A pathetically small crowd of about a dozen people turned up for the final public hearings on the first redistricting plan for Iowa last night. As was the case at the previous hearings, few people stood up to criticize the plan, and the complaints raised were not cohesive.

The low turnout and lack of consistent talking points suggest that neither political party mobilized supporters to pack these hearings. That in turn suggests neither Democratic nor Republican leaders believe this map clearly puts them at a disadvantage. More details about the hearings and the next steps in the redistricting process are after the jump.  

Nine Iowa Senate Democrats have signed an open letter asking their colleagues to shelve a pro-nuclear power bill this session and to create a legislative commission “to thoroughly investigate all of the issues including the need for a nuclear power plant, the costs and impact on utility rates, financing and liability issues, safety and waste disposal issues, and renewable energy alternatives.” The senators who signed were Daryl Beall (district 25), Dennis Black (district 21), Joe Bolkcom (district 39), Dick Dearden (district 34), Robert Dvorsky (district 15), Gene Fraise (district 46), Jack Hatch (district 33), Rob Hogg (district 19) and Pam Jochum (district 14). The full text of their letter is after the jump. Excerpt:

Specifically, we have the following concerns:

* There is very little known about how much a new nuclear power plant would cost or how it would

impact utility rates, especially for seniors, working families, and Iowa businesses.

* The proposed technology – small modular reactors – is unproven and has not been approved by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

* There are significant safety and financial liability concerns, especially after the nuclear disaster in Japan. United States Senator Joseph Lieberman has called for “putting the brakes on” the construction of new nuclear power plants “until we can absorb what has happened in Japan.”

* There are potential issues with the creation of a permanent government bureaucracy to permit, monitor, and regulate any new nuclear power plants.

* There are unresolved siting issues about where the plant or plants would be located and how the property would be acquired for the construction of the plants.

MidAmerican Energy is only in the first of what was represented to be a three-year study on the feasibility of constructing a new nuclear power plant in Iowa. When that bill was passed, it was contemplated that Iowa would take at least three years to make any decision about new nuclear power plants. There is no rush.

Speaking to the Des Moines Register yesterday, Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen predicted the bill will pass this year. Iowa’s only current nuclear power plant is in Paulsen’s district. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal supports the bill.

MidAmerican Energy President William Fehrman is expected to attend an Iowa Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing on the bill later today. Fehrman has said the bill would help MidAmerican attract investors for a nuclear construction project. Critics point out that the legislation would lead to higher utility bills for hundreds of thousands of Iowans and would tilt the field so far in favor of expanding nuclear power that less costly energy efficiency and renewable energy projects might not be pursued.

On the other hand, even before this week’s crisis at the Fukushima facility in Japan, financing was not coming together for proposed nuclear power plant projects in the United States. So one could argue that even if this bill becomes law, MidAmerican probably won’t attract the investor support needed to build nuclear plants here. In that case, why let the company charge its Iowa customers more now to pay for anticipated future construction costs?

Meanwhile, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ranked the 104 nuclear power plants across the country in terms of earthquake risk. Iowa’s Duane Arnold nuclear reactor is 26th on that list. Yesterday several U.S. Senate Democrats urged the head of the NRC to conduct a thorough review of all nuclear reactors in this country, especially those in earthquake-prone areas.

In Germany, political leaders have decided to temporarily shut down seven of the country’s oldest nuclear reactors in order to conduct a safety review. The prime minister of Spain has also called for a review of all that country’s nuclear power plants. A nuclear energy expert whose name I didn’t catch pointed out yesterday on CNN that baseload demand for electricity is relatively low in the spring, so it wouldn’t cause problems on the grid to shut down U.S. nuclear power plants for a month or two during a safety review.

UPDATE: Fehrman told the Iowa Senate subcommittee that “MidAmerican Energy customers would see their power bills rise 10 percent over a decade to pay for the investor-owned utility’s share of a proposed Iowa nuclear plant.” He confirmed that the plant would be completed no sooner than 2020, and that Iowa ratepayers would not get their money back, even if the construction never moved forward.

Sen. Swati Dandekar of Marion said Iowans are concerned about paying for a project that may cost more than the utility thinks, given the nation’s record on cost overruns at nuclear plants.

“There is no doubt there is a history of cost overruns in this industry,” Fehrman said. “We’ve asked for more oversight of this project, and that’s in the bill.”

MidAmerican is pushing legislation that would set some of the rate-making principles to be applied to the plant, in effect telling investors how the utility would recover its expenses.

Also on Thursday, the Iowa chapter of the Sierra Club and the American Association of Retired Persons came out against the bill.  From an AARP statement:

“AARP believes it is unfair to consumers and bad policy for the Iowa General Assembly to enact legislation that would allow utility companies to charge consumers in advance for costs of a new plant before it is in service, and require consumers to continue to have to pay even if the plant development is canceled, or goes over budget [….] AARP is concerned about this legislation, not because of the question of nuclear power, but because we oppose raising rates for consumers already struggling to afford their utility bills for a plant yet to be built, where we don’t know the actual cost to build, and may or may not even be built in Iowa.”

Still the self-styled taxpayer watchdog groups are missing in action on this bill.  

Three days into floor discussion of a bill to reduce public employee bargaining rights, Iowa House Republicans voted to cut off debate on House File 525 yesterday. At least 80 percent of more than 100 amendments proposed by House Democrats had not been discussed yet. The House proceeded to reject the remaining Democratic-proposed amendments in a quick series of votes, and the final bill passed 57 to 39. The House Journal (pdf) contains details on yesterday’s debate, including all the roll calls. Most of the votes went along party lines. I was surprised to see one House Republican (Gary Worthan of district 52) vote with the whole Democratic caucus against final passage of the bill. I wonder whether he accidentally pressed the wrong button there, because he voted with the rest of the Republicans on ending debate and lots of amendments.

House Democrats were outraged by the Republican maneuver and the fact that the House switchboard wasn’t working Friday morning (which House Speaker Kraig Paulsen said was an oversight). Jason Clayworth noted at the Des Moines Register, “Limiting debate without the prior agreement to both parties is rare but not unique. Democrats, for example, limited debate in 2009 on another union bill known as prevailing wage that would have setting standards for minimum pay and benefits on government projects.”

Paulsen said the bill “addresses the cost of government in Iowa” by “leveling the playing field for taxpayers.” I am so tired of Republicans scapegoating public employees for our budgetary constraints. Iowa is in better fiscal condition than more than 40 other states. In any event, there is “no correlation between state budget shortfalls and union negotiating laws”:

“The thing that’s driving budget shortfalls is the impact of the national economy on state revenues,” said Elizabeth McNichol of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group in Washington, D.C. “It’s definitely other factors driving these shortfalls,” rather than union agreements, she said. […]

Five states – Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia – prohibit public employee union negotiations. Each of those states faces budget shortfalls that cumulatively amount to almost $20 billion, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the National Council on Teacher Quality say.

Texas, one of the states prohibiting public union negotiations, has one of the largest projected budget shortfalls for next year, figured as a percentage of the current budget.

Iowa is among states with one of the lowest projected shortfalls for next year.

Forty-five states face budget shortfalls for the fiscal year that begins July 1. Of the five states that do not face budget shortfalls, each allows some type of public employee union bargaining.

Iowa’s public employees are paid less than their private sector counterparts when education levels, experience and hours worked are taken into account. Republicans tell us modest raises (about 3 percent per year) for state employees are unaffordable because they would cost $414 million over two years (if non-contract employees get the same pay increases). Yet David Osterberg pointed out this week,

The Iowa House has proposed cutting state income taxes by 20 percent. That would cost $350 million in 2012 and $700 million per year subsequently.

The governor has proposed lowering the top rate on the corporate income tax. That would cost $130 million in 2012 and $200 million per year subsequently.

The Senate and House have proposed adopting “bonus depreciation” rules. These new breaks for business would cost the treasury between $27 million and $83 million in 2011 and $99 million and $141 million in 2012.

While Republicans are selling House File 525 as a way to control government spending, the bill appears to be designed to undermine organized labor. It would shred binding arbitration and create new incentives for state employees not to join a union. In a statement yesterday, Iowa House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, “Like Wisconsin, Republicans in Iowa will stop at nothing to take away rights from police officers, fire fighters, state troopers, teachers, correctional officers and other hard-working Iowans. This bill to end collective bargaining is worse than the bill approved in Wisconsin earlier today.” After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from a House Democratic Research staff analysis on the bill.

