Sorry to bring you down on a Friday afternoon, but the Iowa Revenue Estimating Conference released new estimates today, and it ain’t pretty:

The conference estimated that the current year’s revenues will sink by $129.7 million compared to its December estimate. Revenue for the budget year that begins July 1 will drop by $269.9 million.

The drop is in addition to December’s estimates, which cut $99.5 million in the current year and $132.6 million in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

Charlie Krogmeier, Gov. Chet Culver’s chief of staff and a member of the conference, said federal stimulus money may help offset the blow but that the dramatically lower estimates will leave lawmakers with tough options.

It would be difficult to find enough job cuts and furloughs in the current fiscal year to fill the gap. The fiscal year ends June 30, in roughly 10 weeks. […]

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy […] and other Democratic leaders noted on Thursday that they were already planning a budget that was $130 million less than Culver’s in the upcoming fiscal year. It’s unclear how they will make up the additional $270 million loss for the current and upcoming year.

Clearly difficult choices lie ahead. I urge Iowa leaders not to implement spending cuts alone, because cutting government spending too much during a recession can make things worse.

I was encouraged to read recently that legislators are looking carefully at all of the tax incentives Iowa provides. The combined effect of all these tax incentives is larger than all state spending:

There are at least 191 tax breaks for income and sales taxes that cost or prevent Iowa from collecting almost $7.2 billion, according to a 2005 review by the Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance.

That’s more than total state spending, which is projected to be $7.1 billion next year.

Not all of these tax breaks provide good value for the lost revenue, and not all of them can be preserved with the budget shortfall we’re facing.

In other unpleasant news this Friday, the Principal Financial Group, one of Iowa’s largest employers, announced pay cuts between 2 and 10 percent, which will affect all employees, management and the board of directors. Some benefits will also be reduced.

Principal already imposed a large layoff in December, and I think they are doing the right thing by reducing pay rather than cutting more jobs now. Labor market specialists differ on whether it’s better for companies to cut pay or lay off more workers in lean times. Click here to read some arguments for reducing pay, or click here for the pro-layoff argument.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:    

CONTACT:Peter Gray 312-795-3715                                                          

Iowa Contact: Andrew Snow 515-244-3931

March 18, 2009

Study Finds Iowa Residents, Businesses Can Save $690 Million Through Greater Energy Efficiency

Environmental Law and Policy Center Joins Partnership in National Coalition Advocating for Federal Energy Efficiency Standard

WASHINGTON, D.C. –  Iowa residents and businesses could save over $690 million on their utility bills if utility companies cut demand for electricity by 15 percent and natural gas by 10 percent by 2020, according to a new report released today by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). The new national and state-by-state analysis of energy efficiency benefits was made public as more than 60 business leaders, industry groups and environmental advocates, including The Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) launched the Campaign for an Energy-Efficient America, a coalition calling on Congress to enact a national target for energy efficiency (www.energyefficiencyworks.org).

“Making homes and businesses more energy-efficient will create jobs, save Iowa residents money on their utility bills, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the bottom line for Iowa businesses,” said ELPC Policy Advocate Andrew Snow. “That’s why we’re proud to join business and environmental groups in urging Congress to enact a federal energy efficiency resource standard (EERS) that will help us achieve these crucial goals.”

The ACEEE report found that in addition to generating utility bill savings, passage of a federal EERS could create 1,000 jobs in construction, manufacturing, and other fields in Iowa and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change by 2.9 million metric tons. The measure would also eliminate the need to build more power plants in Iowa and prevent environmental risks associated with traditional power generation.

A national EERS would set a target for gas and electric utilities to meet, but allow states flexibility on how to achieve the targets through rebates and financial incentives for energy efficiency home improvements, use of energy-efficient lighting and appliances, combined heating/cooling systems and other measures.  Nineteen states have established a state EERS.

The Campaign for an Energy-Efficient America supports a national EERS that would require utilities to reduce electricity usage by 15 and natural gas usage by 10 percent by 2020. This proposal for a federal EERS is included in House and Senate versions of the Save American Energy Act (H.R. 889 and S. 548), introduced by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA-7) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), respectively.  

ACEEE’s economic analysis reveals that by 2020, the proposed federal EERS could save American consumers $168.6 billion, create 222,000 jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 262 million metric tons – the equivalent of removing 48 million cars from the road – and eliminate the need to build 390 power plants. Laying the Foundation for Implementing a Federal Energy Efficiency Resource Standard is available at www.aceee.org/pubs/e091.htm.

###

The Environmental Law and Policy Center is the Midwest’s leading environmental legal advocacy and eco-business innovation organization. www.elpc.org

Campaign for an Energy-Efficient America is a coalition of more than 60 leading businesses, industry groups and environmental organizations advocating for a national energy efficiency resource standard (EERS) to help the nation maximize energy efficiency – the fastest, cheapest, cleanest way to meet our growing energy needs while creating jobs, saving consumers money, boosting American competitiveness and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For more information, visit our Web site at www.EnergyEfficiencyWorks.org.

The first “funnel” deadline passed at the end of last week, leaving most of the bills introduced in the Iowa legislature dead for this session. Summaries of notable bills that did and did not make it through the funnel can be found here and here.

Bills that have been approved by a full committee remain alive for the 2009 session, and Iowa House and Senate leaders can still introduce new measures. Also, amendments affecting various programs could be attached to appropriations bills that won’t be finalized until next month.

That means advocates should be informed and ready to help persuade legislators in the weeks to come. I’ve posted some ideas on how to accomplish that after the jump, and I’d like to hear your suggestions in the comments.

Yesterday I posted here that Representative Tom Latham (IA-04) has been taking credit for earmarks in the 2009 omnibus spending bill that he voted against.

Alert Bleeding Heartland user frogmanjim informed me that Representative Steve King (IA-05) has been playing the same game. King’s office issued an upbeat statement about $570,000 included in the economic stimulus bill that will go toward widening U.S. Highway 20 in a rural area of northwest Iowa. Of course, the statement did not mention that King voted against the stimulus. Nor did the brief news item in the Sioux City Journal.

I had a feeling that King would take credit for stimulus spending. During last year’s campaign he repeatedly misled voters about his role in securing money to widen Highway 20 (see here and here).

Time for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to add Steve King’s name to the Republican Hypocrisy Hall of Fame. More than 30 House Republicans have already been inducted.

Senator Tom Harkin nominated two very different candidates for the U.S. attorney positions in Iowa. His nominee for the Northern District of Iowa is Stephanie Rose, who has worked in the office she will run for more than a decade. Harkin’s office noted that Rose

“has served as lead counsel in more than 260 criminal felony cases and as associate counsel on over 50 federal cases.  She also has argued before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 34 times. During her tenure as a federal prosecutor she has earned a national reputation within the Department of Justice as one of the nation’s leading prosecutors of illegal Internet pharmacy cases.”

Rose will also be the first woman U.S. attorney in Iowa since Roxanne Conlin served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District from 1977 to 1981. Lynda Waddington has more about Rose at Iowa Independent.

Harkin’s choice for the Southern District is Nick Klinefeldt, who has some background in criminal law but no experience as a federal prosecutor. The Des Moines Register quoted Harkin as saying, “I can tell you right now, the political considerations were not the deciding factor, considering some of the people who did not get it.” (Many well-connected people sought the nomination for the Southern District, including former Iowa Public Safety Commissioner Kevin Techau, former Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer and Gov. Chet Culver’s director of drug control policy, Gary Kendall, as well as Iowa Assistant Attorney General Donn Stanley and Tom Henderson, chairman of the Polk County Democrats.)

That said, Klinefeldt has a much more “political” resume than Rose. He is both a former Harkin staffer and a former clerk of a judge who is close to Harkin. He has also represented the Iowa Democratic Party and various Democratic candidates. Which is not to say Klinefeldt won’t do an excellent job as U.S. attorney. I doubt he’ll let partisan concerns influence his office, which would be an improvement on the George W. Bush appointee who prosecuted a Democratic state senator in Iowa on very thin evidence.

The White House has not decided yet how it will handle the U.S. attorney appointments, according to the Washington Post. It’s possible that President Obama will leave some Bush appointees in place. However, the president usually goes along with the recommendations of a U.S. senator from the president’s party on these matters. President Bush’s Iowa appointees were recommended by Senator Chuck Grassley, for instance. I would be very surprised if Obama did not nominate both Rose and Klinefeldt.

Earlier this month President Barack Obama hosted a health care summit at the White House and announced plans for regional health care summits in Iowa, California, Michigan, North Carolina and Vermont. The governor of each state will host the regional events.

Governor Chet Culver announced yesterday that the Iowa forum will take place at the Polk County Convention Center on Monday, March 23, at 10 am. To enter the random drawing that will assign tickets to members of the public,

go to www.healthreform.gov and click on the “submit your question or idea” icon. Then click on the “Des Moines, Iowa” icon.

People can also call to request tickets from 9 a.m. Monday through noon Wednesday. The number is (800) 645-8864.

Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, will attend this forum and will be an influential voice in shaping Obama’s health care policies. Here’s a good background piece about her.

Some have expressed concerns about DeParle’s ties to companies with a stake in health care reform:

Since leaving the Clinton administration, Ms. DeParle has been managing director of a private equity firm, CCMP Capital, and a board member of companies like Boston Scientific, Cerner and Medco Health Solutions. White House officials said Ms. DeParle was severing ties with those companies and would recuse herself from participating in any matter that was “directly or substantially” related to former clients or employers.

“It is our view, and the view of counsel here, that the incidence of that will be very low,” an administration official said of the need for Ms. DeParle to recuse herself from decisions. The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said Ms. DeParle would be working mostly with federal agencies and lawmakers, and not directly with companies.

Allies of Ms. DeParle described her work in the private sector as a plus, because her familiarity with the industry would enable her to lean on companies to make tradeoffs essential in expanding access to the uninsured.

“She can call their bluff far more credibly and say, ‘Come on, guys, I’ve seen the books, I know you can do this with lower margins and higher market share, and you’ll do quite well,’ ” said Chris Jennings, who was President Bill Clinton’s top health policy adviser. “To me that’s very, very helpful.”

