Confirming rumors that have circulated for the last two months, State Senator Liz Mathis told the Associated Press this morning that the timing isn’t right for her to run for Congress in 2014.

Several Democrats have already announced plans to run for Iowa House district 99 in Dubuque next year. State Representative Pat Murphy has represented part of that city for more than 20 years. He is leaving the state legislature to run for Congress in Iowa’s first district.

After the jump I’ve posted background on Kevin Lynch, Steve Drahozal, Abby Finkenauer and Greg Simpson, along with a map of House district 99 and the latest voter registration totals. More candidates may emerge in this strongly Democratic House seat before the filing deadline in March 2014. One or more of the current candidates may opt out of the race before the filing deadline.

APRIL 5 UPDATE: Erin Murphy of the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald reports that Lynch has decided not to pursue this campaign. According to a Bleeding Heartland reader in Dubuque, both Drahozal and Finkenauer (but not Lynch) addressed county Democrats at the off-year caucus in March.

Representative Bruce Braley’s campaign for U.S. Senate rolled out its largest batch of endorsements today: 71 state legislators. All 26 Iowa Senate Democrats plus 45 of the 47 Iowa House Democrats are named in the press release I’ve posted after the jump. For some reason, Iowa House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy are not in this group. Murphy is running for the first Congressional district seat Braley is vacating.

Earlier this week, Braley’s campaign announced that it raised more than $1 million during the first quarter. That is a solid number, and I’ll be interested to see how the numbers break own (contributions from individuals vs PACs, for instance). Bleeding Heartland will publish a detailed roundup of Iowa Congressional fundraising after all the candidates have filed their reports with the Federal Election Commission. Those reports are due April 15.

In an ideal world, evidence that more than half of Midwest rivers and streams can’t support aquatic life would inspire policy-makers to clean up our waterways. Rivers that are suitable for swimming, fishing, and other recreation can be a huge economic engine for Iowa communities.

We live in Iowa, where most of our lawmakers take the Patty Judge view: “Iowa is an agricultural state and anyone who doesn’t like it can leave in any of four directions.”

Yesterday the Iowa House approved a bill to relax manure storage regulations for large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). All of the House Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats supported this bad legislation. Details on the bill and the House vote are below.

Democratic State Senator Steve Sodders announced on Facebook a few minutes ago that he will not run for the U.S. House in Iowa’s first Congressional district next year. His press release is after the jump. Sodders was just re-elected in 2012 to a second four-year term in the Iowa Senate, where he is also is president pro-tem and chairs the Economic Growth Committee. He announced earlier this month that he was considering running for the seat Representative Bruce Braley is vacating to run for U.S. Senate.

So far State Representative Pat Murphy, a former Iowa House speaker who represents part of Dubuque, is the only Democratic candidate in IA-01. Two Republicans have announced their candidacies: Cedar Rapids-based business owner Steve Rathje and Dubuque-based business owner Rod Blum. Any comments about the race are welcome in this thread.

Seventy-six countries around the world have a higher percentage of women in their national legislatures than the United States. Iowa is one of very few states that has never sent a woman to Congress. The open seat in Iowa’s first Congressional district is a perfect chance to leave Mississippi in the dust. Yet so far, no women have announced plans to run for the seat Bruce Braley is vacating. Three men are in the race for sure: Pat Murphy, Steve Rathje, and Rod Blum. Steve Sodders is strongly considering it and visited Washington last week to talk with Democrats about the race. UPDATE: Sodders has ruled out running for Congress.

The last time IA-01 was open, four Democratic men and three Republican men sought to replace Jim Nussle. Are we looking at a repeat?

For years, academic researchers have shown that “when women run for office, they perform just as well as men.” But they don’t run for office as often as men do for lots of reasons. A new study suggests that from a young age, women are less likely than men to consider running for office someday (full report here).

Iowa Democratic Party leaders should be working to recruit a top-tier female candidate in IA-01, a Democratic-leaning seat that presents the best opportunity of my lifetime to send a woman to Congress. But that’s not going to happen when party chair Tyler Olson is thinking about running for Congress himself. Republican Party of Iowa leaders should also be looking for a strong woman candidate to capitalize on Democrats’ strategic error. I doubt that “liberating” thought would ever cross the minds of the “Liberty” gang running the Iowa GOP.

Sisters are going to have to do it for ourselves. Whether that’s the “50-50 in 2020” organization co-chaired by former women elected officials and candidates or some informal group of political activists, it’s time to identify and encourage women to step up to the plate in IA-01–before the early declared candidates get a large advantage in fundraising and endorsements.

Dubuque business owner Rod Blum told the Marshall County Republican Central Committee this week that he plans to enter the GOP primary to represent the open first Congressional district. Blum finished a close second to Ben Lange in the 2012 IA-01 primary. Cedar Rapids business owner Steve Rathje was the first Republican to announce in IA-01. I haven’t heard any news lately about other possible Republican candidates in the first district, like State Representative Walt Rogers or former Secretary of State Paul Pate.

Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer predicted on Sunday that the first Iowa woman elected governor or to Congress will be a Republican. If no Democratic woman steps up in IA-01, I believe Upmeyer will be proven right. I have heard from several independent sources that State Senator Liz Mathis is privately telling Democrats she won’t run for Congress. Senate President Pam Jochum took herself out of the running last month. Former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy is the only declared Democratic candidate so far. State Senator Steve Sodders is talking with potential supporters about the race.

I haven’t heard about any Republican planning to run against four-term Democrat Dave Loebsack in IA-02. For now, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee does not appear worried about holding this district.

According to the Des Moines rumor mill, former State Senator Staci Appel is considering a run for Congress in IA-03. Appel lives in Warren County and served one term in the Iowa Senate before losing to Republican Kent Sorenson in 2010. Mike Sherzan is currently the only declared Democratic challenger to ten-term Republican Tom Latham.

I haven’t heard of any Democrats planning to challenge six-term incumbent Steve King in IA-04. I’m still confident King will not run for the U.S. Senate. But if King does leave the fourth district open, many Republicans are rumored to be thinking about that race, including Upmeyer and State Representative Chip Baltimore.

Any comments about next year’s Congressional races in Iowa are welcome in this thread. A Congressional map is after the jump, along with the latest voter registration numbers in each district and Stuart Rothenberg’s comments on why he does not consider Latham or King vulnerable in 2014.

State Senator Steve Sodders will “take a serious look” at running for the first Congressional district seat Bruce Braley is vacating. Speaking by telephone yesterday, Sodders said he is in the “very exploratory” phase, talking with different groups and individuals. He currently has no deadline for announcing his plans, but he expects to decide sometime before this summer whether to run in next year’s Democratic primary.

Marshall County Deputy Sheriff Sodders was first elected to the Iowa Senate in 2008. He was just re-elected to a four-year term in Senate district 36, covering Marshall and Tama counties and a small area in Black Hawk County. Consequently, he would not need to give up his Senate seat to run for Congress. In addition to serving as Senate president pro-tem, Sodders chairs the Economic Growth Committee. I’ve posted his official bio after the jump.

So far State Representative Pat Murphy is the only declared Democratic candidate in the first Congressional district, and Cedar Rapids businessman Steve Rathje is the only declared Republican.

I continue to believe that Iowa Democrats should nominate a woman for this very winnable seat–preferably someone other than the woman who just voted herself a 25 percent raise. I wish Senate President Pam Jochum had not taken herself out of the running so early.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. The latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office indicate that the 20 counties in IA-01 contain 165,428 active registered Democrats, 137,943 Republicans, and 193,674 no-party voters.

UPDATE: Sodders posted on Facebook on March 11, “Headed to Wash DC next week to talk to several groups and individuals about District 1.” At the end of this post I’ve added more recent comments from Sodders.

Cedar Rapids business owner Steve Rathje announced his candidacy  for the open seat in Iowa’s first Congressional district last Friday. Background on Rathje and thoughts about other possible candidates in IA-01 are after the jump. A district map and the latest voter registration numbers in all 20 counties can be found here.

Former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy announced this morning that he is running for Congress in the first district. After the jump I’ve posted his open letter to Iowans, which for now is the only content on his campaign website. He’s on Facebook here and on Twitter here.

Murphy has represented part of Dubuque in the Iowa House since winning a special election in 1989. He was House speaker from 2007 through 2010. I give him huge credit for having the guts and integrity to welcome the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision on marriage from day one, when some Democrats were running for cover. On the whole, I was disappointed by how little was accomplished during the years Democrats controlled the state House and Senate as well as Terrace Hill. Iowa didn’t reform the tax system to make it less regressive, we didn’t make much progress on labor or environmental issues, we didn’t pass a state-level DREAM act or even repeal the English-only law. In most of those cases, the Iowa House caucus was the key roadblock.

A competitive primary is healthy for a party, and I expect other Democratic candidates to emerge in IA-01. Among other things, Murphy will need to explain why Democrats should nominate a man to replace Bruce Braley when we finally have a good chance to send our state’s first woman to Congress. He told Erin Murphy of the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald that he is “used to tough races,” knows “what I’m getting into” and “what fundraising is like.”

Iowa Senate President Pam Jochum does not plan to run for the open seat in Iowa’s first Congressional district but is considering a run for governor in 2014, she confirmed in a telephone interview today.

All signs point to Representative Bruce Braley running for Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat in 2014, so I thought I’d put up a new thread to discuss scenarios in the first Congressional district.

Former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy plans to run in the Democratic primary for IA-01. I don’t think he’s as strong a candidate as either Senate President Pam Jochum or State Senator Liz Mathis would be, and it is long past time for Democrats to nominate a woman in an open seat that leans Democratic. The latest numbers from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office show that IA-01 contains 167,987 active registered Democrats, 140,227 Republicans, and 196,078 no-party voters.