Senate Democratic leaders have made clear that House File 525 is going nowhere in the upper chamber this year. If Republicans gain a majority in the Iowa Senate in 2012, they will certainly revive this kind of legislation.

Members of Congress rarely comment on news from the Iowa legislature, but both Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01) released statements on yesterday’s Iowa House vote. I’ve posted those after the jump.

MARCH 14 UPDATE: Iowa Senate Labor Committee Chair Wally Horn confirmed that this bill won’t make it out of committee in the upper chamber and is therefore dead for the 2011 legislative session.

Approximately 7,000 Iowans who have been out of work for at least a year have lost their chance to receive an extra 13 weeks of unemployment benefits at the federal government’s expense. The 2009 stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) included a provision “to fund the entire cost of extended unemployment benefits through the end of 2011, rather than requiring states to pay half of the cost.” States with unemployment rates of at least 6.5 percent could qualify for 13 weeks of extended benefits, and states with unemployment rates exceeding 8 percent could qualify for 20 weeks of extended benefits.

Iowa was among nine states that did not pass enabling legislation (a “Total Unemployment Rate trigger”) to take advantage of that portion of the stimulus. Democrats in the Iowa Senate recently approved a bill on a mostly party-line vote and urged the Iowa House to act by March 10. New employment figures to be released on that date were expected to bring Iowa’s three-month average unemployment below the threshold for qualifying for the federal stimulus program. Indeed, Iowa Workforce Development confirmed that the state’s unemployment rate held steady at 6.1 percent in January, bringing the three-month average rate down to 6.1 percent.

Governor Terry Branstad didn’t advocate for the enabling legislation, and House Republican leaders decided not to move the bill:

“[T]he House Republican caucus is not interested in making it harder to be an employer in the state of Iowa,” said House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha. “What’s going on with unemployment compensation right now is making it harder to be an employer.”

I believe Republicans misunderstood the essence of this program. As the National Employment Law Project explained in a February report, the stimulus act included full federal funding for these extended benefits. Note: that report estimated that about 29,000 Iowans could potentially receive the 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. Iowa Senate Democrats estimated that about 7,000 would qualify. That’s a relatively small percentage of the 102,000 unemployed Iowans, but roughly $14.5 million in benefits divided among 7,000 people would have meant a lot of extra disposable income in communities with high jobless rates.

It’s lamentable that Republicans declined to act on behalf of Iowa’s long-term unemployed. In addition to helping jobless individuals, unemployment benefits have a powerful multiplier effect in local economies, because the people who receive them tend to spend the money quickly on goods and services they could not otherwise afford.

Democrats in the Iowa House and Senate share the blame for not passing the Total Unemployment Rate trigger during the 2010 legislative session. When the stimulus went into effect in 2009, Iowa’s unemployment rate was too low to qualify for that money (though state officials did secure unemployment benefits through a different part of the stimulus). But in early 2010, Iowa’s unemployment rate exceeded 6.5 percent. If the Iowa House and Senate had passed enabling legislation, Governor Chet Culver surely would have signed it, and some jobless Iowans would already have received the extra federal funding.

The first all-nighter of the 2011 legislative session ended this morning around 6:05 am, as the Iowa House Labor Committee approved a bill restricting public employees’ collective bargaining rights on a party-line vote.

Details on the bill, the debate, and the fight to come are after the jump.

Republican elected officials are sending a mixed message about Iowa’s finances. Before the 2011 legislative session began, Republicans were outraged about a so-called “unaffordable” union contract that would give state workers modest raises, at a cost of about $100 million a year for two years.  Barely a week into the session, a party-line Iowa House vote approved a broad “deappropriations” bill, in which about a third of the savings came from cutting Iowa’s preschool grant for four-year-olds. The universal voluntary preschool program was expected to cost $70 million to $75 million per year (according to Legislative Services Agency estimates), or up to $90 million by some other estimates.

Since then, House Republicans have passed House File 185, which allows zero growth in K-12 education budgets for the next two fiscal years. That was an unprecedented move. In nearly 40 years, the Iowa legislature has never approved less than 1 percent allowable growth for school district budgets: not during the farm crisis, not during the recessions and budget crunches of the early 1980s, early 1990s, 2001-02 or 2009-10. Now, we are told, our dire fiscal condition doesn’t leave any room to spend $65 million to allow school districts to increase their budgets by 2 percent.

Yet on February 16, the Iowa House approved House File 194 on a mostly party-line vote. The bill would cut Iowa’s individual income tax rates by 20 percent, which the Legislative Services Agency estimates would cost $330 million during fiscal year 2012 and more than $700 million in each of the next three fiscal years.  How Iowa can afford that loss of revenue and what services would be cut to keep the budget balanced, House Republicans don’t say.

Meanwhile, Governor Terry Branstad plans to lay off hundreds of state workers to cut labor costs and sent state legislators a draft budget with no allowable growth for K-12 schools for two years. This week Branstad offered a preschool plan that would support fewer children at a lower cost ($43 million per year). He and his Department of Education director, Jason Glass, have repeatedly said Iowa cannot afford to continue the preschool program as currently structured. Yet Branstad’s plan to cut corporate taxes in half would deprive the state of at least $100 million in revenues. He has proposed about $450 million in commercial property tax cuts, with the idea that state government would reimburse local governments for much of that lost revenue. If our budget constraints are so severe, how can we afford those policies?

More context on the state budget is after the jump, along with details on the Iowa Senate’s resistance to Republican tax and education funding proposals.

Civic Skinny’s latest column at the Des Moines weekly Cityview leads with a warning for Iowa Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley. Citing “top people in both parties,” Skinny speculates that “powerful party forces – and that’s code for Ed Failor Jr.’s Iowans for Tax Relief” want to replace McKinley with “one of their own – and that probably means Bill Dix […]”

Follow me after the jump for Skinny’s case as well as some additional supporting evidence and background on Dix, Iowans for Tax Relief, and longstanding Republican discontent with McKinley.

The Iowa legislature convenes this morning for its 2011 session. Join me after the jump for clips on two of the most contentious issues to be resolved this session: proposed spending cuts and impeachment proceedings against four Iowa Supreme Court justices.

UPDATE: You can listen to opening speeches by Senate President Jack Kibbie, Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, House Speaker Pro Tempore Jeff Kaufmann, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer at the Radio Iowa site.

SECOND UPDATE: Lawmakers issued the official canvass of the 2010 gubernatorial election: Branstad/Reynolds 592,079 votes, Culver/Judge 484,798 votes.

Iowa House Republican leaders rolled out their state budget cutting proposals yesterday. They plan to introduce the “Taxpayers First Act” immediately when the 2011 session begins next week. Rod Boshart covered the planned spending cuts here, repeating the House Republicans’ claim that the bill would “cut state spending by $114 million this year.” That figure doesn’t appear to correspond to the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency’s document spelling out how much each proposal would save in fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013. The first two pages of that document cover fiscal savings from proposals that would not require legislative action; the second two cover proposals that would require new legislation (and therefore support from the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate as well as Governor-elect Terry Branstad’s signature). Click here to download that document as a pdf file.

If everything on the first two pages of the GOP wish list happens, general fund spending would actually increase by $23 million in the current budget year, while about $43 million would be saved from other state government funds, leading to net savings of around $19 million. Even if you assume everything on the second two pages also becomes law (very unlikely), at most $73 million would be saved from the fiscal 2011 budget. That’s way short of the “hundreds of millions” of dollars incoming Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen promised Republicans would cut from the current-year budget.

What happened? The LSA analysis didn’t support the fantasy budget cut numbers House Republicans have been throwing around for ages. Six examples are after the jump.

I also cover some spending cuts that really would save about as much as Republicans have claimed, but in a penny-wise and pound-foolish way.

Before the November election, advocates for retaining the three Iowa Supreme Court justices on the ballot warned that throwing out the judges over one controversial decision would bring more politics into the judicial arena. The new debate over impeaching the four remaining Supreme Court justices shows that’s exactly what has happened.

In 2009, calls for impeaching the Supreme Court justices were a bridge too far even for Bob Vander Plaats, Iowa’s leading critic of the Varnum v Brien ruling. Now newly-elected Republican State Representatives Tom Shaw, Kim Pearson and Glen Massie are drafting articles of impeachment to introduce during the 2011 legislative session.