In general, people who come from industry to a government job don’t use that position to “lean on” companies where they have connections. But I am reserving judgment until I see what DeParle does in the coming months.  

Remember when I asked Bleeding Heartland readers to let me know if Representatives Tom Latham or Steve King tried to take credit for infrastructure projects funded by the stimulus bill they opposed?

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee noticed that Latham has been sending out press releases touting earmarks in the 2009 omnibus spending bill that he and nearly every other House Republican voted against. That’s right, Latham has been bragging about earmarks he inserted in a bill he didn’t support on the House floor. This is from the DCCC’s press release of March 12:

In a striking example of hypocrisy, after voting against the recently enacted FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations, Congressman Tom Latham is taking credit for millions of dollars included in the legislation that will help local community colleges, health care clinics, and renewable energy producers in  Iowa ‘s 4th Congressional District.

“Congressman Latham keeps telling people he ‘secured’ millions of dollars in funding for Iowa, but the truth is he voted against these investments,” said Gabby Adler, the Midwestern Regional Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  “Congressman Latham can’t hide from his voting record, no matter how hard he tries.  Counter to what Congressman Latham would have you believe, these millions of dollars aren’t coming to Iowa because of his hard work, these investments are being made in spite of Congressman Latham’s efforts to defeat this bill and the funding for Iowa.”

In every single press release sent out by Congressman Latham announcing investments for Iowa included in the FY 2009 Appropriations, he not only hid the fact he voted against the legislation but he led people to believe he championed its passage.  One release read Congressman Latham “once again this past week demonstrated his commitment to community colleges,” another one discussed his role as a “long-time supporter” of new health care technologies.  In a third release, Congressman Latham even referred to his support of Iowa’s renewable energy industry as “steadfast” despite his vote against $1.4 million for a cutting edge wind energy project in Iowa.

After the jump I’ve posted the rest of the DCCC’s release, which contains further details about the earmarks Latham voted against but is now taking credit for.

The two-faced Republican position on earmarks is truly sickening.

Latham may feel secure in IA-04 for 2010, but in 2012 he will probably have to run in a redrawn third district, which may not be as friendly as his current turf. For that reason, I have wondered whether voting for some of President Barack Obama’s policies would be in Latham’s political interest, or whether he would be better off rejecting every significant White House proposal, like most House Republicans.

Apparently Latham plans to have it both ways and hope Iowans don’t notice.

Let me know if you see any news reports in the fourth district that tell the whole truth about Latham’s position on the omnibus spending bill. My hunch is that most journalists will pass along the information from Latham’s press releases without mentioning that he didn’t vote for the final package.

There seems to be some confusion about the potential map for Iowa’s Congressional districts that Nathaniel90 posted here yesterday, so I’d like to clarify a few points after the jump.

UPDATE: Nathaniel responds to Krusty in the comments.  

Congressman Tom Latham is one of 34 Republicans who represent U.S. House districts carried by Barack Obama, according to analysis by CQ Politics.

Jonathan Singer was struck by the fact that Obama won nearly twice as many Republican-held districts as John Kerry did, even though far fewer Republicans won House elections in 2008 compared to 2004. Singer believes that as the next elections draw closer, these Republicans from Obama-districts will eventually feel pressure to support the president on some issues.

I don’t accept Singer’s premise that Obama will remain popular in all of the districts he carried in 2008. We don’t know what the economy will look like 18 months from now or whether Republicans will pay any political price for obstructing Obama’s agenda.

Still, Singer’s post got me thinking–is there any reason for Latham to cooperate with Obama?

After the jump I’ll try to answer this question.

As you can see from this graph, job losses in the current recession are worse than in other recent recessions and are continuing to accelerate at a time when the U.S. economy has already started adding jobs during the past two recessions.

Paul Krugman, who has been arguing for a much larger stimulus package, is very worried:

To see how bad the numbers are, consider this: The administration’s budget proposals, released less than two weeks ago, assumed an average unemployment rate of 8.1 percent for the whole of this year. In reality, unemployment hit that level in February – and it’s rising fast.

Employment has already fallen more in this recession than in the 1981-82 slump, considered the worst since the Great Depression. As a result, Mr. Obama’s promise that his plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 looks underwhelming, to say the least. It’s a credible promise – his economists used solidly mainstream estimates of the impacts of tax and spending policies. But 3.5 million jobs almost two years from now isn’t enough in the face of an economy that has already lost 4.4 million jobs, and is losing 600,000 more each month. […]

So here’s the picture that scares me: It’s September 2009, the unemployment rate has passed 9 percent, and despite the early round of stimulus spending it’s still headed up. Mr. Obama finally concedes that a bigger stimulus is needed.

But he can’t get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies has plummeted, partly because his policies are seen to have failed, partly because job-creation policies are conflated in the public mind with deeply unpopular bank bailouts. And as a result, the recession rages on, unchecked.

At MyDD Charles Lemos wonders whether current job losses may become permanent because of the manufacturing sector’s continuing decline.

Only the biggest layoffs make headlines, as when John Deere cut 325 jobs in Dubuque and Davenport last week. But almost all of us have friends or relatives who have lost their jobs in the past six months. Thankfully, none of my recently-unemployed friends are likely to lose their homes, but lots of people aren’t so lucky. Tent cities are booming across the country.

If you are looking for work, read this piece by Teddifish on How to get a job when no one is hiring.

Daily Kos diarist plf515 just found a new job and shared some advice in this diary:

How did I get this job?

I told everyone I was looking for work!  

This particular lead came from an announcement I made on SAS-L a mailing list about software that I use.  I am a frequent contributor there, someone who has read my work saw my mention, and then forwarded me a link to a job offer. […]

But I didn’t just mention it there.  I told everyone. I wrote a diary here; and I joined dkos networking; I announced it on mailing lists; I told my friends; I told former employers; I told the guy who does our dry cleaning; I told EVERYONE.  I also left cards advertising my consulting business all over.  

Can you find a job in this economy? Well, there are no guarantees.  But, if people don’t know you’re looking, they’ll never tell you about any openings.  

MyDD user ragekage has specific advice for people pursuing a career in nursing because they think it is a “recession-proof” occupation.

This thread is for any comments about unemployment or helpful advice about finding jobs.

UPDATE from desmoinesdem: Click here for further discussion about where this map came from and why it appeared on this site.

At Daily Kos, I've been posting a series of diaries taking an early look at redistricting after the 2010 Census in each state. Today I posted a diary mapping possible scenarios in Iowa and Ohio, and was encouraged to post the Iowa portion here.

Read my proposal for Iowa below the fold…

President Barack Obama held a summit on health care yesterday with about 150 politicians and experts in the field. This morning the White House followed up by announcing plans to hold regional forums on health care in five states, including Iowa. From the press release:

The Regional White House Forums on Health Care Reform will be hosted by the states’ Governors and will include participants ranging from doctors to patients to providers to policy experts.  They will be open conversations with everyday Americans, local, state and federal elected officials – both Democrat and Republican — and senior Obama administration officials.  The events will begin with a video recorded by the President, a summary of the findings from the Health Care Community Discussions that took place in December, and an overview of the discussion that took place at the White House Forum on Health Reform.

The meetings in California, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina and Vermont will take place in March and early April.  Further logistical information about the forums is forthcoming.

Presumably Iowa was chosen because both of our senators will play an important role in drafting health care legislation. Chuck Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Tom Harkin will be in charge of drafting the parts of the bill concerning disease prevention and public health.

Ezra Klein posted about an exchange between Obama and Grassley at the White House yesterday:

“Max Baucus and I have a pretty good record of working out bipartisan things,” said Grassley. “I think only two bills in eight years that haven’t been bipartisan.” (One of them, however, was the S-CHIP bill, and another was Medicare payment reform, so their record on health care is more contentious). Grassley then moved onto a more relevant sore spot: The public insurance option. “The only thing,” he pleaded, “that I would throw out for your consideration — and please don’t respond to this now, because I’m asking you just to think about it — there’s a lot of us that feel that the public option that the government is an unfair competitor and that we’re going to get an awful lot of crowd out, and we have to keep what we have now strong, and make it stronger.”

The question was no surprise: In recent Finance hearings, Grassley has clearly signaled his anxiety on this issue. What was a surprise was that Obama rejected Grassley’s plea to think it over and instead replied on the spot with a strong articulation of the case for a public plan. “The thinking on the public option has been that it gives consumers more choices, and it helps give — keep the private sector honest, because there’s some competition out there. That’s been the thinking.”

“I recognize, though, the fear that if a public option is run through Washington, and there are incentives to try to tamp down costs and — or at least what shows up on the books, and you’ve got the ability in Washington, apparently, to print money — that private insurance plans might end up feeling overwhelmed. So I recognize that there’s that concern. I think it’s a serious one and a real one. And we’ll make sure that it gets addressed.”

I love it when conservatives like Grassley drop the free-market-warrior act. David Sirota asks the right question: if what we have works so well, why are “Republicans insisting that Americans would overwhelmingly opt to be covered by a government-run health care program, if given the choice?”

Also, why are there 48 million Americans without health insurance, with 14,000 Americans losing their health insurance every day lately? Why do the uninsured have less access to basic care and even organ transplants?

And why do so many people who do have health insurance face financial ruin following a medical crisis?

There must be a public health insurance option for people too young to qualify for Medicare and not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Someone close to my family just got laid off this week and was diagnosed with diabetes within the last few months. What are his chances of finding good private health insurance coverage under the current system?

This thread is for any thoughts about the substance or the politics of health care reform. I’ll post more details about the upcoming White House regional forum when they become available.

Both Governor Chet Culver and Secretary of State Mike Mauro have now come out against a bill that would award Iowa’s electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. Their opposition in effect kills any chance of the bill advancing. Although it has been voted out of committee in the Iowa Senate, it may never come to a floor vote there or a committee vote in the Iowa House.