On the Republican side, I am seeking comment about a possible Congressional bid from both Ben Lange and Rod Blum. Both ran against Braley in 2012; Blum narrowly lost the primary. Iowa Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix ran for IA-01 when it was last an open seat in 2006, but he has ruled out running for Congress next year as he tries to take back the Senate majority for the GOP. CORRECTION: Dix lives in Butler County, which used to be in IA-01 but is now in IA-04 under Iowa’s new map.

Any comments about the IA-01 campaign are welcome in this thread. A race between Blum and either Jochum or Murphy would be an all-Dubuque affair.

The Iowa House will begin its 2013 session next Monday with 53 Republicans, 46 Democrats and one seat to be filled in a special election on January 22.

After the jump I’ve posted details on the Iowa House majority and minority leadership teams, along with all chairs, vice chairs, and members of standing House committees. Where relevant, I’ve noted changes since last year’s legislative session.

Some non-political Iowa House trivia: three state representatives have the surname Olson (not counting Democrat Jo Oldson). There are two Millers, two Taylors, and two Smiths, one from each party in every case. David is most common first name: the new cohort contains three Daves and two Davids. Four state representatives have the first name Mark, four are called Daniel (three go by Dan) and four were given the name Robert (two Robs, one Bob, and a Bobby). Four women are named Mary (one goes by Mary Ann), and two are named Linda. There are two men each named Greg, Chuck, John, Kevin, Pat, Bruce, Tom, and Chris, and there would have been two Brians if Brian Quirk had not resigned shortly after winning re-election. Oddly, no current Iowa House member is named Mike or Michael.

JANUARY 28 UPDATE: Democrat Todd Prichard won the special election in House district 52, bringing the number of Todds in the Iowa House to two. I’ve added his committee assignments below. Republicans maintain a 53-47 majority.

How about a little good news on a lousy day? A new study confirms previous research, which showed public smoking bans reduce hospitalizations for heart attacks and other life-threatening problems. The Iowa Smokefree Air Act, which went into effect in July 2008, has likely prevented many premature deaths.

UPDATE: The smoking ban was controversial while it was debated in 2008. Below I’ve listed all of the state legislators who had the courage to send that bill to Governor Chet Culver’s desk.  

The redistricting process and several Republican retirements have created many pickup opportunities for Iowa House Democrats. The devastating 2010 election left them nowhere to go but up in the lower chamber, where Republicans currently enjoy a 60 to 40 majority. Relatively few sitting House Democrats represent vulnerable districts.

Speaking to activists at the Polk County Democratic convention on March 10, I heard lots of optimism about the House races. After the jump I’ve posted some early thoughts on the seats up for grabs.

Although the 60 Republicans and 40 Democrats in the Iowa House haven’t changed since last year, I thought it was worth updating this post, because some committee assignments have changed, and House Democrats reshuffled their ranking members somewhat.

Majority and minority leadership teams are after the jump, along with all members of standing House committees. All 100 House districts are on the ballot every two years, so I’ve noted the new district numbers for state representatives seeking re-election in 2012, as well as which House members have said they will retire after this year’s legislative session.

The new Iowa House district 28 is one of several competitive districts without an incumbent seeking re-election. Two candidates have declared so far: Republican Greg Heartsill and Democrat Megan Day Suhr.  

UPDATE: More recent absentee ballot numbers are here, and a precinct-level analysis of the early voting is here.

Absentee ballot requests and returns continue to favor Democrat Liz Mathis over Cindy Golding, her Republican opponent in the Iowa Senate district 18 special election.

The latest numbers from the Linn County Auditor’s Elections office are after the jump, along with recent comments about marriage equality by the Senate district 18 candidates.

After more than five hours of debate, the Iowa House on April 26 approved a bill to let MidAmerican Energy charge consumers for costs associated with a nuclear reactor it may or may not build in the coming decade. House File 561 passed 68 to 30. All Republicans present except two voted yes, joined by 12 House Democrats: Deborah Berry (district 22), Chris Hall (district 2), Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (district 67), Dan Muhlbauer (district 51), Pat Murphy (district 28), Rick Olson (district 68), Brian Quirk (district 15), Mark Smith (district 43), Phyllis Thede (district 81), Andrew Wenthe (district 18), John Wittneben (district 7) and Mary Wolfe (district 26). The remaining 29 House Democrats voted against the bill. Two Republicans voted no: Guy Vander Linden (district 75) and Kim Pearson (district 42).

Details on the House debate and efforts to amend the bill are after the jump, along with some speculation about its prospects in the Senate and thoughts about the coalitions lobbying for and against it.  

The Iowa House on Thursday approved House File 589, which establishes new civil and criminal penalties for various offenses on farms, including unauthorized audio or video recordings. Nine House Democrats joined all of the Republicans present to pass the bill on a 66 to 27 vote. Click here for the full bill text (here’s a pdf version). The House Journal includes the roll call on this bill. The Democrats who voted yes were Deborah Berry (district 22), Dan Kelley (district 41), Helen Miller (district 49), Dan Muhlbauer (district 51), Brian Quirk (district 15), Roger Thomas (district 24), Kurt Swaim (district 94), Andrew Wenthe (district 18), and John Wittneben (district 7). Most of them represent largely rural or small-town areas, except for Berry, whose district includes part of Waterloo.