So far not one GOP official has spoken out against using a controversial ruling as grounds for criminal proceedings against four judges.

JANUARY 3 UPDATE: Governor-elect Terry Branstad finally spoke out against impeaching the remaining Supreme Court justices. Click the link or scroll to the bottom of this post to read his comments.

When the 84th General Assembly convenes on January 10, the Iowa House will have 60 Republicans and 40 Democrats. House Republicans selected leaders and committee chairs last month, and Democrats finished choosing leaders and ranking committee members in the past two weeks.

All Iowa House leaders, committee chairs and ranking members can be found after the jump. I’ve included a link to a short biography for each state representative, as well as the year the person was first elected to the Iowa House and the district he or she represents.  

Fallout from last month’s vote against retaining Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices Michael Streit and David Baker continues to make the news almost daily.

Follow me after the jump for links and analysis on the timetable for replacing Ternus, Streit and Baker, efforts to change Iowa’s system for choosing judges, political pressure on the remaining justices, and how the retention vote will affect the 2012 elections.

The Board of Regents unanimously approved requests last week for 95 sabbaticals in the coming year, to be taken by faculty at the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa. That number was way down from the 167 sabbaticals approved a few years ago. But Republicans, including the next Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, had called for a moratorium on sabbaticals to save money.

House Republicans have estimated that eliminating sabbaticals at the regents universities for a year would save taxpayers $6 million. However, “According to the regents, the 95 sabbaticals carry a $422,000 cost for replacement teachers, and last year’s sabbaticals generated $5.2 million in grants.”

Oops. The Republican savings estimate is off by more than a factor of ten. How did that happen? The Iowa City Press-Citizen explains:

[Iowa House Republicans’] projected savings apparently includes salaries that professors will earn whether they are on sabbatical or not.

Great fact-checking there on the House Republican staff. You’ve been circulating this $6 million figure for months, based on a false assumption that if universities stopped granting faculty sabbaticals, they could stop paying those professors’ salaries.

In a rational world, politicians wouldn’t try to micromanage affairs at the state universities, and would recognize their mistake in exaggerating the cost of sabbaticals. But Republicans have found an issue with a lot of symbolic punch. Like Paulsen says, “Why should the taxpayers of Iowa be paying to basically give these folks a year off from teaching?” Good universities have controls to ensure that faculty have research and publications to show for their sabbatical time, but the breaks from teaching can easily be portrayed as a big paid vacation for elitist eggheads.

Steve Kettering, who will be minority whip in the Iowa Senate, told the Press-Citizen that the regents’ vote on sabbaticals “is a thumb in their eye […] It just furthers the distance the people of Iowa feel about their universities. There is just a difference between the lives Iowans lead and the lives of the people in the university sector.” Kettering said legislators may respond either through reducing appropriations to the regents universities, or by passing a law to stop sabbaticals. I don’t think Republicans would be deterred by a Legislative Services Agency analysis showing the cost savings in the range of a few hundred thousand dollars, rather than the $6 million Republicans dream of.

Under Democratic control, the Iowa Senate probably would not pass a specific law halting sabbaticals, and senators would resist deep cuts to the regents universities’ budgets. However, if the Republican-controlled House appropriates far less to the universities, citing the regents’ failure to control costs, the final budget deal struck between the state senators and representatives could end up reducing appropriations by a lot more than the true cost of sabbaticals. The three state universities’ operating request for fiscal year 2012 is about $639 million.

A related concern is that yet again, we learn that a Republican proposal to save millions of taxpayer dollars isn’t supported by facts. Paulsen has made big promises about cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from the state budget in the current year and beyond, in order to pay for GOP tax-cutting plans. Where will that money come from? Laying off some state employees and axing a few Democratic initiatives, like the Power Fund and voluntary preschool for four-year-olds, won’t add up to enough in savings. Significant cuts to higher education may be on the way, and the Board of Regents could become the scapegoat.

LATE UPDATE: University of Iowa President Sally Mason and P. Barry Butler, the university’s interim executive vice president and provost, published a guest column in the December 28 Des Moines Register defending “career development assignments.” Excerpts are after the jump.

Matt Strawn announced yesterday that he will seek another two-year term as chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. The party’s State Central Committee will formally elect a chair in January, but no serious opposition to Strawn will emerge. He has the support of Governor-elect Terry Branstad, incoming Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, and Senator Chuck Grassley.

Strawn earned another term by guiding Iowa Republicans to major gains in the state. The political climate was generally favorable to the GOP, of course, especially in the Midwest, and the huge campaign war chests of Branstad and Senator Chuck Grassley gave Republicans a financial advantage. Still, Strawn helped lay the groundwork. Iowa Republicans had never focused on GOTV outside of their famed 72-hour operation just before election day. This year early voting among Republicans in the state was up 83 percent compared to 2006. According to Strawn, that success made it possible for the Republicans’ election-day GOTV to focus on state legislative races. Republicans exceeded expectations by winning six Democratic-held state Senate seats and racking up a net gain of 16 in the Iowa House.

Another reason for Republicans to stick with Strawn is that he can be a neutral figure in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses. To my knowledge, Strawn didn’t publicly support any of the 2008 presidential candidates who might run again next year. He and his wife Erin have donated to various Republican candidates, including members of Congress outside Iowa during the last few cycles, but I couldn’t find any record of contributions from them to presidential candidates. CLARIFICATION: Strawn was previously Iowa caucus director for John McCain, but he wasn’t associated with any Republicans who might challenge Barack Obama in the upcoming election cycle.

The state GOP can’t afford to have many candidates copy McCain’s strategy of mostly skipping Iowa, because the “straw poll” event set for August before each presidential caucus year is a major fundraiser for the party.

Speaking of which, I was intrigued to see Bob Vander Plaats say this recently:

Advisers differ on how late [Mike Huckabee] could jump in, but Vander Plaats said he’d advise Huckabee to wait until extremely late – after the August Iowa GOP straw poll – to survey the lay of the land and make up his mind.

“He could come in as an energized, fire in the belly, Fred Thompson,” he said, referring to the former Tennessee senator’s much-anticipated run in 2008 – a late entry that fizzled when Thompson seemed to have little stomach for the rigors of the trail.

Strange advice, since the 2007 Iowa GOP straw poll was Huckabee’s breakout event, thanks in large part to a helping hand from Americans for Fair Taxation. I’m struggling to think of any example of a presidential candidate doing well in the Iowa caucuses thanks to a late start on organizing. It sounds like Vander Plaats is trying to undermine the state party’s premiere fundraising event. Perhaps he thinks downgrading the straw poll will help elevate the significance of whatever his new organization (The Family Leader) has planned. Or, maybe he believes state party leaders were involved in helping recruit Terry Branstad back into politics at a time when Vander Plaats seemed to have the GOP gubernatorial nomination locked up. I’ve always wondered how much Strawn encouraged the business leaders who lobbied Branstad to run for governor in the summer of 2009.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Incoming Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen discussed plans for shrinking state government in a December 8 speech. Rod Boshart has the story:

“You should us expect us to make some tough choices,” Paulsen told a Des Moines Partnership lunch crowd. “I think you’re going to see us just wholesale eliminate a couple difference programs and a couple different offices and we’re going to start with those that have marginal or no benefit.

The incoming House leader said voters sent a clear signal that government at all levels is growing too big too fast, regulating too much, and spending and taxing too much – issues the reconfigured House plans to address next session.[…]

The Power Fund has been administered by the Iowa Office of Energy Independence in conjunction with the Iowa Power Fund Board, two entities that were created when the program was enacted in the 2007 legislative session.

Paulsen also said he would prefer to replace the Grow Iowa Values Fund, started by former Gov. Tom Vilsack, with “things that would grow the economy” under the new public-private partnership envisioned by Governor-elect Terry Branstad [….]

Paulsen’s premise is incorrect. Iowa’s state government has not been growing during the past decade; on the contrary, general fund spending has fallen as a share of the economy and of personal income. But that’s a subject for another day.

House Republicans have advocated cutting the Power Fund for some time, and doing so would theoretically save $25 million per budget year. According to Boshart, the Values Fund received $45 million in fiscal year 2010 and $38 million for fiscal year 2011. I don’t believe the real savings will be nearly so large, because too many business interests have benefited from Values Fund and Power Fund grants. Lobbyists will work to ensure that significant funding for business support remains under a different department or program.

