scoring points with exaggerated claims about undocumented immigrants stealing state benefits. Anyway, it’s nothing new for Branstad to take an incoherent campaign stance on a controversial issue or make promises he can’t back up with any substance.

One of Branstad’s favorite down-ticket Republicans, attorney general candidate Brenna Findley, spoke out about immigration policy during a talk radio appearance this week. Findley’s longtime boss Steve King would be proud, since he is a big fan of the Arizona approach. In fact, this week King joined 80 other U.S. House members in signing a “friend of the court” brief defending the law, which the U.S. Department of Justice has challenged in court.

Findley asserted on June 22,

Arizona passed their law because the federal government didn’t uphold the rule of law and it was hurting states like Arizona. So they had to take their own course of action there. Their murder rate was way up, they were experiencing a crime rate that they hadn’t seen recently and real people were being hurt.

Jason Hancock noted at Iowa Independent that “data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports and Arizona’s Department of Public Safety shows the state’s crime rate is actually down in recent years.” PolitiFact published more details here on Arizona’s declining crime rate. Don’t expect those facts or the federal government’s legal arguments to change Republican minds about immigration policy.

Some conservative strategists are concerned that embracing Arizona’s new law will hurt Republican electoral prospects in 2012, as Latinos are a fast-growing voter bloc in many states Republican presidential candidates need to win. Iowa Republicans probably aren’t worried about alienating Latino voters, because this rapidly growing demographic group is not expected to reach 10 percent of our state’s population until around 2030.

Representative Steve King ventured to Colorado to speak at two events on Saturday. A tea party splinter group hastily arranged the “United We Stand with Arizona!” rally in Loveland after Northern Colorado Tea Party organizers made clear King would not be welcome speaking at their “Remember November” rally later in the day. King told his followers on Twitter, “Colorado trip was a complete success. Turnout surpassed projections in both Loveland and Elizabeth. No better friend than Tom Tancredo.”

King didn’t have such kind words for Cory Gardner, the Republican candidate in Colorado’s fourth Congressional district. Last week Gardner canceled a fundraiser King offered to headline. Speaking to the Coloradoan newspaper, King declined to endorse Gardner for Congress. King’s buddy Tancredo expressed hope that Gardner would show “more spine in Congress” than he did reacting to King’s controversial remarks on race.

At the immigration rally, King spoke near a sign that said, “Political correctness = intellectual fascism.” Here’s a clip in which King describes his vision for protecting us from illegal immigrants. For the price of $2 million per mile, he claims, we could build a fence, a road, and a concrete wall (with wire at the top) running the whole length of our southern border. He characterized that as a bargain compared to the $6 million per mile the U.S. spends on our current border security policy. With an offensive flourish that has become his trademark, King boasted to his audience, “If you give me $6 million a mile there will not be a cockroach get across my mile.”

The group America’s Voice, which advocates for comprehensive immigration reform, has compiled this archive on King’s comments about immigration and ties to “anti-immigrant extremist groups.” He has indicated in the past that “his words are weighed ahead of time, never off the cuff and designed to stir discussion of key issues.” King succeeds in drawing national attention to himself and his agenda. But residents of Iowa’s fifth district pay the price, Democratic challenger Matt Campbell noted last week: “Instead of focusing on moving America forward, King is busy making polarizing statements. […] King’s polarizing statements and failure to lead is preventing the people he represents here in Iowa’s fifth district from having their needs met.”

King found time in his busy schedule yesterday to speak up for British Petroleum. He agrees with conservatives who feel President Obama has dealt too harshly with the corporation. They object to plans for BP to finance “a $20 billion escrow fund to pay out claims to individuals and businesses harmed by the spill” in the Gulf of Mexico. The way King sees it, Representative Joe Barton was right to apologize to BP for the “shakedown” (hat tip to Deeth). Many other Washington Republicans have distanced themselves from Barton’s views.

Please give some money or time to Matt Campbell for Congress if you are able.