I don’t know what so many people have against one person, one vote for president, just like we have for every other elected office. I also take issue with this part of Culver’s statement:

As the last three elections have shown, Iowa is now a battleground state, and, as such, the issues of Iowans are heard by the candidates of both parties. If we require our electoral college votes to be cast to the winner of the national popular vote, we lose our status as a battleground state and the opportunity to ensure that the ideas that are important on Iowa’s Main Streets remain important on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

If the governor wants to buy into Republican propaganda about this bill, fine. But let’s not pretend Iowa is bound to be a swing state forever. Oregon was a battleground state for a few cycles, but John McCain didn’t seriously compete for it this year. West Virginia was a battleground state in 2000, but hopeless territory for Democrats in 2004 and 2008.

Democratic gains in voter registration could make this purple state blue if Culver and the statehouse Democrats give us a solid record of achievements to run on in 2010. If that happens, don’t count on Iowa’s six electoral votes being up for grabs during the 2012 general election.

I am also unconvinced that the electoral college ensures presidential candidates pay attention to small states. When was the last time a presidential candidate spent time in uncompetitive small states like the Dakotas, Montana, or Vermont?

John Deeth is right:

# The person with the most votes should win.

# It would be better if the Constitution actually said so.

# But National Popular Vote is a nice stopgap.

# If big states want National Popular Vote, it will pass without Iowa.

# The caucuses, not the electoral votes, are what makes Iowa important.

And about those caucuses: we won’t have competitive caucuses on the Democratic side in 2012, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some major Republican presidential candidates skip Iowa. It didn’t stop McCain from winning the nomination last year.

President Barack Obama formally announced on Monday that he is nominating Kathleen Sebelius to serve as Health and Human Services Secretary in his cabinet. She should be confirmed with little trouble, as various Republicans have already praised her nomination.

After the jump I’ve posted my initial thoughts on the pluses and minuses of this appointment.

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.  

Progressive Punch has added a new and incredibly useful layer of analysis to its rankings of members of Congress by voting record.

The “Select by Score” pages now indicate how progressive representatives and senators are compared to the districts and states they represent.

Select by Score Senate rankings

Select by Score House rankings

As before, you see members of the House and Senate ranked from most progressive to least progressive, based on all votes as well as on certain “crucial votes.” Calculating a separate score for “crucial votes” reveals which Democrats are not reliable when the chips are down. This helps prevent gaming of the system, as when Joe Lieberman voted against filibustering Samuel Alito’s nomination for the Supreme Court, then turned around and voted against confirming him.

For the new feature, Progressive Punch has placed every state and Congressional district into one of five categories: strong D, lean D, swing, lean R, and strong R. Each Congress-critter’s “crucial vote” score is then compared to the political lean of the district or state. In the right-hand column on the “Select by Score” pages, every member of Congress now has a rating from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most progressive. Progressive Punch explains:

The “%” and “Rating” columns underneath the “Progressive Score vs. State Tilt” are two different ways of measuring the same thing. They both measure how naughty or nice a member of Congress’ voting record has been in relation to his/her district. We’re grading on a curve. Five stars in the “Rating” column indicate members of Congress who are doing the best in terms of voting MORE progressively than could necessarily be expected given their states or districts. Those with one star are performing the worst in relation to their districts.

For more details on the methodology behind this analysis, click here for House ratings and here for Senate ratings.

Why is this useful? It’s now much easier to see which Democrats in Congress are voting about as well as could be expected, and which ones should be doing a lot better.  

Here are a few examples. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid have identical lifetime progressive scores on crucial votes. However, since Feinstein represents a strong Democratic state (CA) and Reid represents a swing state (NV), Feinstein gets a 1 while Reid gets a 3.

Ron Wyden (OR), Barbara Mikulski (MD) and Amy Klobuchar (MN) have very similar lifetime scores, but Wyden and Klobuchar get 4s because they represent lean-Democrat states. Mikulski gets a 3 when graded on a curve that takes into account Maryland’s solid Democratic profile.

Similarly, Daniel Inouye (HI) gets a 1, while Jon Tester (MT) gets a 3 for almost the same “crucial vote” score, because Montana leans Republican.

Jeff Bingaman (NM), Jim Webb (VA) and Byron Dorgan (ND) have very similar progressive lifetime scores, but Bingaman gets a 2 for representing a lean-Democrat state, Webb gets a 3 for representing a swing state, and Dorgan gets a 4 for representing a lean-Republican state.

Scanning down the Select by Score House page, a few Democrats stand out. There’s Timothy Bishop (NY-01) with a 5 rating for how he represents his swing district, while most of the House members with similar lifetime scores get 3s, because they represent strong Democratic districts.

Dave Obey (WI-07) and Peter DeFazio (OR-04) get 4s because they represent lean-Democrat districts. Most of the House members with similar lifetime progressive scores get 3s.

Amid a large group of House Democrats who get a 2 when their crucial vote score is compared to how strongly Democratic their districts are, James Oberstar (MN-08) gets a 4 for a similar progressive score because he represents a swing district, while Michael Michaud (ME-02) and Paul Hodes (NH-02) get a 3 because their districts lean Democratic.

How can progressives use this information? One way would be to determine which incumbents in safe Democratic seats should face more pressure from the left. In extreme cases, this pressure could include a primary challenge.

Also, these rankings reveal which Democratic primaries should become top priorities for progressives when incumbents retire. For example, John Murtha (PA-12) and Henry Cuellar (TX-28) represent strongly Democratic districts but vote like Democrats representing swing or Republican districts.

For Bleeding Heartland readers who want to know how Iowa’s representatives are doing, Senator Tom Harkin was among the 22 Senate Democrats whose lifetime score earned a 5 (good work!). He’s only slightly more progressive than the average Senate Democrat; his lifetime score on crucial votes ranks 19th in the caucus.

Chuck Grassley’s lifetime progressive score is very low, around 5 percent. Amazingly, 28 Senate Republicans are even less progressive than he is.

Iowa’s House Democrats didn’t fare so well when graded on Progressive Punch’s curve. Dave Loebsack (IA-02) gets a 2 for having the 118th most progressive score on crucial votes (just over 80 percent) while representing a strongly Democratic district.

Bruce Braley (IA-01) gets a 1 for having the 147th most progressive score on crucial votes (just over 75 percent) while representing a strongly Democratic district.

Both Braley and Loebsack have progressive scores around 95 percent if you look at all votes, but given how safe their seats are, they could certainly improve on their voting records “when the chips are down.”

Leonard Boswell (IA-03) also gets a 1 for having the 189th most progressive score on crucial votes (only 64 percent) while representing a lean-Democratic district. (On the plus side, his overall score for the current session is a lot better than his lifetime score.) Many House Democrats with voting records like Boswell’s represent swing or Republican-leaning districts. When this becomes an open seat, the Democratic primary should be a top target for progressives.

You will not be surprised to learn that Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) are in a large group of House Republicans who hardly ever vote for the progressive side of any issue.  

Although GOP leaders are boasting that zero House Republicans voted for the stimulus bill, I have a sneaking suspicion that once this so-called “wasteful spending” starts working its way through the economy, Republican members of Congress will find a way to take credit for it.

We saw last fall that Steve “10 worst” King used his first television commercial to take credit for progress toward widening Iowa Highway 20. The TIME-21 plan approved by the state legislature last spring–not King’s work in Congress–made that project possible. Nevertheless, King continued to mislead voters about his role in moving the Highway 20 project forward.

At least two House Republicans are already playing this game with respect to the stimulus. David Waldman/Kagro X predicts,

Standard operating procedure, of course. Oppose the bill viciously, vote against it, then show up at every ribbon cutting in the district paid for by federal funds, and cry “Politicization!” if they’re not invited.

Paul Rosenberg’s take on this story is also worth a read.

Democrats need to be on the lookout for this kind of weaselry over the next couple of years. Help from Iowans living in the fourth and fifth Congressional districts would be most appreciated.

If you see Steve King or Tom Latham taking credit for stimulus spending they voted against, either in an official press release or in a local newspaper, radio or television news story, please post a diary about it at Bleeding Heartland, or e-mail me with the details (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

UPDATE: More Republicans are touting wonderful provisions in the stimulus bill they voted against.

As President Barack Obama signed the stimulus bill in Denver,

The White House today released state-specific details on the local impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a nationwide effort to create jobs, jumpstart growth and transform our economy to compete in the 21st century. The compromise package of $789 billion will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years. Jobs created will be in a range of industries from clean energy to health care, with over 90% in the private sector.

Below are links to tables and fact sheets outlining the impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  The estimates are derived from an analysis of the overall employment impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act conducted by Christina Romer, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist for the Vice President, and detailed estimates of the working age population, employment, and industrial composition of each state.

Note: all of the links below are to pdf files.

Overview on American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Working Families

Employment Numbers by State

Employment Numbers by Congressional district

Education Fact Sheet

Energy Fact Sheet

Health Care Fact Sheet

Infrastructure Fact Sheet

I have not had time to read these documents yet. Please use this comment thread to write about what you like and don’t like about the stimulus.

Note: while House Republican leaders proudly proclaim that no one in their caucus voted for the stimulus, I heard on the news this morning that 22 of the 24 Republican governors support the bill.

That’s the difference between someone whose main task is to build an electoral comeback on Democratic failure and someone who has to govern in this difficult economy.

Tom Harkin will schedule a hearing in the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to examine how this scandal occurred:

For 34 years, Henry’s Turkey Service acted as landlord, caretaker and employer for dozens of mentally retarded men sent from Texas to Atalissa [Iowa] to work in West Liberty’s meat-processing plant. The men were housed in a former schoolhouse, known as “the bunkhouse.” Nine days ago, state officials shut down the bunkhouse, describing conditions there as unsafe and “deplorable.”

In return for working 30 to 40 hours per week, the workers received room, board and care in the bunkhouse, plus a salary that, in some cases, averaged 44 cents an hour.

The Des Moines Register quoted Harkin describing the conditions as “pretty close to slavery.”

The company that contracted with Henry’s Turkey Service says it is not to blame:

A West Liberty Foods executive says the company never asked about the wages paid to the mentally retarded men who worked in the corporation’s meat-processing plant.