In addition, the Iowa Senate, which is under Democratic control, may insist that the state continue to invest significant resources in renewable energy. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal said last month,

If [R]epublicans have another approach that will help keep us at the forefront of renewable energy in this state and clean energy and green energy we’re completely open to looking at that. It doesn’t have to be called a power fund, it doesn’t have to be called I-jobs.

I will say this: cutting the Power Fund is more realistic than some other big savings proposed by House Republicans in the past. I expect Paulsen will be disappointed by the Legislative Services Agency’s analysis of how much can truly be saved by privatizing the state vehicle fleet or denying benefits to undocumented immigrants. The Iowa Senate will block efforts to eliminate the preschool program, although some money may be saved by means-testing that program, as Governor-elect Terry Branstad has advocated. Last year’s government reorganization already improved efficiencies in state purchasing.

One old Republican idea I haven’t heard Paulsen mention lately is implementing “the Principal Plan” to impose salary cuts on non-union state employees. House Republicans have called for requiring the governor to negotiate pay reductions on a sliding scale, from 2 percent for employees earning less than $40,000 per year up to a 10 percent salary reduction for those earning more than $100,000. This pdf file shows the projected savings in the different categories.

Share any thoughts about the state budget in this thread.

Iowa’s three-member Revenue Estimating Conference again raised projections for state revenues during the current fiscal year and fiscal year 2012, following another month of growing state tax collections in November. The news hasn’t deterred Republican leaders from planning mid-year budget cuts, and legislators from both parties acknowledged the end of federal stimulus funds will make the next budget year difficult. Details and proposals are after the jump.

Republicans made huge gains in the Iowa House on November 2, defeating 13 Democratic incumbents and winning four Democratic-held open seats. Republicans fell just short in several other House races, and one that puzzled me was in district 7, covering Emmet and Palo Alto Counties and part of Kossuth in north-central Iowa.

Democrat Marcella Frevert retired after representing the district for 14 years in the Iowa House. The district leans a bit Democratic in voter registration, but open seats tend to be harder for parties to hold than districts where they have established incumbents. Clearly district 7 was winnable for the GOP; the certified results put Democrat John Wittneben just 32 votes ahead of Republican Lannie Miller.

For some reason, the Iowa GOP and allied groups didn’t invest nearly as much in Miller’s campaign as in other House Republican candidates. But why?

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

Past and perhaps future presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is in Des Moines tonight Sunday, headlining the Iowa Family Policy Center’s annual fundraiser. Other speakers include WHO talk radio personality Steve Deace and Iowa Family Policy Center Action president Chuck Hurley.

The big event is also Bob Vander Plaats’ debut as “president and chief executive officer of an umbrella group that includes the Iowa Family Policy Center, Marriage Matters and their political action committee.” The Iowa Family Policy Center endorsed Vander Plaats for governor. Huckabee came to Iowa to campaign for Vander Plaats, who chaired his successful Iowa caucus campaign in 2008.

Vander Plaats told journalists this week that his umbrella group will mobilize social conservatives and endorse a candidate for the upcoming Iowa caucus campaign. If Huckabee stays out of the presidential race, several campaigns will work hard to win the approval of Vander Plaats, Hurley and Deace. If Huckabee runs again, other candidates may as well not waste their time.

I got a robocall from Huckabee Thursday or Friday of this week, but I don’t know whether it was a fundraising call or an attempt to identify supporters. The call ended quickly after I answered “no” to the question, “Do you consider yourself pro-life?”

I’m headed to a friend’s birthday party tonight as soon as my version of Jewish noodle kugel comes out of the oven for the potluck. Quite a few Branstad voters will be in attendance (including the birthday girl), and I’m determined not to get into any arguments.

My Twitter feed is full of Republicans freaking out about Governor Chet Culver’s deal with AFSCME. A 2 percent raise for state employees, followed by a 1 percent raise, is far from excessive. Republican complaints about Culver’s lack of “courtesy” amuse me. It wasn’t too polite of Terry Branstad to spend millions of dollars on tv ads lying about I-JOBS and how Culver managed the state’s finances.

UPDATE: To clarify, the proposed contract with AFSCME involves a 2 percent across the board salary increase starting July 1, 2011, a 1 percent across the board salary increase starting January 1, 2012, another 2 percent across the board salary increase beginning July 1, 2012, and a 1 percent across the board salary increase starting January 1, 2013.

This is an open thread.

UPDATE: Kay Henderson posted a good liveblog of Huckabee’s November 21 press conference and his speech to the Iowa Family Policy Center crowd. The same post links to an audio clip of Huckabee’s comments to reporters and covers Vander Plaats’ speech to the crowd at the fundraiser.

Governor Chet Culver accepted a tentative deal today on a new two-year contract with with largest union representing state employees. The contract would increase the pay of all state workers covered by AFSCME by 2 percent in fiscal year 2012 (from July 2011 through June 2012), with another 1 percent wage increase in fiscal year 2013. Some employees would qualify for other pay increases as well.

Iowa Republicans immediately denounced the deal.

The newly elected Iowa House Republican caucus picked a leadership team last week, and incoming House Speaker Kraig Paulsen named committee chairs this week.

Follow me after the jump for information about who will run various House committees in the 84th General Assembly. It’s notable that Paulsen passed over veteran legislators while giving chairmanships to some representatives beginning their second or third terms.

LATE UPDATE: Democratic ranking members for the appropriations subcommittees have been added at the bottom of this post.

For years, Iowa legislators have been eager to do whatever the nursing home industry asks of them. The Iowa Health Care Association’s lobbying efforts on behalf of nursing home owners have yielded impressive results. In 2009, the Iowa House and Senate unanimously passed a bill eliminating fines for dozens of violations at elder care facilities. Lawmakers from both parties have lobbied for the industry’s wish list in Washington. They have whined about inspectors “gotcha mentality” and in some cases interfered with the work of nursing home inspectors.

The Iowa Health Care Association’s influence will increase in the next administration. Governor-elect Terry Branstad told Iowa Public Television in October that he will appoint new leadership for the Department of Inspections and Appeals, with a view to more “collaborative and cooperative” work with nursing homes. That’s not good news for residents whose lives literally depend on how standards of care are enforced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today the Iowa House Republican caucus elected Kraig Paulsen to be incoming House speaker and Linda Upmeyer to be majority leader. The vote was no surprise, since Paulsen and Upmeyer were the top House Republicans during the previous two sessions. It’s still a historic achievement for Upmeyer; no other woman has ever served as Iowa House majority leader. James Q. Lynch wrote a nice profile of Upmeyer here. I didn’t know her late father was Del Stromer, who served in the Iowa House for 23 years, rising to the position of speaker. Upmeyer will be the “gatekeeper” who decides which bills come to a floor vote in the House.

The rest of the House GOP leadership team includes Jeff Kaufmann as speaker pro tem, Erik Helland as majority whip, and four majority assistant leaders: Matt Windschitl, Renee Schulte, Dave Deyoe and Steve Lukan. There was some speculation last year that Helland’s drunk driving arrest might cost him his leadership spot in the GOP caucus.

Republicans are likely to hold a 60-40 majority in the House next year, unless recounts change the outcome of one or more close races this week.

UPDATE: Iowa Senate Republicans re-elected Paul McKinley as their leader Monday. The Senate Republican whip will be Steve Kettering, and there will be five assistant minority leaders: Merlin Bartz, Brad Zaun, Pat Ward, David Johnson and Tim Kapucian. Johnson and Bartz have been the most visible Senate Republicans in the battle to overturn marriage equality in Iowa.

Republicans are likely to hold 24 of the 50 seats in the upper chamber, unless a recount overturns Mark Chelgren’s 13-vote lead over Democrat Keith Kreiman in district 47.  

What’s on your mind, Bleeding Heartland readers?

The Iowa House will probably have a 60-40 Republican majority unless provisional and late-arriving absentee ballots change the unofficial results reported so far. The two races most likely to flip are House district 18, where Democratic incumbent Andrew Wenthe leads by 28 votes, and House district 48, where Democratic incumbent Donovan Olson trails by 26 votes.