I’ve posted some of the controversial language in House File 589 after the jump. The bill raises constitutional questions; last year the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law banning depictions of animal cruelty, citing First Amendment concerns. Yesterday in Des Moines,

Dan Hauff, investigations director for Chicago-based Mercy for Animals, said the law is likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment. He said it would inhibit investigative journalists from reporting on animal cruelty, environmental hazards and food safety issues on farms. He said the organization might bring litigation if the bill becomes law, but he hoped it wouldn’t make it that far.

Senator Tom Harkin said yesterday he hadn’t studied details on House File 589, but he argued against the idea behind the policy.

“Thankfully, because of whistleblowers and others doing undercover work, we are finding out about a lot of the abuses that are taking place in animal agriculture – and some of those abuses have just been awful,” Harkin said during a conference call with reporters.

House Agriculture Committee Chair Annette Sweeney, a cattle farmer who is the lead sponsor on this bill, defended the legislation, saying, “We are completely concerned about the health and well-being of our animals on our farms, and if we have individuals coming onto our farms and filming and not telling us they’re there, we are sincerely worried about the health and biosecurity.” Speaking for Democrats who voted against House File 589, State Representative Pat Murphy argued that “the overwhelming majority of farmers and people who own breeding facilities in Iowa operate very reputable businesses and treat their animals well,” but “you have to wonder” what the few who have problems at their facilities want to hide.

Des Moines-based advertising specialist Michael Libbie considers this bill a big public relations mistake:

[P]assing such legislation controlling and making the filming and distribution illegal makes ag look….bad.  Very bad. […]

At a time when agriculture needs more, not less, friends and at a time when so many people have horrible misconceptions about farming and nearly zero relationships with farmers and ranchers…this bill is ill advised.  Bad idea for agriculture, bad idea for farmers and ranchers….this will only fuel the fires of those who already think animal agriculture is evil.  And for those who don’t, they  just might start wondering, “So, what is going on they don’t want me to know about?”

I expect the Iowa Senate to approve this bill with minimal changes, and Governor Terry Branstad to sign it. Ultimately, courts will probably decide whether House File 589 or similar legislation being considered in Florida goes too far in restricting free speech.

UPDATE: A Bleeding Heartland reader commented by e-mail that Republicans like James O’Keefe’s secret sting videos (against NPR or ACORN, for example). Why should big ag receive special protection against that kind of exposure?

Iowa House Democrats elected Kevin McCarthy minority leader for the coming legislative session on November 15. McCarthy represents district 67 on the southeast side of Des Moines. He served as House majority leader for the last four years alongside House Speaker Pat Murphy. Murphy did not seek the minority leader position after the election shrank the House Democratic caucus from 56 members to 40. The caucus elected four assistant minority leaders today: Ako Abdul-Samad from district 66 (Des Moines), Mark Smith from district 43 (Marshalltown), Sharon Steckman from district 13 (Mason City), and Mary Mascher from district 77 (Iowa City).

The press release from the House Democratic caucus does not say whether anyone challenged McCarthy for the leadership position. Last week Dave Jacoby of Coralville and Mark Smith were rumored to be considering a run for minority leader, although Smith told the Des Moines Register he had decided against pursuing the job. LATE UPDATE: McCarthy told IowaPolitics.com that Smith did challenge him for minority leader, but declined further comment.

I’ve never been in the McCarthy fan club. He and Murphy sometimes pushed bad legislation, including the odor study bill that was a gift to CAFO operators. McCarthy is also a notorious opponent of real campaign finance reform. I’m not just talking about the VOICE act, which would have created a voluntary public financing system. I’m talking about reasonable contribution limits, which the Democratic House and Senate leadership never moved in the past four years. I doubt McCarthy will collect many five-figure checks for the House Truman Fund once Iowa has a Republican governor and a large GOP majority in the lower chamber.

While I would have preferred to see a new face for House Democrats who wasn’t part of last session’s leadership team, I wish McCarthy well. He’ll have a big job holding the Democratic caucus together and laying the groundwork for future gains.

McCarthy issued this statement today: “House Democrats are committed to strengthening our economy and helping create jobs. We will work together on the main stream, bread and butter issues that effect the every day lives of Iowans. However, if Republicans steer to more extreme policies at the expense of ordinary Iowans, we will make our voices heard.” The reality is that with 60 votes and almost no moderates left in the GOP caucus, House Speaker Kraig Paulsen and Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer won’t need to work with Democrats on any bills they want to pass, no matter how extreme.