For years, Henry’s Turkey Service of Texas provided West Liberty Foods with workers in return for a fee. That fee was based on the number of hours worked by the mentally retarded men Henry’s had working in the plant.

West Liberty Foods Vice President Dan Waters said the weekly payments his company made to Henry’s, if divided by the hours worked by the men, were “well in excess of the minimum wage.” He declined to be more specific. […]

Waters said West Liberty Foods never asked how much of the money paid to Henry’s was passed on to the individual workers in the form of salary.

[…]

Waters said West Liberty Foods does not have any agreements with other companies to place handicapped workers in its plants. State labor officials say they have subpoenaed West Liberty Foods’ payroll records.

Unfortunately, this may not be an isolated incident:

Curtis Decker of the National Disability Rights Network […] said his organization plans to contact the U.S. Department of Labor and to work on ways to improve oversight of companies that employ the disabled. […]

Decker said many companies provide work for the mentally disabled at less than the prevailing wage. With government approval, they can pay less than the minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour in Iowa. That can lead to abuse by unscrupulous employers, Decker said. “There’s very little oversight of all this by the Social Security Administration,” he said.

In the same article, Peter Berns of the advocacy group Arc called for a federal investigation to determine how Henry’s Turkey Service was able to treat its workers in that fashion for decades without being caught by federal, state or local agencies.

The Houston Chronicle reported on February 11,

It is not the first time the bunkhouse or the Henry’s Turkey Service operation has been examined by Iowa officials. State healthcare facility regulators visited the bunkhouse in 2005 and 2001, but on both occasions found the men to be functioning well enough not to be classified as “dependent adults.”

But in the past four years, the men’s conditions and mental states worsened enough to force Iowa officials to remove them.

On Saturday, state fire marshals closed the bunkhouse.

“The state fire marshal’s office did not know this building existed until we got the call,” said Courtney Greene, spokeswoman for the Iowa Department of Public Safety, which includes the state fire marshal division.

“All 21 men have mental retardation,” said Roger Munns, spokesman for the Iowa Department of Human Services, which petitioned a court this week that all 21 be classified as “dependent” adults. Arrangements were being made Tuesday to transfer the men from the motel they have been living in since Friday to a facility for the mentally disabled in Waterloo, Iowa.

Attempts were being made to keep all the men together because they consider each other family.

I hope these men will find decent care in the same facility, and I hope there will be a full federal investigation of this exploitation following the Senate hearing.

In remarkable parallel to the climate crisis, there is no single solution to reviving our economy – it will take a combination of innovative thinking and bold actions to face both challenges. The American Recovery and Investment Act (of which Jesse provides a great summary of energy-related features) illustrates that.

I want to take a moment to talk about one feature in the stimulus bill that occupied one sentence in his summary: high-speed passenger rail.

The American Recovery and Investment Act included a total of $9.3 billion for passenger rail: $8 billion for construction of high speed passenger rail and intercity passenger rail service and $1.3 billion for Amtrak (the National Railroad Passenger Corporation) rail investments. As I was talking about this today, the number of atrocious puns that came up was amazing:

• “High speed passenger rail can get the economy back on track”
• “Everyone’s getting on board with passenger rail”
• “Trains can be a model for environomics*”
• “The little stimulus package that could”

*environomics refers to developing a sustainable global economy

I could continue with the jokes, but you get the picture. However, I think it is worth noting that not only is there substantial support for high speed passenger rail in Congress (the original amount was $3 billion in the House and $2.25 billion in the Senate – apparently somebody in the conference committee likes us), but there is broad support among the public. Out here in the Midwest, we have been working to gain support and funding for a high speed passenger rail network, with its hub in Chicago. This system would provide high speed service to St. Louis, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Madison, the Twin Cities and Omaha. For a little context, the trip from Omaha to Detroit is approximately a quarter of the width of the continental 48 states.

What is even more impressive to me is how rail can really be a model for how to actually engage diverse players in building a sustainable economy. Here in Iowa, we are building a coalition of labor, business and youth organizations (in addition to the traditional environmental groups) to work together on getting high speed passenger rail approved this year. And we’re not just talking liberal groups either. For example Jan Michaelson, a local conservative talk show host, had nothing but good things to say about rail when Andrew Snow from Iowa Global Warming joined his show this week. Talk about finally moving past partisanship – rail is one of the clearest vehicles to make this a reality (no apologies for the pun).

There are plenty of issues that can build a diverse base of support, but the thing is, high speed rail visibly makes lots of people’s lives easier. Upgrading building efficiency largely goes unnoticed except for electricity bills; people don’t see the wind energy powering their homes. But talk about saving yourself the hassle of driving several hours, not having to drive through traffic, and oh, did I mention that rail is about 3 times as efficient as driving and 6 times as efficient as flying. Oh, and hundreds to thousands of jobs will be created through construction and operation.

Rail has broad support, has a significant improvement in the ease of travel and will save countless vehicle miles traveled (well, you probably could count them, but it would keep you very busy). We can use rail as a way to build successful and diverse coalitions which we can then continue to work with to advance the less visible, less sexy aspects of sustainability. These relationships will be crucial to mobilizing society-wide action.

All aboard!

Originally posted on It’s Getting Hot In Here

Representative Steve King bragged about his 11th-grade research project in the Thursday edition of the Des Moines Register:

As a junior at Denison High School, I wrote a term paper on President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. I began working on the paper with the intention of confirming what I had been taught in school – that FDR’s government recovery programs brought America out of the Great Depression.

I started my research believing in the success of Roosevelt’s economic-recovery programs. To support this claim, I spent hours at the Carnegie Library in Denison reading past editions of the local, biweekly newspaper.

My reading began with the 1929 stock-market crash, and I examined every issue through the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Those stacks of old papers turned upside down everything I had been taught in history and government class about the New Deal. As I searched for information proving the New Deal stabilized the American economy, I instead found the exact opposite: high unemployment, a struggling stock market and continued hard times.

Later statistical findings confirm my 11th-grade research. Throughout the 1930s, the unemployment rate never dipped below 14 percent. FDR’s tinkering with the free market frustrated investors, and the 1929 high point for the Dow Jones industrial average was not reached again until 1954.

Roosevelt possessed tremendous leadership skills and inspired many Americans, including my hard-hit family. Charisma aside, historians often inflate the true economic record of the New Deal. Roosevelt tried one big government program after another, with poor results. Many of Roosevelt’s programs and initiatives led the government to compete directly with the private sector for capital and workers, with Washington making the rules.

Massive government spending did not lift the United States out of recession. Instead, FDR’s big-government programs prolonged the Great Depression. The best we can say about the New Deal is that it may have blunted the depths of the Depression, but the trade-off was it delayed economic recovery until World War II and our post-war industrial advantage brought America out of the Depression.

Ah yes, the “poor results” of big-government programs introduced by FDR. Programs like Social Security, which dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which “set maximum hours and minimum wages for most categories of workers.”

But never mind the safety net for seniors and regulations that improved the quality of life for workers. What about King’s central claim, that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression? This is now a key right-wing talking point against government spending in Barack Obama’s stimulus package.

It is wrong to say that no economic recovery occurred during the New Deal. On the contrary,

The economy had hit rock bottom in March 1933 and then started to expand. As historian Broadus Mitchell notes, “Most indexes worsened until the summer of 1932, which may be called the low point of the depression economically and psychologically.”[18] Economic indicators show the economy reached nadir in the first days of March, then began a steady, sharp upward recovery. Thus the Federal Reserve Index of Industrial Production hit its lowest point of 52.8 in July 1930 (with 1935-39 = 100) and was practically unchanged at 54.3 in March 1933; however by July 1933, it reached 85.5, a dramatic rebound of 57% in four months. Recovery was steady and strong until 1937. Except for unemployment, the economy by 1937 surpassed the levels of the late 1920s. The Recession of 1937 was a temporary downturn. Private sector employment, especially in manufacturing, recovered to the level of the 1920s but failed to advance further until the war.

Unemployment continued to be high by today’s standards throughout the 1930s, but King ignores the sharp reduction in unemployment following the introduction of New Deal policies.

The bottom line is this: the unemployment rate dropped by 9 percent during the pre-World War II FDR era, and the absolute number of unemployed people dropped by 36.7 percent (from 12.8 million unemployed in 1932 to 8.1 million unemployed in 1940).

World War II significantly reduced the number of unemployed Americans, but again, it is false to claim that the New Deal programs accomplished little on the employment front.

By way of comparison, under King’s hero Ronald Reagan, the unemployment rate only dropped by 2.1 percent, and the absolute number of unemployed people dropped by 19.0 percent (from 8.2 million in 1981 to 6.7 million in 1988).

The U.S. population was a lot bigger during Reagan’s presidency than it was in FDR’s day. If Reagan’s policies were so much better for putting people to work, why did we not see a larger decrease in the total number of unemployed Americans during the 1980s? Why did we see such marginal improvement in the unemployment rate during Reagan’s presidency?

If we look at employment figures under every president since FDR, King’s nemesis Bill Clinton comes out ahead. During his presidency, the unemployment rate declined by 2.9 percent, and the total number of unemployed dropped by 36.3 percent (from 8.9 million in 1993 to 5.6 million in 2000).

Note: Chase Martyn had a go at King at Iowa Independent, but he was too kind in my opinion. The facts do not support King’s assertion that the New Deal delayed economic recovery and failed to address high unemployment.

Someone please talk King into running for governor in 2010 so we can get a less odious Republican representing Iowa’s fifth district.

One Iowa has organized lots of events this week promoting marriage equality, and they’re getting noticed by some religious conservative activists. According to an e-mail One Iowa sent supporters yesterday, the Iowa Family Policy Center has alerted its supporters of attempts by homosexuals to “co-Opt Valentine’s Day”:

Groups supporting homosexuality are attempting to co-opt Valentine’s Day to promote their agenda. Homosexual activists brought “gay-wedding” cake to the Capitol yesterday, and were lobbying for a radical change to Iowa marriage law. They have asked their supporters to write letters to the editor this week calling for the redefinition of marriage. They are using Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and text messaging to promote their agenda. Each of their efforts is designed to “change the hearts and minds of Iowa legislators.”