A 26-24 Democratic majority appears to be the most likely outcome in the Iowa Senate. Democrat Tod Bowman has expanded his lead to 73 votes in the open Senate district 13. Republican Mark Chelgren has a 13-vote lead over incumbent Keith Kreiman in Senate district 47. If absentee and provisional ballots allow Kreiman to overcome that deficit, the Democrats would have a 27-23 majority in the upper chamber.

Incoming Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen is acting like he believes his own propaganda about the state’s dire financial condition. This week he asked Governor Chet Culver to tell his department directors “to freeze all discretionary spending.” Paulsen claimed that step is needed “to align ongoing expenditures with ongoing revenue,” even though revenues have been coming in ahead of projections since fiscal year 2011 began. Culver’s budget director in effect told Paulsen he was full of it. Excerpt:

As you know, the current FY 2011 General Fund budget is balanced and, as Governor Culver’s Administration announced last week, the projected ending balance or surplus will be higher than originally projected. Since the end of the 2011 legislative session, we have continued to replenish the State’s Reserve Funds because we closed the books on the FY 2010 General Fund budget with a $335.6 million ending balance, also higher than originally projected. […]

As you know, discretionary spending is a very small part of the General Fund budget, and the aforementioned controls apply to discretionary spending. Governor Culver does not have the authority to freeze appropriations for programs unless there is a deficit, and there is no deficit projected for FY 2011.

Newly re-elected Representative Tom Latham showed how gullible and uninformed he is on Friday by repeating the latest foam-at-the-mouth talking point about President Obama. Naturally, there’s no truth to the rumor that the president’s visit to India is costing $200 million a day. The real cost is probably about 100 times lower than the lie right-wing media have been spreading. Latham is old enough to know better, as my father would say.

It’s never too early to start the next election season in Iowa. Some Republican county party chairs talked with Bret Hayworth about their favorite presidential prospects.

The Des Moines Register reported a strange story: Polk County prosecutors are trying to permanently ban two anti-war protesters from the Federal Building in Des Moines. They are Christine Gaunt and Elton Davis (a member of the Bleeding Heartland community), who are to be sentenced on November 12 for trespassing at that building in August. I have never heard of a citizen being permanently banned from a federal building and wonder if there is any precedent for the judge to grant that request.

This is an open thread.

NOVEMBER 11 UPDATE: In the comments, Elton Davis says Polk County Attorney John Sarcone has withdrawn the unusual sentencing request, since apparently neither Senator Chuck Grassley nor Senator Tom Harkin supported it.

Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal promised this week to block an Iowa Senate vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, even if a majority of senators sign a petition asking for a vote. The Republican reaction to Gronstal’s comments makes me wonder whether gay marriage will be in the coming decade what the death penalty was to Iowa Republicans in the 1980s and 1990.

Reinstating the death penalty was a major theme in all of Terry Branstad’s previous election campaigns. But as governor he didn’t deploy his political capital to push that bill through the state legislature, even when Republicans controlled both chambers during his last two years in office. Many Iowa Democrats believed Branstad valued having the issue to run on more than he cared about the policy.

In light of Tuesday’s election results, Republicans sound surprisingly resigned to failure on passing a marriage amendment in the new legislature.

Advocates celebrated passage of a constitutional amendment creating a Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund for Iowa, but there’s no guarantee new money will ever be allocated to protecting soil and water. Governor-elect Terry Branstad and incoming Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen said yesterday a sales tax increase is off the table:

“This election was to a large extent driven by growth in government,’ said Paulsen, a Republican from Hiawatha. “Too much spending. Too much debt. The public did not elect Republicans so we could come down and raise taxes.”

“I don’t see House Republicans passing a sales tax increase for the forseeable future,” Paulsen said. “I don’t even think that will be under consideration.”

Said Branstad, of Boone: “I don’t support any tax increases. I made that clear during the election,” Branstad said. ” If it’s contingent on a sales tax increase, we’ve said there won’t be a sales tax increase. I’m supportive of conservation funding, but not raising taxes.”

Sean McMahon of Iowa’s Water & Land Legacy, the coalition that pushed for the new fund, on Tuesday said his organization is considering its next move. It may leave it up to individual Iowans and various environmental and recreation groups to push for the tax.  The group spent several years pushing the issue to a vote, and some of the preparation went back a decade.

Asking environmental groups and the “hook and bullet” crowd (Izaak Walton League, Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited) to push for a sales tax increase would be a disastrous waste of time. The votes won’t be there in the legislature, and Branstad won’t want to break his promise on tax hikes as quickly as he did in 1983. Anyway, people like me didn’t get involved with the environmental movement to advocate for regressive taxes.

Groups that worked to pass this amendment should focus on lobbying for direct appropriations to the new fund. Voters approved the amendment by a wide margin. Making waterways safer for recreation and improving habitat for wildlife can be viewed as economic development tools for small towns and rural areas. Finding private donors who agree to match all or part of the state’s contribution to the fund might persuade legislators to get the conservation efforts going on a small scale. Successes would build a constituency for increasing the funding in future years.

That strategy may not work, but it’s better than pinning all hopes on a sales tax hike that won’t happen. Bleeding Heartland readers, please share your thoughts or suggestions for getting money allocated to the natural resources fund.

Last week I discussed the strangely low fundraising numbers reported by some Republican candidates in battleground Iowa House and Senate districts. Craig Robinson of The Iowa Republican blog is worried about the “lackluster fundraising numbers of the House Republicans,” not so much by candidates running in the open seats but by the GOP leaders:

Obviously, party leaders will always prefer candidates who can raise money to fund their campaigns, but very few candidates actually raise enough money to be self-sufficient.

This means that the leadership team in both chambers must raise money to help win or protect seats. House Republicans are not hitting on all cylinders in this area. […]

At this time in 2008, [Chris] Rants’ five-person leadership team had raised over $437,000. [Kraig] Paulsen’s seven-person team has raised significantly less, bringing in $364,000.

Another problem for the House Republican effort is that two of the seven-member leadership team are facing stiff competition this fall. Representatives Renee Schulte and Dave Deyoe both occupy seats that are very expensive in which to campaign, and both will have to use every dollar that they raise on their own races instead of helping others. If Schulte and Deyoe’s fundraising totals are subtracted from the leadership team’s total, it means that Paulsen’s team has really only raised $298,000. […]

In total, the 2008 leadership team for the House Republicans raised $785,000. That means that, at this point in the 2008 election cycle, Rants’ leadership team had raised 56% of the total funds they would raise that year. If Paulsen’s crew raises only what was raised in 2008, then they are only 46% of the way there if you include Schulte’s and Deyoe’s contributions, and they are a disappointing 38% of the way there if [Schulte] and Deyoe are excluded because they have their own races to worry about.

If House Republicans want to wrestle control away from the Democrats, they need to get serious about fundraising. Legislative campaigns are expensive. The average cost of a rural House seat is $200,000, while an urban house seat can easily cost $400,000 or more. […]

Robinson also posted a table comparing Iowa House Republican leaders’ fundraising from 2008 and the current election cycle, which you can find after the jump. House district 37 (map here) is one of Iowa Democrats’ best pickup opportunities. It contains a large part of northern Cedar Rapids, ending where the suburbs Hiawatha and Marion begin. Schulte defeated first-term State Representative Art Staed by just 13 votes in 2008. Even after recent Republican gains in voter registration, registered Democrats slightly outnumber Republicans in district 37 (no-party voters have a plurality). Robinson is right: Schulte won’t be able to afford to share her campaign funds with other House Republicans, because her Democratic opponent Mark Seidl is pounding the pavement.

Deyoe’s House district 10 (map) covers most of Story County outside Ames as well as the eastern part of Hamilton County. Compared to House district 37, this is slightly more favorable terrain for the GOP, as registered Republicans outnumber Democrats. But as in many Iowa legislative districts, no-party voters comprise the largest group of registrants. Moreover, Deyoe has a more experienced opponent in Selden Spencer, who was the 2006 Democratic nominee against Tom Latham in the fourth Congressional district. Both Spencer and Deyoe have just under $26,000 cash on hand, according to the July 19 disclosure reports.