Even though the House Democratic caucus will be much smaller next year, it still will have some new blood. Seven Democrats won open-seat House races on November 2: Chris Hall from district 2 (elected despite unusually strong GOP performance in Sioux City), John Wittneben from district 7 (Palo Alto, Emmet and part of Kossuth counties), Anesa Kajtazovic from district 21 (Waterloo), Mary Wolfe from district 26 (Clinton), Dan Kelley from district 41 (Newton and most of Jasper County), Dan Muhlbauer from district 51 (Carroll County and parts of Crawford and Sac), and Ruth Ann Gaines from district 65 (Des Moines).

LATE UPDATE: McCarthy’s comments on the election and the upcoming session are after the jump.

Democrats suffered big losses in the Iowa House and Senate last night. Assuming no results change through recounts, the House is likely to switch from 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans to 59 Republicans and 41 Democrats. I’ve seen some online references to a 58-42 split, but that’s not how the count looks based on unofficial results posted on the Secretary of State’s website.

Democrats maintain control of the Iowa Senate, but their majority shrank from 32-18 to 27-23. Governor-elect Terry Branstad should easily be able to get his agenda through the Iowa House, and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal may have trouble keeping his caucus united.

UPDATE: Late returns could change the outcome in two Senate seats; it’s possible the chamber could have a 25-25 split, or a 26-24 Democratic majority.

SECOND UPDATE: A few more races could switch as more absentee ballots come in. As of Wednesday evening, Democrat Tom Schueller is now trailing in House district 25 by about 150 votes.

Here’s my take on the seats that changed hands and the near-misses.

One year ago today, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that our state’s Defense of Marriage Act violated the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. From the day that ruling went into effect through the end of 2009, at least 1,783 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in Iowa. The real number is probably higher, because about 900 marriage licenses did not specify the gender of the couple involved.

Follow me after the jump for a review of news about marriage equality in Iowa, stories featuring happy couples, and thoughts about the future politics of this issue.  

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.’”  

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.

The legislative session begins this week, and budget issues are likely to dominate the proceedings.

Some state tax credits will be scrapped and others curtailed if lawmakers enact recommendations released on Friday by a commission Governor Chet Culver appointed. State Senator Joe Bolkcom, who chairs the Ways and Means Committee in the upper chamber, has vowed to pass as many of the recommendations as possible. I expect major pushback from corporate lobbyists against many of the proposals, however.

House Speaker Pat Murphy is not ruling out significant layoffs of state workers. It really is unfair to balance the budget mostly on the backs of state workers, especially since demand for state services increases during a recession.

I was surprised to see Culver’s chief of staff, John Frew, suggest a scaled-back version of “fair share” legislation could pass this session. If Democrats don’t have the votes for a prevailing wage bill, I can’t imagine they’ll get 51 votes for fair share, but I hope I’m wrong.

Kathie Obradovich previews other issues that are likely to come up during the legislative session.

Democratic leaders insist a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is off the table, but Republicans will use every trick in the book to try to bring the issue to the floor.

Roxanne Conlin plans to visit all 99 counties in her Senate campaign, just like Senator Chuck Grassley has been doing every year for the past three decades.

In other news, Iowa may be on the verge of coming out of the deep freeze. I read today that the highest temperature recorded anywhere in Iowa since January 1 was 20 degrees Fahrenheit one day in Keokuk (southeast corner of the state). How are you surviving the cold? I’ve been wearing slippers, wool sweaters and extra layers. My kids still insist they are comfortable running around the house in pajamas and bare feet. Our dog could walk for miles, even on the days when it’s been below zero F when I’m out with him.

This thread is for anything on your mind this weekend.

I expected 2009 to be a relatively quiet year in Iowa politics, but was I ever wrong.

The governor’s race heated up, state revenues melted down, key bills lived and died during the legislative session, and the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Varnum v Brien became one of this state’s major events of the decade.

After the jump I’ve posted links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of Iowa politics from January through June 2009. Any comments about the year that passed are welcome in this thread.

Although I wrote a lot of posts last year, there were many important stories I didn’t manage to cover. I recommend reading Iowa Independent’s compilation of “Iowa’s most overlooked and under reported stories of 2009,” as well as that blog’s review of “stories that will continue to impact Iowa in 2010.”

Until last week, the money raised to support Terry Branstad as a gubernatorial candidate was hidden in the bank accounts of two 527 groups: the Iowa First Foundation and the Draft Branstad PAC. Now that Branstad has formed an exploratory committee, I expect we’ll soon see a press release about eye-popping early money raised for his campaign. Major Republican donors were key players in the effort to lure the former governor back into politics.

While Branstad’s signing all those thank-you notes to Republicans, he may as well acknowledge three Democrats who have helped him raise the big bucks: Governor Chet Culver, Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy, and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal. Branstad wouldn’t be able to accept those $25,000 and $50,000 checks if Democrats had passed meaningful campaign finance reform during the past three years.

This rant continues after the jump.

I got a double-dose of Dr. Howard Dean in Des Moines yesterday at a health care reform event and a reception to honor Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal. (I’ll write up the health care forum later today.)