I was offline for a few days and returned to find that Representative Steve “10 Worst” King has been shooting off his mouth again. Historically, King’s offensive outbursts have enhanced his reputation with the country’s right wing, but this time even some conservatives are troubled by his comments. On Monday, King went on G. Gordon Liddy’s talk radio show to talk about Arizona’s new immigration law. Apparently that topic wasn’t controversial enough, because King said of President Barack Obama’s administration,

When you look at this administration, I’m offended by [U.S. Attorney General] Eric Holder and the President also, their posture.  It looks like Eric Holder said that white people in America are cowards when it comes to race.  And I don’t know what the basis of that is but I’m not a coward when it comes to that and I’m happy to talk about these things and I think we should.  But the President has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race – on the side that favors the black person.

The Media Matters Action Network’s Political Correction blog posted the audio clip here. Naturally, King misquoted Holder and distorted the meaning of his words. Over at The Atlantic blog, Ta-Nehisi Coates discusses the long American history of claiming your political opponent is “favoring black people.”

We Iowans are used to King embarrassing us from time to time, but some out-of-staters were apparently shocked this week. Republican candidate Cory Gardner, who is challenging a Democratic incumbent in Colorado’s conservative-leaning fourth district, quickly canceled a fundraiser King was planning to headline this weekend (more on that here). Meanwhile, the Northern Colorado Tea Party axed King’s scheduled appearance at its June 19 event, saying, “we do not feel his remarks align with the mission and vision of the Northern Colorado Tea Party, which focuses on promoting fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free enterprise according to Constitutional principles. The race debate does not have a place in the Tea Party movement or in politics today.” Gardner will be at the Tea Party event and presumably wanted to avoid being on stage with King.

King told an Iowa political admirer on Monday, “The fact that liberals have risen to attack me and call me names without rebutting my assertions concedes my point […] When they start calling you names you know they’ve lost the argument.”

No, Congressman, when even your supposed political allies can’t get far enough away from you, it proves you have lost the argument. How often do candidates cancel opportunities to raise money for a campaign?

In case you were wondering what King had planned to say about the Arizona law on Gordon Liddy’s talk show, I infer it’s something like what he said on the floor of the U.S. House Monday evening:

   KING: Some claim that the Arizona law will bring about racial discrimination profiling. First let me say, Mr. Speaker, that profiling has always been an important component of legitimate law enforcement. If you can’t profile someone, you can’t use those common sense indicators that are before your very eyes. Now, I think it’s wrong to use racial profiling for the reasons of discriminating against people, but it’s not wrong to use race or other indicators for the sake of identifying that are violating the law. […]

   It’s just a common sense thing. Law enforcement needs to use common sense indicators. Those common sense indicators are all kinds of things, from what kind of clothes people wear – my suit in my case – what kind of shoes people wear, what kind of accident [sic] they have, um, the, the type of grooming they might have, there’re, there’re all kinds of indicators there and sometimes it’s just a sixth sense and they can’t put their finger on it. But these law enforcement officers, if they were going to be discriminating against people on the sole basis of race, singling people out, that’d be going on already.

Something tells me King wouldn’t be so comfortable with racial profiling if law enforcement singled out people who look like him. But empathy has never been his strong suit. We’re talking about a guy who thinks deporting undocumented immigrants to an area devastated by an earthquake might be a good way to send extra relief workers.

Matt Campbell is the Democratic nominee in Iowa’s fifth district; go here to get involved in supporting his campaign. Rob Hubler, King’s opponent in 2008, spoke with the Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth last week about the challenges of campaigning in this huge district, which covers 32 Iowa counties. He noted that it’s particularly hard for a candidate to get a message out with so many media markets covering portions of the district.

UPDATE: The Political Correction blog followed up on this story today.

Also, King told Radio Iowa that he stands by his remarks. Campbell commented on the controversy too: “I think they’re reflective of a pattern of Mr. King saying polarizing things. I think collectively they preclude meaningful work on issues important to the development of western Iowa because of statements such as this.” Hard to argue with that one.