I hadn’t realized before reading Robinson’s post that Iowa House GOP leaders were not keeping up with the party’s fundraising pace in 2008, but that’s not surprising. Ask any professional working in the development field: the recent recession and stock market declines make it more challenging to raise money now than in 2008. In addition, Republican statehouse leaders had much less competition for donors two years ago. The statewide offices weren’t on the ballot, and John McCain had a small donor pool here, having mostly bypassed the Iowa caucuses. Now Terry Branstad and to a lesser extent Brenna Findley are raising big money from the same people Paulsen needs to tap for the House races.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread. If you can afford to do so, please donate to one or more Democrats running for Iowa House. You can give online through ActBlue or the candidates’ official websites.

Last week Democratic and Republican candidates for the Iowa legislature filed disclosure reports on their campaign contributions and expenditures. For most candidates, those reports covered the period from June 2 through July 14. For the few candidates who didn’t file reports on the Friday preceding the June primary, the July 19 reports covered campaign fundraising and expenses between May 15 and July 14.

John Deeth posted cash-on-hand totals for candidates in most of the Iowa House and Senate battleground districts. The numbers are encouraging for Democrats, because our candidates lead their opponents in cash on hand in most of the targeted districts.

As I read through the July 19 contribution reports, I noticed something strange. Republican candidates in various targeted Iowa House and Senate districts reported improbably low fundraising numbers. As a general rule, candidates strive for impressive fundraising to demonstrate their viability, and cash on hand in July indicates which candidate will have more resources during crunch time. However, I got the impression that several of the Republican Iowa House and Senate candidates made little effort to obtain campaign contributions during the latest reporting period. Follow me after the jump for some examples and possible explanations.  

Approximately 80,000 Iowans will face substantial health insurance premium hikes beginning May 1. An independent review has confirmed the “need” for Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield to raise rates by an average of 18 percent. The higher rates were intended to go into effect on April 1, but last month Governor Chet Culver ordered a delay pending an review of the matter. The Des Moines Register reports today,

[Iowa Insurance Commissioner Susan] Voss said in a memo to Culver that Wellmark’s losses supported “the need for the rate increase” based on two separate actuarial analyses conducted by INS Consultants, a Philadelphia actuary. The group also found that the insurance division’s rate review process is actuarially “acceptable” and “reasonable” compared with INS’s methodology.

Birny Birnbaum, head of the Center for Economic Justice, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group in Texas, said it’s unlikely that INS would disagree with the rate increase.

“While INS is technically independent, there is no way the firm would contradict and embarrass the agency which hired the firm,” Birnbaum said Monday. “If INS were to contradict the insurance division, it would likely not be hired in the future by the Iowa Insurance Division or any other insurance regulator.”

Speaking to the Register, State Representative Janet Petersen touted legislation passed during the 2010 session, which is intended to give consumers more information and warning regarding health insurance premium increases. After the jump I’ve posted some key points from Senate File 2201 and Senate File 2356.

These bills contain a lot of good provisions but probably won’t solve this particular problem for many Iowans. Wellmark dominates the insurance market in this state. Giving people a few weeks to shop around won’t magically allow them to find a better deal. In addition, health insurers can still exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions until 2014. The only real choices Wellmark’s individual customers have are: 1) pay a lot more, like my family, or 2) downgrade to a policy that’s less comprehensive and/or involves higher out-of-pocket costs for medical care.

Iowa House Republican leader Kraig Paulsen showed his creative side yesterday, finding a way to blame Democrats for Wellmark’s rate hikes:

Paulsen pointed out that the Democrat-controlled Legislature has voted in recent years to impose several health insurance mandates, such as coverage of cancer clinical trials and prosthetics.

“It’s indisputable that those add to rates. That’s just the way it works,” he said.

Health insurance mandates drive up costs for Iowans, Paulsen said.

“Mandates aren’t necessarily requirements that insurance companies sell something. They’re requirements that purchasers buy something,” he said.

One legislative proposal would have allowed state-regulated health insurance companies to provide mandate-free coverage “for those who want a less comprehensive product,” Paulsen said.

That idea by House Republicans failed, as did a proposal to study allowing out-of-state insurers to offer policies in Iowa, which could help Iowans find cheaper policies, he said.

Come on, Mr. Paulsen, who ever anticipates needing prosthetics someday, or being in a position to benefit from a cancer clinical trial? Anyway, that cancer clinical trial bill passed both the Iowa House and Senate unanimously. Also, allowing out-of-state insurers to sell policies here would spark a “race to the bottom” in terms of consumer protection.

Share any relevant thoughts in the comments.

The good news is, an important public safety bill went to Governor Chet Culver’s desk on March 11. Senate File 2357 was one of Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller’s legislative priorities this year. The bill prohibits Iowans from owning guns and ammunition if they have been convicted of a domestic violence crime or are subject to a protective order. Since 1995, 205 Iowans have been killed in domestic violence incidents; that figure represents nearly one-third of all murders recorded in Iowa during that period. Miller has also pointed out that firearms caused 111 of the 205 Iowa deaths in domestic abuse murders since 1995. Moreover, firearms were involved in nearly two-thirds of Iowa’s domestic violence deaths in 2007 and 2008. Records show 46 of the 205 Iowans killed in domestic abuse murders since 1995 have been bystanders. It’s easier to kill a bystander with a gun than with a knife or other weapon.

Federal law already bans those convicted of domestic violence or subject to a protective order from owning a gun. However, the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence has noted,

We need additional state law so that local law enforcement officers have the legal authority help enforce the firearm ban. Without additional state law there are only two ATF agents in the entire state who can act to enforce the federal law […] Without local law enforcement involved abusers will not and are not abiding by the federal firearms ban.  

Various law enforcement entities backed SF 2357, but most Republicans in the Iowa legislature didn’t cooperate with this effort to address a major violent crime problem. While Republicans were unable to defeat the bill, their votes on the Senate and House floor showed more deference to extremist gun advocates than to the potential victims of domestic abusers.

Eleven of the 18 Iowa Senate Republicans voted against SF 2357 when the upper chamber approved it on February 25, and a twelfth Republican joined them when the Senate considered an amended version on March 11. Roll calls can be found in pdf files for the Senate Journal on those dates. Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley and third-district Congressional candidate Brad Zaun were among the Republicans who voted no.

The March 10 Iowa House debate on SF 2357 exposed even more disturbing aspects of Republican “family values.” House Republicans voted unanimously to inject the same-sex marriage debate into this unrelated bill.

Then they voted unanimously to add a provision that might deter victims from seeking a protective order.

Then all but one of them voted to help domestic abusers get their guns back more quickly.

Then they unanimously supported language to give abuse victims access to self-defense courses, as if that’s the real solution to the domestic violence problem.

Then more than half the Republican caucus voted against the final bill.

The gory details can be found here; highlights are after the jump.

Republicans in the Iowa House and Senate failed this morning to force floor votes on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In the Senate, minority leader Paul McKinley asked colleagues “to sign a petition that would allow Senate Joint Resolution 2001, which would begin the process of amending the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage, to be brought to the Senate floor for a vote despite not being approved by a committee.” Only one of the 32 Iowa Senate Democrats (Tom Hancock) joined the 18 Republicans in signing this petition.

Later this morning, House Republicans tried a procedural maneuver that could have allowed a floor vote on House Joint Resolution 6 (a constitutional amendment on marriage) despite the fact that no House committee has approved it. The procedural motion needed 51 votes to pass, but only one Democrat, Dolores Mertz, voted with the 44 House Republicans. Mertz is a co-sponsor of the marriage amendment and votes consistently with Republicans on social issues.

Last April, two Democrats (Mertz and Geri Huser) joined with House Republicans on a similar procedural vote. Good for Huser for voting with the majority this time around. One House Democrat was absent today: Mark Kuhn, who also missed yesterday’s proceedings in the chamber. It seems likely that he is either sick or was unable to get to Des Moines from his home in rural Floyd County. North-central Iowa just got hit with another major winter storm.

House Republican leader Kraig Paulsen acknowledged today that opponents of marriage equality don’t have the 51 votes needed to force a vote this session in the Iowa House.

McKinley warned in a statement, “the voters this November will have an opportunity to decide if they are content with the continued Democrat obstruction and inaction.” Republicans keep saying they want to “let the people vote” on marriage. As it happens, this November Iowans will have an opportunity to pass a ballot initiative on convening a constitutional convention. Some Republicans want to take that route, but most are afraid to back a constitutional assembly. It seems like they want a campaign issue to use against Democrats more than they want to amend the constitution by the quickest means possible.