The reception was organized by One Iowa, the leading LGBT advocacy group in the state. Dean spoke about his experience as governor of Vermont after signing a bill granting legal recognition to same-sex couples (civil unions) in April 2000. He remarked that supporting civil unions has now become the “compromise position” on the issue, but it wasn’t that way nine years ago. He wore a bullet-proof vest for a time after signing the bill and didn’t visit certain conservative areas of the state much during that year’s re-election campaign. Dean was barely re-elected in 2000 with 50.5 percent of the vote after winning his four previous gubernatorial elections easily.

Think about that. Less than a decade ago in a relatively progressive state, the governor was wearing a bullet-proof vest after standing up for civil unions. I don’t mean to downplay the political courage shown by Iowa leaders who have respected and praised the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling, because I know marriage equality is still a controversial and emotional issue. But it’s striking how much more accepting people are of legal recognition for committed gay and lesbian couples.

In an interview with Radio Iowa’s O.Kay Henderson yesterday, Dean said of marriage equality,

“This has just become a non-issue in states where there’s a lot of neighborliness,” Dean said. “Because even if people don’t think, for religious reasons, that gay people ought to be able to get married, they’re also respectful of their neighbors who may have a gay person in their family.”

Radio Iowa’s headline on this story is “Dean predicts gay marriage will be a ‘non-issue’ in 2010.” That makes him seem much more complacent than he sounded to me at the One Iowa reception. Dean predicted that marriage equality will gain wide acceptance, but he reminded the audience of that old political saying, “Never forget who your friends are.” He urged them to support the Democrats who have blocked a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the state legislature, warning that if these leaders lose in the next election, “it sets back the movement.”  

In the context of not forgetting your friends, Dean mentioned that his presidential campaign could never have gotten off the ground without the help of the LGBT community. He estimated that in the early months, about 75 percent of the money his campaign raised came from LGBT donors who remembered that he stood with them on civil unions. That early money helped him hire a few staffers and open a few offices, laying the ground for his surge in support during the summer of 2003.

Speaking more broadly, Dean gave credit to all gays and lesbians over the years who have “stood up and said who you are,” because it becomes much harder to say and think bad things about a group when you know the group includes your friends and neighbors. (Dean made a similar point in his Radio Iowa interview.)

In their remarks to the One Iowa reception, Gronstal and Murphy both gave credit to the “six brave couples” who put their names on the line in filing the Varnum v Brien lawsuit against Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. Gronstal added that in holding the line against efforts to overturn the Supreme Court ruling, he and Murphy “didn’t do this for the LGBT community. We did it for everyone.”

UPDATE: Iowa Independent has more on last night’s event.

SECOND UPDATE: In the comments at MyDD, Texas Dem notes that Dean’s re-election in 2000 was less close than it seems, because his Republican rival only got about 38 percent, with a Progressive candidate winning the remaining 9.5 percent. Still, that was a much narrower margin than Dean’s other gubernatorial election victories.  

I got so busy this month that the event calendars fell by the wayside. After the jump I’ve posted details about lots of things going on this week and next.

As always, please post a comment or send an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you know of something I’ve left out.

I was expecting a showdown in the Iowa House this week over the tax reform package that Governor Chet Culver worked out with key Democratic legislators. Republican State Representative Chris Rants announced his intention to amend the tax bill so that marriage would be defined as between a man and a woman.

However, the tax bill never came up for a vote before legislators went home for the weekend. House Speaker Pat Murphy said on April 15 that he had only 50 votes in favor of the proposal:

According to Murphy, he had lined up 52 Democrats to vote for the bill, but two Democrats changed their minds after adjustments sought by the governor broadened the number of Iowans who would get a tax cut — and amounted to a roughly $50 million reduction in the amount of income taxes collected.

“All we need is one person to change their mind,” Murphy says. “…We’re still optimistic we’ll get it done before we adjourn.”

Murphy is counting on Governor Chet Culver, a fellow Democrat, to help find the extra vote that will get the bill passed.

“We still believe that it is a middle class tax cut,” Murphy says. “We still believe it simplifies the tax code and we are optimistic that we will pass it yet this year.”

Murphy may be optimistic, but I’m feeling a sense of deja vu. Two months ago House Democrats were stuck at 50 votes for the “prevailing wage” bill heading into a weekend. The governor and legislative leaders failed to find the 51st vote to pass that measure.

If Murphy’s assessment is correct, two Iowa House Democrats supported the original tax reform bill but not the deal worked out with the governor. Does anyone know who they are, and why they are refusing to get behind the revised tax bill? Do they disagree with changes to the bill, or are they spooked by pressure they are getting from anti-tax conservative activists? It would be a big mistake for the legislature to let this bill die now. Overhauling the tax system won’t become politically easier during an election year.