SECOND UPDATE: Representative Bruce Braley, a Democrat, said King’s comments about Obama favoring black people “were deplorable and an embarrassment to the state of Iowa.”

Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn and third district Congressional candidate Brad Zaun declined to comment, and Zaun said repeatedly that he didn’t know exactly what King had said.

Bob Vander Plaats’ first television commercial didn’t mention his Republican rivals in the governor’s race, but a new commercial released today draws distinctions on immigration:

Rough transcript:

Voice-over: Only one candidate for governor supports Arizona’s tough illegal immigration law: Bob Vander Plaats (visual shows Des Moines Sunday Register headline, “Immigration divides GOP trio: 2 candidates say it’s a federal issue; Vander Plaats endorses Arizona law”)

Vander Plaats speaking to camera: Chet Culver and Terry Branstad want to wait for the federal government to do something about illegal immigration. We’ve waited long enough. I’m tired of relying on the federal government and getting no results. As governor, I’ll give our state and local law enforcement the authority to enforce immigration laws. It’s not just common sense; it’s the right thing to do.

The Republican candidates sparred on the immigration issue during the second gubernatorial debate a few weeks ago. All three candidates engaged in misleading and disgraceful pandering. It’s sad that Vander Plaats embraces the Arizona approach. Not only does the new law encroach on civil liberties, it would be very expensive for local governments to implement. Vander Plaats denies the obvious costs that would accompany this kind of law.

This commercial looks like a “hail Mary” pass to me. I understand why Vander Plaats would want to go negative, but criticizing Branstad’s record as governor, as he did during the third gubernatorial debate, would be more honorable than scoring points on the Arizona law. Maybe their internal polling suggests immigration is a salient issue for the Republican base.

This commercial evokes the usual mixed feelings I have when I think about the Republican primary. Part of me would like to see Vander Plaats win the nomination, because I believe Culver would easily beat him. The other part of me wants Vander Plaats and his ill-informed demagoguery to be irrelevant to Iowa politics after June 8.  

During Saturday’s Republican gubernatorial debate I was struck by how eager all three candidates were to pander on the immigration issue. For example, in response to a question by Iowa Public Radio journalist Jeneane Beck, all the Republicans said they would deny in-state tuition at Iowa universities to the children of illegal immigrants.

That’s easier said than done, since many children of undocumented immigrants were born in the U.S. and are consequently U.S. citizens. For that reason, former Governor Terry Branstad has backpedaled a bit since the debate. Meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board on Tuesday morning, Branstad “said he would have to consider the constitutionality” of denying in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants who were born in this country. Later the same day, Branstad’s campaign spokesman Tim Albrecht told the Des Moines Register, “If they are born here, they are legal residents. If they are, they should be afforded every opportunity as every legal resident of the state.”

Branstad’s leading Republican rival, Bob Vander Plaats, talked a good game about the “rule of law” during Saturday’s debate but insists that he would deny children of illegal immigrants in-state tuition, even if they were born here. I expect Vander Plaats supporters to make a big deal out of Branstad’s “flip-flop” on the issue, even though Branstad’s new stance is correct from a legal standpoint. The Register’s Tom Beaumont reported that the third Republican running for governor, Rod Roberts, “stopped short of saying U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants should not qualify” for in-state tuition.

Meanwhile, Vander Plaats remains the only candidate in the Republican field to advocate an Arizona-style crackdown on undocumented immigrants for Iowa. I oppose Arizona’s new law on principle, because it is un-American to give the police power to put you in jail if you’re not immediately able to “show your papers.” Branstad and Roberts have declined to advocate copying Arizona for more pragmatic reasons, such as the cost of implementation. Polk County Sheriff Bill McCarthy put in his two cents on that angle yesterday:

“It’s all well and good to demagogue the issue, but there’s a reality to it,” McCarthy said during the elected official discussion segment of this morning’s Board of Supervisors workshop.