A lot of advocacy groups could learn from One Iowa’s organizing methods. The group says it had 80 supporters at the capitol on Tuesday, and I believe it. I saw several dozen people wearing One Iowa stickers while I was at the Iowa Environmental Council’s lobby day, which mostly ended before One Iowa’s big event of the day, the “Let Them Eat Cake” reception.

I don’t think the Iowa Family Policy Center needs to worry, though. Same-sex marriage advocates will never co-opt Valentine’s Day as successfully as florists and those who sell candy and greeting cards have already co-opted the feast day of Saint Valentine. In fact, Christians may themselves have co-opted the Roman festival of Lupercus, which took place on February 14 and 15.

Horrifying story in the Register today. Why did it take the state so long to act? This is shameful.

Our libertarian Republican friends will say state regulation is unnecessary. Those libertarians should see this.

Company accused of exploiting disabled; state closes home

By CLARK KAUFFMAN • ckauffman@dmreg.com • © 2009, Des Moines Register and Tribune Company • February 8, 2009

Atalissa, Ia. — Federal police, state health inspectors and county prosecutors descended on this eastern Iowa town over the weekend, launching a major investigation into the care and treatment of a group of mentally retarded men and ordering an emergency evacuation of the men's living quarters.

The investigation focuses on Henry's Turkey Service, a Texas-based company that for 34 years has employed dozens of mentally retarded men who work at the West Liberty Foods meat-processing plant in Muscatine County.

rest at
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090208/NEWS/902080344

crossposted at Jimmy Higgin's Class War Iowa
http://jimmyhiggins.wordpress.com/

Jim Paprocki makes a strong case for instant-runoff voting in Saturday’s Des Moines Register:

Instant runoff voting is a winner-take-all system that, in only one election, ensures a winning candidate receives a majority of votes. This voting reform also is cost-effective because it eliminates the need for a separate runoff.

Instant runoff is consistent with Iowa’s caucus tradition. The Democratic Party caucuses allow participants to support their second-choice candidate when their first-choice candidate is no longer viable.

In instant runoff voting, each voter has an opportunity to make a second choice and third choice among candidates running in the election. If none of the candidates wins a majority, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. The ballots of the voters who ranked that candidate as their first-choice are then redistributed to their second-choice candidate. The counting of ballots simulates a series of runoff elections. This process continues until one candidate receives a majority of all votes.

Although instant runoff voting may appear more complicated than our current voting system, it really is no different from stating a preference for A, B and C in the voting booth. Research shows that voters favor instant runoff voting and find it to be user-friendly.

Instant-runoff voting prevents longshot primary candidates or third-party general-election candidates from being “spoilers.” Voters can express their preference for the candidate who speaks for them and put the “lesser of two evils” down as a second choice.

Paprocki notes that the Iowa Code currently prohibits cities from introducing instant-runoff voting, so legislative action would be required to make this happen.

This may not be high on legislators’ priority lists, but considering the budget crunch affecting government at all levels, it would be wise to enact election reform that saves money while reflecting the will of the people.

The Republican National Committee elected Michael Steele of Maryland as its new chairman today.

He was far from a consensus choice and only obtained a majority of RNC members on the sixth ballot.  Steele is a former lieutenant governor of Maryland and a frequent “talking head” on news analysis shows. He is black and pulled a significant share of the African-American vote in his losing bid for the U.S. Senate in 2006. On the other hand, he seemed to run away from the Republican label during that campaign. I don’t see how other GOP candidates could pull that off.

Iowa RNC Committeeman Steve Scheffler and Committeewoman Kim Lehman both supported South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson, who turned out to be Steele’s toughest rival today.  Don’t ask me why Republicans who presumably want to start winning elections again would want the party’s leader to be a southerner who was in an all-white country club when the GOP is looking more like a regional party than ever before and the Democratic president (who happens to be black) is wildly popular.  

Anyway, Scheffler and Lehman didn’t just prefer a different candidate for RNC chair, they went on record criticizing Steele:

Though the pro-life and pro-gun Steele built a conservative record in his home state, the former Maryland lieutenant governor’s one-time affiliation with the Republican Leadership Council, which religious conservatives view as hostile to their agenda, remains a deal breaker in some sectors of the committee.

“That is an organization that created itself for the purpose of eliminating a very important part of the Republican Party and its family values,” said Iowa Committeewoman Kim Lehman, who supports South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon Dawson’s campaign. “Michael Steele crossed over a serious line.”

“In that field, the only one that would be my number six out of six choice would be Michael Steele,” said Iowa Committeeman Steve Scheffler, citing Steele’s “past deep involvement with the Republican Leadership Council.”

“They partnered with groups like Planned Parenthood,” said Scheffler, who joined Lehman in endorsing Dawson. “In my view, you don’t lend your name to a group if you don’t agree with them.”

It’s fine by me if Lehman and Scheffler want to keep alienating Republican moderates, but I hope their open hostility to Steele doesn’t jeopardize Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status in 2012.

Getting back to the RNC competition, I was surprised that former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell turned out not to be a serious contender, despite lining up a long list of endorsements from conservative intellectuals. He dropped out after the fourth ballot today and endorsed Steele.

With Steele and Blackwell back in the news this month I’ve really missed Steve Gilliard, who used to write hilarious posts about them in 2006.

UPDATE: Holy cow. Dawson explains the roots of his political views. It basically comes down to being mad that the government desegregated his school when he was 15. Just the guy to give the GOP a more tolerant, inclusive image!

Apparently Republican Party of Iowa chairman Matt Strawn endorsed the outgoing RNC chairman, Mike Duncan, earlier this week. Conservative blogger Iowans Rock doesn’t understand why anyone would want to “reward failure” by keeping the same guy in charge of the party.

However, Krusty says Strawn backed Dawson today. That must have been after Duncan withdrew from the race. Krusty is somewhat concerned about Iowa remaining first in the presidential nominating process. One of Krusty’s commenters says Lehman worked the phones to discourage other RNC members from supporting Steele.

SECOND UPDATE: Strawn, Scheffler and Lehman have only praise for Steele in their official statements:

RPI Chairman Matt Strawn:

“I am excited to work with Chairman Steele to advance our principled agenda, rebuild our party from the grassroots up, and elect Republicans all across Iowa.  I am also encouraged by my conversations with Chairman Steele regarding Iowa’s First in the Nation presidential status. I will work closely with him to ensure Iowa retains its leading role for the 2012 caucus and beyond”

National Committeeman Steve Scheffler:

“It is a new day. I am thrilled that our newly elected national party chairman, Michael Steele, is going to lead us to once again becoming the majority party–based on enunciating our winning conservative message, a 50 state strategy, and perfecting our technological and fundraising prowess.”

National Committeewoman Kim Lehman:

“With sincere honor, I support and congratulate Chairman Steele.  I look forward to working with him in the defense of families, our liberties and the security of our country.  Chairman Steele has committed, with great clarity, his ability to bring this party back to its greatness, which transcends politics.”

Swing State Project released their initial ratings for the 2010 Senate contests. They ranked three potentially competitive races as “likely D,” one as “lean D,” four as tossups, three as “lean R” and two as “likely R.” Click the link to view the chart and read their explanation for each rating.

Swing State Project views Iowa’s Senate contest as one of seven “races to watch.” I agree with DavidNYC’s assessment:

Grassley’s been the subject of a lot of retirement rumors, if only because of his age. But his tight relationship with Max Baucus, and his career-long posture as more of a process guy than a legislation guy, probably mean that his life in the minority is a lot better than average. If he bails, though, this race will probably attract the likes of Rep. Bruce Braley and shoot straight to Tossup.

I would prefer for Braley to stay in the House, because he’s set up to get a lot of good things done there. In any event, I don’t expect Grassley to retire.

David Yepsen published a weird column in the Des Moines Register about Culver’s vulnerability in the 2010 election. Excerpt:

Culver’s been weakened by his handling of the state budget crisis, including the recent fiasco over the sale of the lottery. The state’s financial problems are only going to get worse, and that’s only going to make Culver’s re-election challenge more difficult.

Even before the lottery flap, Culver’s job-approval rating in the Iowa Poll was stuck at 60 percent. His disapproval rating has increased to 32 percent. (By contrast, Tom Harkin’s approval rating is at 70 percent, while Chuck Grassley sets the gold standard at 75.)

One gets a sense that Culver’s in over his head, and that there’s disarray in his administration.

Last year, he floated the idea of a pop-can tax. It bombed. This year, he floated the idea of selling the lottery. That flopped. His relations with the labor movement soured over his veto of their pet collective-bargaining bill last year and his handling of it.

Culver’s replaced some staffers to fix his problems, but glitches remain: For example, his Department of Natural Resources floated the idea of raising hunting and fishing license fees. Huh? How does that square with the governor’s position of not raising taxes in a recession? I thought we were trying to encourage those sports and related tourism. For sure, this alienates some hunters and fisher-persons, largely male constituencies the Democratic Party doesn’t have.

Yepsen makes it sound like an approval rating “stuck” at 60 percent (with only 32 percent disapproval) is a bad thing. Any campaign operative will tell you that an incumbent is considered vulnerable only if his or her approval rating drops below 50 percent.

Also, Culver did not “float” the idea of selling the lottery. He listened to other people floating that idea and waited too long to issue a statement ruling out the proposal.

Look how Yepsen glosses over his own incorrect prediction that the lottery sale was “a done deal”:

Culver’s troubles over the lottery got so bad his office issued a statement that, in part, blamed us pundits for their problems. Ah, shoot the messenger. Punish the pundit.

It may make a politician feel better to blame those of us in the media chattering class, but it wasn’t any of us who took thousands in campaign donations from the gambling industry. Nor did we meet with them in our office to talk about selling the lottery. Nor did we say for days the sale of state assets was under consideration.