In other economic policy news, Jason Hancock reports today that prospects look good for three bills which, combined, would approve $700 billion in bonding for infrastructure projects in Iowa. Click here for more details about the bills and what they would pay for. The main difference between this package of bills and Culver’s bonding proposal is that the governor wanted $200 million from bonding to pay for roads and bridges. Legislators have specified that the bonds must be used to fund other kinds of infrastructure projects.

Many Iowa legislators wanted to pass a small gas tax increase this year and next to fund more road projects, but a veto threat from Culver killed that proposal. The federal stimulus package approved this year did include about $358 million in highway funds for Iowa (click that link for more details). I’m with legislators on this one. I’d rather see money raised through bonding used for other kinds of projects.

I am glad to see Democrats move ahead on the bonding bills despite a recent Des Moines Register poll. The poll indicated that just 24 percent supported “Governor Chet Culver’s plan to borrow money to speed up public works projects,” while 71 percent said the state should “pay for the projects as it has the money over time.” That’s a badly-worded poll question if I ever heard one. I’ll bet that people who say we should only take on what we have cash for right now will change their mind once bonding money starts funding projects in their own cities and counties.

Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy ruled out of order an attempt by Republicans to bring a resolution to the floor on amending Iowa’s constitution to ban gay marriage. The resolution did not pass any House committee before last month’s “funnel” deadline, so could only have reached the floor if leadership made an exception for it.

I will update this post as more news becomes available. You can read a couple of different play-by-play accounts on the Twitter feeds of journalist Charlotte Eby and Republican Representative Renee Schulte. It sounds as if leadership conferred for a while before Murphy ruled the resolution out of order. Iowa Senate Majority leader Mike Gronstal, who refused to let a similar bill come to the Senate floor on Monday, was in the House chamber this morning speaking with House leaders.

Earlier today marriage equality opponents and supporters rallied at the Iowa capitol. I wasn’t there, but Charlotte Eby provided the highlights. Former State Representative Danny Carroll told the crowd that politicians who don’t listen to the word of God should be replaced. Someone doesn’t seem to understand the constitution too well. Unfortunately for Carroll and fortunately for us, the voters of Iowa House district 75 sent him packing in 2006, and voted him down by a larger margin in his rematch against Eric Palmer last year.

One Iowa also had supporters at the capitol this morning. If you were there, please post a comment or a diary about what you saw.

UPDATE with background: The bill in question, House Joint Resolution 6, proposes an amendment to the Iowa constitution stipulating that marriage is between one man and one woman (here is the text). The co-sponsors of HJR 6 are Republican Dwayne Alons (not one of the brightest lights in Iowa politics) and Democrat Dolores Mertz (the kind of Democrat who votes against good labor bills and buries bills that would reduce pollution from factory farms).

The Iowa legislature’s “funnel” date passed in early March. Under the normal rules of operation, bills that did not clear at least one House or Senate committee by that time were dead for the 2009 session.

SECOND UPDATE: One Iowa says this is not over yet and is urging supporters of marriage equality to contact their representatives today.

House Switchboard: 515-281-3221

Tell them to stand firm with legislative leadership and oppose this distracting and divisive move. With all the challenges Iowa is facing, it’s time for our elected officials to get back to work for Iowa families!

The Des Moines Register explains House Speaker Murphy’s ruling:

Murphy’s ruling today stemmed from the fact that the House cannot suspend rules it has enacted jointly with the Senate. House members can only suspend their own rules.

The only way to suspend the joint rules is for someone to introduce a resolution in the Rules and Administration Committee. If it starts in the House, then there’s a vote in House committee and in the full House. If it passes, it goes to Senate committee then a vote of the full Senate.

That explains why Senate leader Gronstal was in the House chamber this morning. The bill is HJR 6.

The Des Moines Register article also makes clear that House Republicans aren’t giving up:

But Republicans hinted that they will make another run at the issue later today.

“We’ll just let the day unfold,” said House Republican Leader Kraig Paulsen of Hiawatha. He later added. “The Legislature has a whole mass of rules and while you can use them sometimes to hide behind, sometimes they work to your advantage in other situations.”

I don’t pretend to know what rules he is referring to, but please tell all your friends in Iowa to contact their House representatives and ask them to respect the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v Brien.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: More drama this afternoon, as Republican Chris Rants tried to attach an amendment banning gay marriage to a bill on health care, according to Charlotte Eby. House Speaker Murphy ruled the amendment out of order, but Rants moved to suspend rules. Eby said “some Ds” voted with Republicans and named Mertz and Geri Huser, but the motion failed. I don’t know whether Mertz and Huser were the only Democrats voting with Republicans on that bill.

If we can’t defeat Huser in the 2010 primary with all the bad votes she’s cast, I don’t know what to say. I am not giving a penny to the House Democratic leadership fund as long as any money could be spend defending incumbents like Mertz and Huser.

FINAL UPDATE: According to The Des Moines Register, the amendment defeated this afternoon

would have gutted a $1.25 billion health and human services bill, House File 811, and replaced it with a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

That amendment failed on a 54-44 vote. Mertz and Huser were the only two House Democrats who voted with Republicans. Shame on them for trying to sacrifice a health care bill in order to pass an amendment that would put discrimination in our state constitution.