If illegal immigrants awaiting deportation were detained at the Polk County Jail at a cost of $95 per day without adequate support from the federal government, it could cost millions of dollars, McCarthy said. […]

The current jail system will not work if Iowa adopts a law similar to the one in Arizona, McCarthy said later in an interview with The Des Moines Register.

“The bottom line is that we’re dealing with human beings,” he said. “And I know they shouldn’t be here and I know they entered the country illegally. But if they’re here, they’re people and I think we have to deal with them in a humane way, particularly when there are children involved.”

The immigration issue provides a convenient crutch to Republican candidates, but the favored right-wing approach would be extremely costly, not to mention impractical. While we’re on the subject, I’d like to hear third district Congressional candidate Brad Zaun explain how he would “put [all the illegal immigrants in Iowa] on a bus and send them wherever they came from.”

Any thoughts on immigration policy are welcome in this thread. How long do you think Republican candidates will get away with massively exaggerating the amount of money Iowa could save by cutting services to undocumented immigrants?

Last week I chose not to post Pat Bertroche’s disgusting comments about inserting michochips in illegal immigrants, because they struck me as a bid to gain attention for an irrevelant Congressional campaign. Bertroche himself said “you have to be radical to get news press.” His comment drew coverage not only in Iowa, but on national blogs like Talking Points Memo and on cable news networks, including Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show.  

Unfortunately, pandering to voters on immigration isn’t just for sideshows like Bertroche, who will be lucky to get 5 percent of the vote in the third Congressional district GOP primary. During the Republican gubernatorial debate on May 1, all three candidates made false and misleading claims about illegal immigration.  

Arizona’s Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed a law yesterday that makes it “a state crime to be in the country illegally” and “requires local law enforcement to determine an individual’s immigration status if an officer suspects that person is in the country illegally.” Civil rights groups are already preparing federal lawsuits, and President Barack Obama called the bill “misguided”, adding, “I’ve instructed members of my admininstration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation.”

The American Civil Liberties Union explained why we should be outraged about this law:

The law creates new immigration crimes and penalties inconsistent with those in federal law, asserts sweeping authority to detain and transport persons suspected of violating civil immigration laws and prohibits speech and other expressive activity by persons seeking work. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona strongly condemn the governor’s decision to sign the unconstitutional law and are dismayed by her disregard for the serious damage it could cause to civil liberties and public safety in the state.[…]

The new law, which will not go into effect for more than 90 days, requires police agencies across Arizona to investigate the immigration status of every person they come across whom they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe is in the country unlawfully. To avoid arrest, citizens and immigrants will effectively have to carry their “papers” at all times. The law also makes it a state crime for immigrants to willfully fail to register with the Department of Homeland Security and carry registration documents. It further curtails the free speech rights of day laborers and encourages unchecked information sharing between government agencies.

Naturally, conservatives who claim to be for small government love the expansion of police powers in Arizona.

Representative Raul Grijalva, one of the leaders of the House Progressive Caucus, closed his Arizona offices yesterday following threatening phone calls. Grijalva also “called on businesses and groups looking for convention and meeting locations to boycott Arizona.” Already yesterday the American Immigration Lawyers Association canceled plans to hold the group’s fall national convention in Scottsdale. A petition has been created to urge California’s state pension fund to “divest from all Arizona companies” and sell all Arizona real estate.

The law may never be enforced, depending on what happens with the federal lawsuits, but some people are predicting it will boost support for Democrats among Latino voters.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread. For comic relief, I recommend reading the official statement from Arizona Hispanic Republicans. After criticizing the (Republican) state legislators who spearheaded the bill and the (Republican) governor who signed the bill, they say they are “ultimately holding President Obama accountable,” because “Obama promised Hispanics that he would pass immigration reform within 90 days of his Presidency.  Had Obama carried out his promises to Hispanics last year, the Hispanic community would not be experiencing the crisis we are experiencing right now.” That’s quite a creative way to misdirect blame.