Look, I wanted Culver to rule out the lottery sale a month ago, but it was Yepsen who went out on a limb last week and claimed the fix was in.

As for the bad blood between Culver and organized labor, I think most of that will dissipate if the governor signs one or more good bills on labor issues this year. (Sarah Swisher makes the case for “fair share” here.) I sincerely doubt labor will sit out the 2010 election if an anti-union Republican challenges Culver.

It’s really reaching for Yepsen to suggest Culver may be vulnerable because the DNR is considering raising hunting and fishing license fees. A declining number of Iowans are part of the “hook and bullet crowd” anyway.

Culver has several big advantages going into 2010:

1. He’s an incumbent. It’s been many decades since Iowans voted an incumbent governor out of office.

2. Since Culver won the 2006 election by a 100,000 vote margin out of 1.05 million votes cast, Iowa Democrats have opened up a large registration edge. There are now approximately 110,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in Iowa.

3. He already has about $1.5 million in the bank, and even some Republican businessmen have cut him large checks.

Here are the danger signs for Culver:

1. The economy is lousy and could get worse before 2010. There’s plenty of time for Culver’s approval rating to drop into the danger zone. Poppy Bush had 70 percent approval ratings in early 1991.

2. The first midterm election is often tough for the president’s party. Democrats control the legislative and executive branches in Iowa as well as Washington, and voters may punish Culver if they don’t like what they see. The governor is presiding over budget cuts that may be unpopular.

3. Turnout will be lower in 2010 than it was in the 2008 presidential election (about 1.5 million Iowans cast ballots for president). Traditionally, lower turnout helps Republicans, although that didn’t prevent Iowa Democrats from winning gubernatorial elections in 1998, 2002 and 2006.

4. Culver’s campaign committee burned through a lot of money in 2008, spending more than half of what was raised. If the burn rate stays high in 2009, that war chest may not be big enough to scare off a serious Republican challenger.

Who might that challenger be? Yepsen thinks Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey might have a shot. He’d certainly be a stronger candidate than three-timer Bob Vander Plaats. (Vander Plaats thinks Republicans lost recent elections because they moved too far to the middle and can win again if they “effectively communicate a compelling message of bold-color conservatism.”)

I still think it would be tough for the low-profile Northey to beat Culver. He doesn’t have a base in any of Iowa’s population centers. If the state budget outlook continues to worsen, I’d be more worried about State Auditor David Vaudt, who warned that last year’s spending increases would be unsustainable.

What do you think?

The state budget is complicated. There are all kinds of ways to make the numbers add up, and you’ll never find consensus on the right approach. Increased expenditures on infrastructure look like overspending to some and a wise long-term investment to others. Tax cuts for business look like economic stimulus to some and unjustified corporate giveaways to others. Inevitably, most strategies for balancing the budget have their pluses and minuses.

Once in a while, though, a plan for plugging a budget hole emerges that is just bad on every level. Selling the Iowa Lottery is that kind of plan.

It’s bad policy because Iowa would be drastically reducing future revenue streams from the lottery in exchange for one lump-sum payment on the order of $200 million.

It’s plus-bad politics in the short term because the public will have no trouble understanding that this is a raw deal for taxpayers.

It’s double-plus-bad politics in the long term because it would play right into Republican talking points about Democrats being unable to manage public money and beholden to special interests. In fact, State Auditor David Vaudt (a likely GOP candidate for governor in 2010) has already spoken out against the idea.

Yet if a recent Des Moines Register column by David Yepsen is accurate, selling the Iowa Lottery to private investors is a done deal. Here’s an excerpt from his column:

So we need to start calling this for what it is: It’s a sweetheart, giveaway deal. It goes to a bunch of wealthy Democratic campaign contributors. It’s done to make a quick repair to a budget screw-up.

Democratic legislative leaders, who’ve taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from these gambling interests over the years, are now being asked by those donors and supporters for a return on that investment.

Organizers of the move say they’ll pay the state at least $200 million, plus give the state 22 percent of the gross receipts, in return for running the lottery for 49 years.

However, big investors aren’t going to plunk down $200 million, plus give up a fourth of the gross receipts each year, without expecting a profit. The only way to find that profit is to find ways to get Iowans to gamble more.

That could mean a return to TouchPlay. It also could mean that Iowa pioneers cell-phone or BlackBerry gambling. The promoters say we won’t do those things. Fair enough, then expect a blizzard of gambling advertising to get us all to scratch more lottery tickets or buy more numbers games.

This idea is just flat-out poor public policy. Iowa netted $57 million a year last year from lottery profits. Assuming that figure stays the same for the next 49 years, Iowa will give up $2.8 billion during that time to pocket $200 million now. If the gamblers pay a 22 percent gross-receipts tax to the state on top of their $200 million payment, Iowa’s lost revenue would be $2 billion, give or take a few million.

Don’t two generations of Iowa schoolkids need that $2 billion more than a bunch of gambling businesses and the out-of-state hedge-fund operators who’ll bankroll this thing?

If the lottery sale goes forward, expect to see variants of those points in Republican-funded attack ads against Governor Chet Culver and our incumbent legislators in 2010.

Culver and statehouse leaders can say political contributions from gambling interests and their advocates had nothing to do with this decision, but don’t expect that story to stick. Not when people in the gambling business are among Culver’s largest individual donors and have given generously to the Democratic House and Senate campaign funds.

Speaking of GOP talking points, Iowa Republicans haven’t been known for their brilliant political strategy lately, but I give credit to them for the very clever proposal they floated at a press conference on Thursday: sell the Iowa Lottery to the state public employee pension system.

Responding to a column published this morning by The Des Moines Register’s David Yepsen, Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley, R-Chariton, said it appears some backroom deals have been made and Gov. Chet Culver and Democratic leaders are intent on selling the lottery to private investors.  Instead, the state should consider selling it to the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as IPERS, McKinley said.

“This is only a scheme to get some very short-term financial gain for some long-term budget pain,” McKinley said. “There are other options that we should pursue, and one of those options that we’re pursuing is that the IPERS board look into buying the lottery.” […]

House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, said Republicans don’t think the lottery should be sold, but if it is, the deal should not be limited to big Democratic donors. Dan Kehl, an Iowa casino operator who is heading a consortium that hopes to lease the Lottery, donated $25,000 to Culver in 2007.

“If we are looking at that, we need to ensure everyone gets the opportunity to bid on it, and if the rate of return is 17 percent, that sounds like a good deal for IPERS and they need to look at that,” Paulsen said. […]

IPERS manages a multibillion-dollar investment portfolio that finances the retirement benefits more than 300,000 Iowans. Since July it has lost more than $4 billion in the stock market.

Republican legislators have set themselves up very well now. They are on record opposing the sale of the Iowa Lottery, but they are also reminding people that the state budget could reap short-term proceeds from selling the lottery without rewarding a handful of large Democratic donors. Think about how many Iowans have a family member in the IPERS system.

If Democratic leaders are smart, they will announce that selling the Iowa Lottery is off the table.

UPDATE: I’m pleased to report that on January 24 Culver’s chief of staff Charlie Krogmeier said, “There is no plan to sell or lease the lottery. Period.”

SECOND UPDATE: The Cedar Rapids Gazette has more from Krogmeier:

“The idea that the Iowa Lottery might be leased is getting more attention from pundits and partisans than it deserves. There is no plan to sell or lease the lottery – period,” he said. […]

Krogmeier said he was concerned the lottery issue was erroneously being cast as the governor’s plan when the extent of Culver’s involvement has been agreeing to one meeting with a private group that pitched a lottery lease proposal.

“This has become nothing more than a silly political game that some in the Republican Party want to play, and at a time when Iowans want a balanced budget and deserve bipartisan results,” he said. “This much is certain: when the governor releases his budget proposal in a few days, it will not include a line item reflecting a lease of the lottery.”

On January 3, 2008, roughly 240,000 Iowans attended Democratic precinct caucuses, and at least 90,000 of them ended up in Barack Obama’s corner.

However we felt about Obama during the primaries or the general election campaign, whatever we think about his substantive and symbolic actions since the election, we can all agree that he would not be taking the oath of office tomorrow if Iowa caucus-goers had put him in third place, or even a distant second.

I started writing this diary several times last year. I kept abandoning it because emotions were so raw on Democratic blogs that I felt the piece would only ignite a flamewar. Since more than a year has passed, I decided to try one more time.

I do not mean to start an argument or pretend that I have all the answers. I just enjoy thinking about counterfactual history (such as this or this).

After the jump I will try to figure out whether Hillary Clinton or John Edwards could have beaten Obama in Iowa.

Thanks to Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08, who sent me this link to a survey on the Iowa Department of Natural Resources website:

What fundamental experiences do you believe children in Iowa should have in order to develop a healthy, active lifestyle? Cast your vote today. Voting has been extended until January 16, 2009.

Results obtained from the survey will be used to guide creation of an “Iowa Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights.”

It only takes a few minutes to complete the survey, and you do not have to give your name, address, phone number or e-mail. (For demographic analysis, they want your zip code, gender and age range.)

Here is a brief post on the benefits of getting children to play outdoors. Richard Louv wrote a whole book on the subject called, “Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder.”  

Earlier this week Senate Guru laid out some reasons why Senator Chuck Grassley might retire rather than seek a sixth term.

Iowa Independent asked the senator’s office about the rumors and got this reply:

“We appreciate you taking time to check with us. Those writing these reports haven’t ever done so,” said Beth Pellett Levine, Grassley’s press secretary. “Sen. Grassley has held eight fundraisers since Election Day, and 10 more are scheduled. Like he’s always said, Sen. Grassley is running for reelection to the U.S. Senate.”

I’m still in favor of a serious candidate taking on Grassley, but who will rise to the challenge?

Last month Chase Martyn discussed some possibilities on the Democratic bench.  

Over the weekend Republican insider Doug Gross speculated that attorney Roxanne Conlin, the Democratic nominee for governor in 1982, might run against Grassley. However, Conlin immediately denied the rumor:

“I can tell you that it never crossed my mind,” Conlin said. “Really, it’s not something I’m going to do.”[…]

“I really think this is a fund-raising ploy for Grassley,” she said. “That is the only reason I can possibly think Doug would have said such a thing because it’s not based in fact.”