Unfortunately for Republicans, recent polling data suggests gay marriage is not a high priority for most Iowans. Every statehouse Democrat should be echoing the words from House Speaker Pat Murphy’s official statement today:

“In these tough economic times, Iowans want the Legislature to keep focused on help for middle class families and small businesses.  In this shortened session, my goal is to keep the House focused on key priorities — balancing the state budget without raising taxes while creating good-paying jobs for Iowans and making sure every child receives a quality education and affordable health care.”

Murphy and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal strongly supported the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling, and they deserve a lot of credit for holding their caucuses together today. As Gronstal has promised, Republicans will not succeed in writing discrimination into our state’s constitution.

In related good news, the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee voted down two bills today that were aimed at repealing same-sex marriage rights in that state.

UPDATE: Jason Clayworth has more details and reaction at the Des Moines Register’s blog.

The House spent almost 30 minutes on a rarely used “call-of-the-House” in which each of the 100 members were ordered into the chambers to vote unless they were previously excused.  

Hancock explained why he joined the Senate Republicans as follows: “I live in a highly Catholic area and I think that’s what the folks wanted me to do […] I never received that many contacts to say not to.”

Pat Murphy said Republicans “can go ahead and use” the House vote in the upcoming campaign, but added, “I would advise Republicans that ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’”  

More than 60 percent of Iowans think gay marriage “does not deserve the Legislature’s limited time” this session, according to the latest poll conducted by Selzer and Associates for the Des Moines Register. The poll surveyed 805 Iowa adults from January 31 to Feburary 3, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

The question named six issues on which legislation has been introduced during the 2010 session, which has been shortened by 20 days due to budget constraints:

The state Legislature can address large and small issues during the course of the session. For the following issues, please tell me if you think the issue does or does not deserve the Legislature’s limited time. Puppy mills. Gay marriage. Driving and texting. Gun control. Gambling. Payday loans.

62 percent of respondents said gay marriage does not deserve the legislature’s time, while only 36 percent said it does.

Here’s hoping this poll will bolster the spine of any wavering statehouse Democrats. Iowa House Republicans are expected to use procedural maneuvers this week to try to force a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. When they tried that last April, two of the 56 House Democrats joined Republicans on a procedural vote. House Minority leader Kraig Paulsen wasn’t deterred by the latest poll, telling the Des Moines Register,

“The majority party has successfully convinced people that that’s something that takes a lengthy period of time,” Paulsen said. “There’s no reason it should have to take more than 30 minutes.”

Poll respondents presumably know little about how much committee and floor time a marriage vote would consume, but I think Paulsen is missing the point here. Selzer in effect asked Iowans what’s important for the legislature to handle. More than three-fifths of respondents said gay marriage doesn’t rise to that level this session.

Notably, a recent poll commissioned by Republicans also suggests that gay marriage is a low priority for most Iowans. Voter Consumer Research conducted that poll in late January for The Iowa Republican blog and the Concordia Group (a political consulting firm run by Nick Ryan, with ties to the American Future Fund). Respondents were asked which three issues are most important to them: “Forty-one percent said jobs and unemployment, thirty-three said the economy, and twenty-eight percent said education.” Way down the priority list was “moral values” with just 14 percent, Craig Robinson indicated in this comment thread.

Last September, a Selzer poll for the Des Moines Register asked several questions about same-sex marriage. About 41 percent of respondents said they would vote for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, while 40 percent would vote against such an amendment. In addition, 92 percent of respondents said marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples had led to “no real change” in their own lives.

The conservative GOP base expects Republican legislators to try every trick in the book to bring a marriage vote to the floor. Iowa Democrats should make sure the public knows that while they were focusing on more important issues, Republicans kept trying to waste time on a marriage vote. Based on this polling as well as the results from last year’s special election in Iowa House district 90, I doubt gay marriage will be a winning issue for Republican candidates this November.

Later today I’ll discuss some other findings from the latest Des Moines Register poll. I was surprised to see that of the six issues Selzer asked about, only driving while texting had a majority (72 percent) say it was worth the legislature’s time to tackle this session.

The Iowa Legislature’s 2010 session opened today. I posted links to previews of hot topics for lawmakers in this thread, but after the jump I’ve posted some fresh items and excerpts for you to read.

UPDATE: The governor signed the bonding plan into law on May 14.

It’s only been a few weeks since the Iowa legislature’s 2009 session ended, and I’m already tired of hearing Republican attacks on the $830 million infrastructure borrowing program (I-JOBS).

The bonding proposal was among the most important bills passed this year. However, to the Party of No it was a terrible idea because paying back $830 million in bonds will cost a total of $1.7 billion.

Iowa Republicans “support funding infrastructure projects on a pay-as-you-go basis.” In other words, while the economic recession is bringing down state revenues, we should sit tight and only improve our infrastructure when the state has the cash to pay the full cost up front.

I cover a few problems with this argument after the jump.

Oliver Willis concisely summarized the religious right’s reaction to the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien:

People getting married: clearly the worst thing in the world. If they’re gay.

I laughed, but in truth it’s not that simple. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza sees the case as “one of those critical moments in the making of the next Republican presidential nominee.” He quotes likely repeat candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee reacting negatively to the ruling.

I’m more interested in how the battle over marriage equality will affect the balance of forces within the Republican Party of Iowa as its leaders attempt to climb out of the very deep hole they’re in.

Join me after the jump for more on the conservative Republican response to Friday’s events. I didn’t see any Republican moderates speaking out in support of the unanimous ruling. Please correct me if I am wrong, because I would like to give credit to such brave souls if they are out there. It’s worth noting that Republican Governor Terry Branstad appointed two of the seven current Supreme Court justices, including the author of the Varnum v Brien decision, Mark Cady.

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.”

The highlight of Governor Chet Culver’s “condition of the state” address yesterday (video here and prepared text here) was a proposal to issue state bonds to borrow up to $700 million over the next few years:

Thousands of new jobs will be created, Culver said. Every $100 million spent on highway construction alone means more than 4,000 new jobs, he said.

“We’re cutting back on the day-to-day expenditures of state government,” Culver said in his Condition of the State speech this morning. “But, at the same time, we will be investing in bricks and mortar – to create jobs and keep our economy going.”

Culver said Iowa won’t need to raise taxes to pay for the plan. The state is in the position to issue bonds, which is essentially borrowing money. Existing gaming revenue would repay the bonds, he said.

Predictably, road industry lobbyists like the spending plans while expressing some doubts about the borrowing plans.

Republicans also don’t seem to like the bonding proposal, while statehouse Democrats think it’s a good idea. State Auditor David Vaudt, who may be a Republican candidate for governor in 2010, said he needed to study the details before expressing an opinion, but noted, “What we’ve got to remember is we’ve got to dedicate and set aside a piece of revenue stream to pay that principal and interest.”

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal made a great point:

Gronstal deflected Republican criticism by pointing out that [Senate Minority leader Paul] McKinley, in his opening day speech, talked about a business he once owned.

“He borrowed every nickel he could and leveraged himself as far as he could because he believed in his future. I believe in Iowa’s future. I believe it makes sense now to borrow money and move this state forward,” Gronstal said.

He added: “This is probably one of the best times in our history to go out and borrow money with a dedicated repayment stream. Do you own a home? Did it make sense for you to borrow money? Or did you just pay cash?”

Gronstal is absolutely right. Iowa has a triple-A bond rating, interest rates are fairly low, and creating jobs is essential to bringing the economy back. Two-thirds of our economy depends on consumer spending, and good jobs generate the money people then spend at businesses in their communities. Construction jobs tend to be good jobs too.

Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen, who is usually a deficit hawk, also likes the infrastructure bonding idea:

The money will be borrowed over the next few years, supervised by an oversight board and repaid with gambling profits, so no tax increases will be necessary. (If we have to have all this gambling in Iowa, wouldn’t it be nice to see something tangible in return?)

It will be the modern-day equivalent of the Depression-era Works Progress Administration, which built infrastructure we still use today, such as dams, sewers, parks and shelters. Previous American generations left us wonderful systems of interstates, canals, railroads, river locks and dams. What are we leaving our kids? Potholes, bridge collapses and sewers that pollute river ways.

Iowans are a frugal people. Perhaps we are too frugal. According to state Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald’s office, Moody’s Investors Service says Iowa’s per-capita level of public debt ranked 48th in the country last year. Iowa has $98 of state public debt per person. The national average of state debt is $1,158. You could double Iowa’s $98 of per-capita state debt to $200, and we would then rank 46th.