Yesterday the Iowa House State Government Committee voted down a Republican plan to cut state spending by $290 million in the coming year. State Representative and gubernatorial candidate Chris Rants offered the plan as an amendment to the government reorganization bill. He said his party was trying to “work in a bipartisan way” and make “tough decisions” to balance the budget for the coming year. All twelve Democrats on the House State Government Committee voted against the GOP amendment, while the nine Republicans voted for it. Later the same day, the committee approved the reorganization bill on a 20-1 vote, with only Rants opposed.

We are sure to hear more from Rants and other Republicans about how big, bad Democrats rejected their good ideas for spending cuts. A closer look reveals funny math in the Republican “plan.”

The biggest line item is “$92.3 million, end all state benefits to adult illegal immigrants.” The Iowa House Republican caucus claims this number comes from the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency. The implication is that the state of Iowa hands out $92.3 million in cash to illegal immigrants.

But that’s not the case. From a report by the Legislative Services Agency on “Undocumented Immigrants’ Cost to the State” (pdf file):

The only government services that illegal immigrants are eligible for are elementary and secondary public education and emergency health care.1 Most citizens do not gain direct benefits from a majority of government spending. Instead, government programs are intended to benefit society as a whole through maintenance of a healthy economy, satisfying public health and safety concerns, providing basic infrastructure, etc. Although undocumented immigrants do not receive most direct benefits, the total benefit of State spending is assumed to accrue to undocumented immigrants at the same rate as legal residents.

The LSA divides total spending from the state general fund by the state’s total population to calculate roughly how much in “benefits” each Iowa resident receives annually. This isn’t a cash payment from the state to residents; it represents each individual’s share of benefit from the state paying for schools, roads, and so on.

Iowa House Republicans arrived at the $92.3 million figure by dividing total general fund expenditures by the number of undocumented immigrants currently estimated to be living in Iowa. They call the remainder “benefits” that illegal immigrants receive. But there’s no magic wand we can wave to make immigrants stop benefiting indirectly from what state government does. The same LSA report noted:

Undocumented immigrants qualify for few services at the State level, and those for which they do qualify are largely mandated by federal law or the Courts. Therefore, decreasing undocumented immigrant eligibility for State spending does not appear to be a viable policy option. Additionally, if the assumption that undocumented immigrants accrue benefits even without receiving direct services is considered valid, attempting to reduce direct State expenditures on undocumented immigrants would have a minimal effect.

By the way, proof of citizenship and identification are already required for Iowans participating in Medicaid and HAWK-I (the children’s health insurance program).

Scoring points against undocumented immigrants may be good for Rants politically, but that won’t help the state of Iowa save $92.3 million in the coming year. That one item represents nearly a third of the Republican-proposed spending cuts.

I’ve posted the full list of cuts after the jump. Some ideas may have merit, but most of them reflect skewed Republican priorities for state government. GOP legislators want to save $45 million by reducing access to pre-school for four-year-olds. They also want to invest less in renewable energy production and energy efficiency measures by eliminating the Power Fund and the Office of Energy Independence, which would $25 million. Many Republicans never liked the core curriculum, so it’s no surprise they’d like to save some money by delaying its implications. The Des Moines Register’s Iowa poll in November indicated that Iowans support higher spending on renewable energy research and development and are divided over whether to cut funds for expanded free pre-school.

Some of the smaller Republican-backed cuts would please conservative interests. The religious right would love to eliminate the family planning waiver. Rants has always been a good friend to tobacco companies, who would love to see the state scrap the “Just Eliminate Lies” anti-smoking campaign. There’s also $4 million saved by cutting “taxpayer-funded lobbyists,” which sounds great until you realize that would leave corporate groups unchallenged as they lobby for bills that might counter the public interest. Anyway, last year taxpayer money for lobbying totaled about $1.8 million, and a lot of that didn’t come from the state general fund. Municipalities, county agencies and associations like the League of Cities hire lobbyists too.