That sounds about right.  

A new report by Democracy Corps examines the trend toward early voting in the 2008 election and confirms that Barack Obama greatly benefited from banking so many votes before election day.

Democratic Congressional candidates also did better among early voters than among non-early voters.

The study did not analyze the effects of early voting on races further down the ticket, but several Democratic legislative candidates lost the election-day vote but were saved by a strong early vote.

The Republican Party of Iowa will try to match the Iowa Democratic Party’s early-voting efforts in 2010, so we would do well to keep improving on the model. Early voting is insurance against bad weather on election day as well as last-minute smear campaigns against our candidates.

{Originally posted at Senate Guru.}

Just twelve days into 2009, we already have four Senate Republican retirements, including two in the last week.  And there may still be more to come.  With Florida’s Mel Martinez, Kansas’ Sam Brownback, Missouri’s Kit Bond, and now Ohio’s George Voinovich all out, who’s next?  My money is on Iowa’s Chuck Grassley.  Let’s re-visit the prescient words of The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder from December 3, 2008:

But… more Republican retirements are expected, including at least two in blue states (Chuck Grassley of Iowa and George Voinovich of Ohio. (A Voinovich spokesperson denies the retirement rumor.))

Ambinder put those words out almost a month and a half ago.  In fact, it’s particularly interesting that, after reporting that the retirements of both Grassley and Voinovich were “expected,” it was noted that a Voinovich spokesperson denied the retirement rumor.  Of course, this suggests that Grassley’s office did not deny the rumor.  Surely, Ambinder must have contacted both offices over the course of his research.  Grassley’s office could have denied the rumor, but apparently chose to remain silent.  Now, if Voinovich’s office went so far as to actively deny the rumor, despite the Voinovich retirement announcement now having come to pass, what should we make of Grassley’s silence?  Maybe the Iowa media should be a little more tenacious in asking Mr. Grassley what he thinks at this point his 2010 plans will be.

Further, being a Senate Republican in an ever-weakening minority cannot be fun.  I have not seen a single analysis of the 2010 Senate map that suggests that it favors Republicans, meaning that it is likely that Democrats will achieve a 60+ seat majority in 2010, further relegating Senate Republicans to the realm of powerlessness.  Recalling a scene from Spring 2001, when then-Senator Jim Jeffords famously left the Republican Party, being out of the majority is something that deeply affects Grassley:

The mellower Republicans want to beat Jeffords about the head and neck with a semi-frozen flounder. For example, during his press conference, Jeffords admitted that the current chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Charles Grassley, “dreamed all his life of being chairman. He’s chairman a couple of weeks, and now he will be no longer the chairman.”

OK, I admit, it takes a very strange person to say as a small child, “Daddy, when I grow up, I want to be the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.” Still, a dream’s a dream, and by tipping the balance of power to the Democrats, Jeffords snatched Grassley’s away from him. And, yet, if Grassley were to, well, you know, Grassley would be the one to go to jail.

With such a sizable Democratic majority in the Senate, Grassley must know that he’ll never be Finance Committee Chairman again.  It will be several cycles, at least, before Senate Republicans even have a reasonable shot at getting back to 50 seats.  Does Grassley want to spend another six years, including the first years of his 80’s, in a guaranteed minority in which the only question is whether or not the GOP could sustain a filibuster?

This passage from Voinovich’s retirement statement stood out to me:

In addition, Janet and I have concluded that once my second term is complete, we should devote ourselves to our children and grandchildren. We have been blessed with good health, but we’re no spring chickens. In 2010, I will be 74 years old and will have served 44 years in public office, having been elected to more public offices than any other person in Ohio history.

On Election Day 2010, Chuck Grassley will be 77 years old.  If Grassley ran for and won another term, he would be 83 years old at the conclusion of that term.  Grassley has a wife (his marriage to whom will celebrate its 55th anniversary in September) and five children, so who knows how many grandchildren.  Grassley has been an elected official for fifty years (Iowa state House 1959-1974; U.S. House 1975-1981; U.S. Senate 1981-present).  After having spent more than half a century as both an elected official and a family man, I don’t think anyone would be surprised if he opted to give all of his time and energy to the latter designation after giving so much to the former.

I would imagine that spending your day playing with your grandchildren is a lot more enjoyable than spending your day waking up at 5am to catch a shuttle from Des Moines to Washington in order to take votes you know your caucus will lose, unable to make any progress on your desired agenda, and then staying up until midnight with policy meetings, political fundraisers, and personal fundraising calls that will all be in vain anyway given the relative weakness of your caucus’ minority.

Mr. Grassley, do you really want another six years of this?

John Deeth recently made the case for “a strong challenge to Chuck Grassley” in 2010:

We can’t have another let sleeping dogs lie race here. A weak candidate here breaks the straight ticket at the very top, and hurts everyone below. Every election cycle there’s one contest that comes out of nowhere, and we need to be in position for it. Sometimes that out of nowhere candidate doesn’t fit the conventional mold (like Dave Loebsack); the key is being able to make a strong, credible, well-funded case. Sure, it could fizzle, like, say, Jim Slattery did in Kansas this cycle. But it could sizzle, like Tom Carper knocking off Bill Roth in Delaware in `96. The thing is, we don’t know-Grassley hasn’t has a serious challenge since he was the challenger.

I also favor running a serious candidate against Grassley, largely because I think doing so would increase the odds of Grassley retiring.

The question is, who among Iowa Democrats has the stature, the desire and the fundraising ability to take on this uphill battle? (There are five or ten Slatterys for every Carper.)

Grassley dodged a bullet when Tom Vilsack, the strongest potential Democratic candidate for the 2010 U.S. Senate election, got a position in Barack Obama’s cabinet.

Please post your suggestions in this thread.

I should add that I agree with American007 that Grassley will probably run for one more term. But the very well-connected Marc Ambinder seems to expect Grassley to go.

With the Senate Republican caucus down to 41 members, and the GOP defending quite a few vulnerable Senate seats in 2010, it’s a good time for long-serving Republicans to call it a day. The odds are their party will remain in the minority for the rest of their careers.

Just this week two prominent Republicans have opted out of 2010 Senate races. Today Senator “Kit” Bond of Missouri said he will not seek a fifth term. On Tuesday former Florida Governor Jeb Bush said he won’t see that state’s open Senate seat.

Getting back to Grassley, he said yesterday that Attorney General nominee Eric Holder will not have a smooth confirmation hearing because

we need to know what the relationship is with Governor Blagojevich. And I don’t say that in denigrating in any way except Governor Blagojevich’s recent troubles raises questions with anybody that’s had a relationship with him.

As BarbinMD noted,

It seems that consistency isn’t a concern for Grassley, given that moments before he was insisting that Roland Burris should be immediately seated in the U.S. Senate.

The Des Moines Register has more on Grassley’s comments about Burris, who was appointed directly by the tainted Illinois governor.

Grassley may be less conservative than many other members of the Republican Senate caucus, but never let him try to claim he’s a moderate. His voting record shows otherwise, not to mention his willingness to throw a wrench in the confirmation of Holder, who is clearly qualified to run the Department of Justice.

Bruce Braley was elected to Congress in 2006 with the support of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Red to Blue” program. In 2008 he helped manage the DCCC’s Red to Blue efforts. For the next election cycle, he’s been promoted again:

The DCCC today named the second of its three Vice Chairs – Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA) will serve as Vice Chair for candidate services, responsible for the DCCC’s offensive efforts including recruitment, money, and training.  

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen said, “The DCCC will stay aggressive this cycle and continue to challenge Republicans who are out of step with their districts.  As a former chair and former member of the Red to Blue program, Bruce Braley knows first hand what it takes to be a successful candidate; his battle tested leadership will be a real asset to our candidates facing tough elections.”

Congressman Bruce Braley brings his experience as chair of the DCCC’s successful and effective 2008 Red to Blue Program and as a former member of the Red to Blue Program.

Vice Chair Bruce Braley said, “I’m looking forward to continuing my work at the DCCC in this new leadership role.  It’s critical for us to continue assisting our candidates with the money, messaging and mobilization they will need to get elected in the 2010 election cycle.  I will work hard to help our candidates win their races.”

Congressman Bruce Braley will serve as Vice Chair for candidate services.  The DCCC’s candidate services include recruiting, money, and training.  A Vice Chair focusing on Member participation will be named at a later date.

Last month, Van Hollen named Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida the DCCC Vice Chair for incumbent retention. Given her refusal to endorse three Democratic challengers to Republican incumbents in south Florida, it was appropriate for Van Hollen to remove her from a leadership role in the Red to Blue program.

The third vice chair “will seek to increase House member participation in DCCC efforts,” which presumably means getting more safe Democratic incumbents to pay their DCCC dues.

So Braley’s niche will be finding and capitalizing on opportunities to pick up Republican-held seats. 2010 is likely to be a more challenging environment for Democratic candidates than the past two cycles, but it’s good to know the DCCC is planning to remain on offense as well. We have a chance to achieve a political realignment, given the Democratic advantages with certain demographic groups in recent elections. Building on our success in 2006 and 2008 will require the DCCC to do more than protect our own vulnerable incumbents.

Good luck to Representative Braley in his new role. He’ll be quite busy the next couple of years, with a seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a Populist Caucus to lead.

My apologies for not getting this in closer to the actual new year, but you could say that “a day late and a dollar short” has been the theme of the new year so far for me. Or five days short, as the case may be.

In any case, before we start the new political year for real, I thought it might be fun to share our predictions for the new year. Here are nine predictions of mine for two thousand and nine.

1. The state budget is in far worse shape then we think. Expect the fight over the budget to get ugly, quick.

The Iowa state fiscal year runs from July 1 2008 to June 30 2009–right in the heart of the economic meltdown. Given that the estimates for this period are just starting to come in, it's reasonable to assume that the stories we're currently hearing about the “budget crisis” represent only the tip of a much larger iceberg. Likewise, the 1.5% across-the-board cut currently proposed by Gov. Culver isn't going to be nearly enough to solve the crisis. It's going to get ugly and fast.