Culver should have told us that. Clearly, most other states saddle their citizens with more debt than is proposed here. And many are more attractive places to live, too, as our children attest when they leave for the better jobs and brighter lights elsewhere.

It’s funny to watch all these Republican legislators, who borrow all sorts of money to buy, expand or repair homes, businesses and farms, now turn prune-faced when Culver suggests doing the exact same thing in state government.

The Des Moines Register explained how Culver’s plan would work:

* Borrow $700 million in 20-year tax-exempt state revenue bonds

* Secure the bonds with about $56 million a year in gaming tax revenues

* Create a Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Authority to issue the bonds. It will be overseen by a five-member board.

* The authority would be administered and staffed by the Iowa Finance Authority.

How money will be spent:

housing

trails

highways

roads

bridges

mass transit

railways

airports

water quality and wastewater treatment improvements

flood control improvements

energy infrastructure

disaster-relief infrastructure

public buildings

Projects will be judged on:

Whether they are ready to proceed

How quickly the project can be started and completed

Number of jobs to be created by the project

Contribution to sustainability

On the whole, I support the idea. My main concern is that infrastructure money be spent on fixing what we already have, not on building every new road on developers’ wish lists. In the past, our legislators and state officials have focused too much on funding new roads instead of a balanced transportation policy.

The housing slump is likely to continue for at least two more years, and there is no reason to spend large sums to build new highway interchanges and major new roads through undeveloped farmland now. We should spend the money to fix stretches of existing major roads and highways and crumbling bridges, as well as on modes of transit that allow alternatives to driving. These projects will improve the quality of life for large numbers of Iowans while also creating jobs.

As for airports, I would only support spending money on needed repairs and improvements to existing airports. This is not the time to start building a bunch of small regional airports that would benefit a handful of corporate executives.

Culver emphasized that he did not plan to raise taxes, but Gronstal indicated that raising the state gas tax is still on the table.

I would like to hear more lawmakers talk about closing various tax loopholes that mainly benefit wealthy Iowans. The Iowa Policy Project has documented this and various other flaws in our current tax policies.

If you’ve got the time and the inclination, the governor’s official website has a video Culver showed during his address, called “In Deep Water: The Flood of 2008.” Iowa Public Television has House Minority leader Kraig Paulsen’s response to Culver’s address.

I saw in the Sunday Des Moines Register that the newspaper’s editorial board will interview both parties’ statehouse leaders this week to talk about their priorities for the upcoming legislative session. People will be able to watch the interviews live at the Register’s website.

Monday, January 5:

At 10 am the Register’s editorial board will interview top Iowa Republicans in the legislature: Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley, House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, and House Minority Whip Linda Upmeyer.

Tuesday, January 6:

At 9:30 am the Register’s editorial board will interview top Iowa Democrats in the legislature: Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, House Speaker Pat Murphy, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

I am adding these to the list of events coming up this week, which I posted on Friday.

The session begins on January 12. Please feel free to post diaries about important bills under consideration, lobby days planned by grassroots organizations, or other related topics. Also, please send me tips or notices about upcoming events (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

Three days after he announced plans to cut $40 million from the current-year budget and delay a planned expenditure of $37 billion, Governor Chet Culver said on Friday that he will announce a further $60 million in spending cuts next week. The total state budget for the current fiscal year is $6.1 billion.

Iowa’s Revenue Estimating Conference met the same day and “lowered this fiscal year’s revenue estimate by $99.5 million and next year’s estimate by $132.6 million.”

Iowa House Republican leader Kraig Paulsen slammed Democrats in a statement:

Democrats have put this state in a precarious position […] At a time when the national economy was on it’s way down, Democrats increased state spending by over $2,000 per family, over the span of two years they’ve hired more than 2600 new state employees, and loaded up budgets with pork projects for their preferred constituents. The only thing they have left to show for it is a gaping hole in the budget.

Give me a break. The Republican Party long ago stopped being the party of fiscal responsibility. John McCain himself admitted this:

We lost the election in 2006 because we lost our way. […] Spending lurched completely out of control.

Anyway, the New York Times reported last month,

At least 37 states and the District of Columbia have faced or are facing budget gaps totaling $66 billion in the 2009 fiscal year. Most states, which rely on sales, income and property taxes, are seeing a significant drop in such revenues or increases that are below the inflation rate, compared to the same period last year.

Click here to view a graphic showing which states have budget problems. If you look at that map, you can see that many states’ projected budget shortfalls are larger per capita than Iowa’s. This is a tough economy, and not only for states run by Democrats.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Pat Murphy promised,

We will take action in January to keep the 2009 budget balanced. There will be difficult decisions to make, but we will not balance the state budget on the backs of middle class families in these difficult times.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy commented,

We have over $620 million in the state’s rainy day funds and we have a Governor and state legislature that are committed to fiscal discipline.

Yet, we need to be prepared for real cuts in budgets for both 2009 and 2010.  There will be real cuts and there will be real pain, but I do believe that Iowa is in a better position to weather this budget storm than almost any other state.  

Jason Hancock’s piece about the various budget projections for Iowa is worth a read. The most pessimistic scenario is quite grim.

Very tough choices will have to be made during the legislative session. I wouldn’t expect the return of much, if any, of the state money that was “swept” from other programs last summer to pay for flood relief.

Iowa Senate Republicans voted out Ron Wieck as minority leader on Tuesday. New leader Paul McKinley of Chariton promised “to rebuild this party from the ground up.”

Wieck, of Sioux City, was selected for the job by Senate Republicans in 2007 after Sen. Mary Lundby of Marion chose to step down from the leadership role. He will continue to serve in his District 27 seat.

McKinley, former owner of the textile company Neely Manufacturing, stressed that all Republicans will continue to work together. Senate Republicans will focus on being a spending watchdog for the state, retaining Iowa’s pro-business economy, providing tax relief and advocating for smaller government, he said.

Last week Iowa House Republicans picked Kraig Paulsen to replace Chris Rants as minority leader.

No consensus candidate seems to be emerging to take on the unenviable job of rebuilding the divided Republican Party of Iowa.

The Des Moines Register’s David Yepsen wrote in his latest column,

Republicans are looking for a new state party chairman. The challenge for the party is to find a chair who is acceptable to social conservatives but who can raise money from more moderate business types. The new leader must look good on TV and execute a management turnaround, all while working for a board of directors that too often squabbles and micromanages.

Good luck. Polk County chairman Ted Sporer is running, but he may be too hot and scrappy for some. His critics say the Polk County GOP organization he heads isn’t impressive. He says it’s better than when he started.

Former state Rep. Danny Carroll of Grinnell is also mentioned. He’s a smart, well-liked guy but may be too much of a social conservative for a party that needs to broaden its appeal. Carroll’s also lost two consecutive legislative races.

Another former state representative, Bill Dix of Shell Rock, gets mentioned but may be more interested in another run for office someday.

If you’re wondering why anyone would consider Sporer “too hot and scrappy,” read his take on the Tom Harkin/Christopher Reed debate.

Appearing on Iowa Public Television the weekend after the election, Republican moderate and former gubernatorial candidate Doug Gross described his dream candidate:

Gross: Well, I can think of 1964 we had a debacle, the Goldwater debacle and Johnson won in a landslide.  The democrats took over the governorship in both houses of the legislature.  And then we brought in a young Des Moines attorney by the name of Bob Ray to run the party as a guy that understood the importance of communication, appealing to all factions of the party and worked his tail off to help rebuild the organization.  That’s the kind of person we need as party chair again.  What we don’t need is someone whose is ideologically pure on one side or the other, that’s not what we should have.

Yepsen: Have you got some names?

Gross: Do I have some names?  I’m looking for Bob Ray’s sons but he only has daughters but the daughters would be alright too.

Feel that inclusion, Republican ladies?

Even if Bob Ray had a son, I doubt a pro-choice moderate who welcomed increased foreign immigration to this state would have a prayer of winning a leadership contest in today’s GOP.

Here’s a tip for conservatives, though: Governor Ray was just about the only Republican my mother ever voted for.

For more speculation on a possible new leader for the Iowa GOP, read this post or this post at the Krusty Konservative blog. Check out the comments too. The conservatives sure are angry.