2. Unemployment will hit 10% by the end of 2009, and recovery will not come until early 2010.

Call me a pessimist, but I think things are going to get much worse before they get better. When you combine the potential failure of the Big 3 (a still unresolved issue, by the way), plus a global manufacturing slowdown, with the fact that up to 25% of retail stores may declare bankrupcy in the next year–you have the recipie for unmitigated economic disaster.  

To complicate matters, I do not expect President Obama's recovery measures to be passed before May of this year. (There are already signs that a long battle is ahead for this bill.) That means that many of the infrastructure projects given funds through the program will miss out on the summer construction window–meaning they likely won't start until Summer 2010. Many other measures, like tax cuts or social programs won't go into effect until 2010 as well…moving the light at the end of the tunnel further and further away.

3. The Big 3 will not survive in their current form. Get ready for the Big 2.

Regardless of whether the auto bailout was the correct move at the time, by the time the big ball drops in 2010–there will no longer be a Big 3 as we know them now. My best guess is that one of the Big 3 automakers (most likely Chrysler) will implode into disorganized bankrupcy. No buyer will be found, and the brand will simply cease to exist. This will spark a crisis that will either lead to the organized bankrupcy/restructuring of the other companies, or government assistance with severe Bob Corker style conditions. 

The good news is that out of the multitude of laid-off engineers and designers, we could see new  and innovative technologies, designs, and companies form. By 2020 we could all be driving solar hybrids designed and built by ex-Big 3 designers who started their own companies.

6. The Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage in the case of Varnum v. Brien.

Beware the ides of March rings true in Iowa in 2009. Expect a ruling on the case of Varnum v. Brien to come down with a rulings for several other cases on March 13, the conclusion of the Court's March session. When that happens expect a whirlwind of craziness to descend on the state: national media, a rush of spring weddings, celebrity attention, half-cocked legal challenges, right-wing rants, Fred Phelps-ian protests, legislative blustering, Steve Deace's head exploding, and who knows what else.

I don't think the moon turning to blood, the dead walking the streets, or any other Pat Robertson-style pronouncements will come true…but expect a wild ride.

5. The Republican candidate for Governor will be a serious contender who already holds a major elected office.

The current fight over the RPI chair has a definite and familiar theme: change. Old hacks are out, new hacks are in. While there is a faction of the GOP that clings to BVP like life preserver, the majority of the party is, I think, waiting for someone new to come along.

That someone is either State Auditor David Vaudt, Sec. of Agriculture Bill Northey, or 4th District Congressman Tom Latham.

Vaudt looks to emerge as one of the main faces of opposition to Culver on budget issues, a position he could use to slingshot him to the governorship. Northey is the darling of the Republican Party and, with agricultural issues on the back-burner this year and little to do, may find the Governor's race an attractive prospect. Latham, by all measures a low-importance member of the minority party might decide that its now or never for him. And he has nothing to lose: if he wins, he's the Governor; if he loses, he can run again as the elder-statesman in the dogfight that will be the new 3rd district.

I missed this Des Moines Register story last week:

Iowa state environmental regulators want to shelve for as long as three years new rules intended to keep toxic coal ash out of Iowa’s water supplies, largely because of industry protests.

Environmentalists say the state is caving in to industry pressure while putting Iowans’ drinking water supplies, and health, at risk.

The article quotes Carrie La Seur, founder of Plains Justice, as saying she learned on December 30

that Iowa regulators agreed to postpone action on their new rules after companies that handle ash waste questioned the true health risk and objected to potential costs associated with the changes that they said would be passed on to consumers.

Instead, the firms offered to install monitoring wells to check whether ash is polluting water around unlined former gravel pits and ravines where the material is used as fill.

Coal ash typically contains a variety of heavy metals that can cause cancer, neurological and developmental problems, and other illnesses. The pollutants include arsenic, lead, mercury and boron, which are concentrated at levels in the ash that are far above the amount found in coal.

In 2007 Plains Justice produced an Iowa Coal Combustion Waste Disposal Report. Click the link to download the report.

La Seur told the Des Moines Register that Plains Justice is particularly concerned about storing coal ash near rivers.

With good reason, because the recent billion-gallon coal ash spill in Tennessee may be even worse for the environment and for human health than it first appeared.

This Daily Kos diary discusses the contaminants that have already been found in the Emory River since that accident:

All water samples were found to contain elevated levels of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and thallium. The samples were taken from the immediate area of the coal waste spill, in front of the Kingston Fossil plant intake canal just downstream from the spill site, and at a power line crossing two miles downstream from the spill.

These pollutants will flow downstream to larger rivers, and they are likely to remain in the environment for a long time. Water near a similar accident in Kentucky remained devoid of aquatic life for years.

Even worse, waste produced by coal plants contains radioactive compounds. Daily Kos diarist Hummingbird linked to a 2007 article from Scientific American: Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste. Click the link to read the very disturbing details.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources should not back off from requiring coal ash storage facilities to have liners. That is a reasonable precaution, given how many hazardous substances are concentrated in the coal ash.

The Register says companies have offered to install wells to monitor whether contaminants are leaching from unlined ravines and gravel pits into groundwater. I hope the DNR will have the resources and commitment to follow through on this monitoring and check compliance. I do not want to take corporations’ word for it that the water around their storage facilities is fine.

Unfortunately, the DNR is not always quick to investigate potential water quality problems.

The disaster in Tennessee should be a reminder to all that there is no such thing as clean coal, even if future technology were able to capture carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.

UPDATE: A commenter at Daily Kos pointed out that the timeline of the DNR’s decision is unclear. La Seur says she learned of plans to shelve the new disposal rules on December 30. But did the DNR make that decision before or after the Tennessee disaster occurred on December 22?

If you know the answer to this question, please e-mail me confidentially at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

SECOND UPDATE: I got this reply from La Seur:

Plains Justice has been working with DNR on this rulemaking for most of the last year following our 2007 coal ash disposal report.  We filed comments on a draft rulemaking at the end of the summer.  DNR then announced that it would be issuing a second draft for comment in December.  We were waiting on that when the TN coal ash spill happened.  Because of TN we began to get press queries about Iowa’s status, so we called DNR to ask what was happening with the rulemaking.  DNR told us that the rulemaking was being shelved because of industry resistance and DNR would be changing the website soon to reflect that change.  To my knowledge there was no public notice or public hearing.

We’ve been publicizing this development and pursuing other actions in response.  If anyone needs more information, give me a call at 319-362-2120.

A year ago tonight, nearly 240,000 Iowans spent a couple of hours in overcrowded rooms during the Democratic precinct caucuses.

Thousands of others came to freezing cold Iowa to knock on doors or make phone calls for their presidential candidate in late December and early January.

Share any memories you have about caucusing or volunteering in this thread.

After the jump I re-posted my account of what happened at my own caucus. I was a precinct captain for Edwards.

Last year at this time I was scrambling to make as many phone calls and knock on as many doors as I could before the Iowa caucuses on January 3.

This week I had a little more time to reflect on the year that just ended.

After the jump I’ve linked to Bleeding Heartland highlights in 2008. Most of the links relate to Iowa politics, but some also covered issues or strategy of national importance.

I only linked to a few posts about the presidential race. I’ll do a review of Bleeding Heartland’s 2008 presidential election coverage later this month.

You can use the search engine on the left side of the screen to look for past Bleeding Heartland diaries about any person or issue.

Since the election, the quest to find a new leader for the divided Republican Party of Iowa has been a frequent topic for discussion on conservative blogs. No clear front-runner has emerged among the nine people known to be seeking the job. Some observers believe Iowa GOP treasurer Gopal Krishna has the most supporters on the 17-member State Central Committee that will select a new chair, although committee member David Chung handicaps the race differently.

All the candidates have been invited to appear at a public forum this Saturday, January 3, at the Iowa GOP headquarters. Knowing little about most of the people vying for this job, I’ve been intrigued by the comment threads at conservative blogs like “Krusty Konservative.” Attacks against this or that candidate have been nastier than anything I remember reading on Democratic blogs when Howard Dean was running for Democratic National Committee chairman in 2005.

The Republican National Committee also needs a new leader, with no front-runner for that job. A mini-scandal has erupted over one candidate’s decision to give RNC members a CD including a song called “Barack the Magic Negro.”

I’ve been wondering how much these leadership contests matter.

Obviously some people will be better organizers or better fundraisers or better communicators than others, and for all I know some of the declared candidates are truly inept. But let’s assume the Republicans find leaders with all the qualities on a party hack’s wish list. Will they be able to turn things around for the GOP by raising more money and improving their campaign mechanics?

Commenting on plans to create a think tank within the RNC called the “Center for Republican Renewal,” Matthew Yglesias recently observed,

Ambitious people don’t like the idea that their fate is out of their hands. But an opposition political party’s fate is largely out of its hands. The Democratic Party’s recovery from its low ebb in the winter of 2004-2005 had very little to do with Democratic policy innovation and a great deal to do with the fact that the objective situation facing the country got worse. The time for the GOP to improve, policy-wise, was back then. Had the Bush administration been animated by better ideas, Bush might not have led to declining incomes, rising inequality, and catastrophic military adventures. But since he did, the GOP lost. And now the reality is that it’s the Democrats’ turn to govern. If things work out poorly, the GOP will get back in whether or not they have an ideological renewal, and if things work out well the Republicans will stay locked out.

I suspect Yglesias is right. Republican conservatives want to “embrace their core principles and effectively communicate a compelling message of bold-color conservatism”. Moderates want to do away with “litmus tests” and “recapture the broad base.”

But the facts of life are these: in Iowa and at the federal level, voters have given Democrats control of the legislative and executive branches. Whether the Republicans bounce back in 2010 or 2012 will depend more on whether Democrats blow it than whether the RNC or the Iowa State Central Committee chooses the right leader.

What do you think?