If your representative is one of the 54 Democrats who stood firm with Speaker Murphy, please call or e-mail to say thank you. I know that some of the House Democrats are personally uncomfortable with same-sex marriage, but they did the right thing today.

Murphy released this statement:

“The latest political stunt by House Republicans this afternoon proves this is all about politics.  It’s stunning that Republicans would choose to gut health care for our children, veterans, seniors and disabled Iowans to score political points.

Despite today’s political posturing and attempts to circumvent rules agreed to by Republicans earlier this year, my goal is to keep our focus

on helping middle class families struggling to make ends meet and balancing the state budget.

Iowans expect us to work together on the issues that unite us –good-paying jobs, affordable health care and a quality education.”

Numerous politicians and interest groups have issued statements since the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously paved the way for legal gay marriage by striking down Iowa’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act. Iowa Politics has links to many of the statements, as well as Iowa blog posts on today’s ruling, and I’ve also received some statements via e-mail.

Click “there’s more” to read the statements from key Iowa Democrats and watch a video featuring the only openly gay Iowa legislator.

I will write a separate post later on Republican reaction to the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

President Barack Obama proposed reforms to the Congressional earmarking process on Wednesday:

• Members’ earmark requests should be posted on their Web sites.

• There should be public hearings on earmark requests “where members will have to justify their expense to the taxpayer.”

• Any earmark for a for-profit company would have to be competitively bid.

The reforms are intended to deflect criticism after Obama signed the $410 billion 2009 omnibus spending bill, which included about $7.7 billion in earmarks.

I have no time for the Republican Party’s blatant hypocrisy on what is really a “phantom problem”. Republican members of Congress secure plenty of earmarks for their own states even as they posture against “pork.” They don’t seem to care about sweetheart deals and no-bid contracts awarded by executive agencies, which cost taxpayers much more than all earmarks combined.

Beltway journalists have been following the Republican script, focusing way too much on earmarks, even though they are “inconsequential”:

Not only do they represent less than one percent of the federal budget, eliminating them wouldn’t even reduce federal spending by even that tiny amount, or any amount at all, since earmarks by definition simply tag the spending in an already established pot of money, such as the Community Development Block Grant. The only question is whether decisions about funding individual projects should be made by Congress — through earmarks — or by a supposedly apolitical administrative process.

Furthermore, Jonathan Singer points out, earmarks simply don’t register when Americans are asked an open-ended question about their concerns.

I’m all for the reforms Obama announced yesterday, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that they will make a dent in government spending.

Although I think concerns about earmarks are exaggerated, I do want to examine the origin of Senator Tom Harkin’s $1.8 million earmark for studying odors from large hog confinements (CAFOs) in Iowa. It has become the poster child for Republican taunts about useless earmarks, prompting Harkin to defend himself (see here and here).

Follow me after the jump for more on why the federal government is funding this study. The earmark has its roots in unfortunate decisions that Iowa Democratic leaders made last year–with the enthusiastic support of statehouse Republicans and corporate ag groups.

The “prevailing wage” bill fiasco finally ended on Monday:

In what officials called the longest vote in Iowa Statehouse history, House Speaker Pat Murphy at 1:09 p.m. today closed the voting machine on the prevailing wage bill after 2 days, 19 hours and 14 minutes, declaring the bill had lost.

The vote was 50-48, one vote short of passage. But then House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, switched his vote to “no” — a procedural move that will allow him to bring the bill up for reconsideration later this session. So the final vote stood at 49-49.

After the jump I consider the two eternal political questions: “What is to be done?” and “Who is to blame?”

The “prevailing wage” bill, one of organized labor’s top legislative priorities, stalled in the Iowa House on Friday as Democrats were unable to find a 51st vote. Apparently the plan is to try to twist someone’s arm over the weekend:

House Speaker Pat Murphy will keep the voting machine open the entire weekend until Democrats can convince one of their dissenting members to change their vote. The move will mean Murphy will have to sleep in the chamber over the weekend.

“I want to be sure that taxpayer money is going to responsible Iowa employers who pay a decent wage, not employers who take advantage of people like we’ve seen in Postville and Atalissa,” Murphy said. “As the presiding officer of the House, I will stay in the Speaker’s chair and the voting machine will remain open until Monday. My goal is to get 51 votes and make sure we have good-paying jobs for middle class families.”

This post is not about the merits of the bill, which I support. (Click here for background on House file 333, which “would require that companies that contract for public projects pay workers wages and benefits comparable to private projects in the area.”)

This post is about why Democratic House leaders now face two unappealing outcomes: either they fail to pass a good bill supported by a key Democratic constituency, or they force one of their members into an embarrassing about-face that could affect the next election campaign.

Further thoughts on this mess are after the jump.

Details about Governor Chet Culver’s proposed 2010 budget will come on Wednesday morning, but today the governor’s office announced plans to impose 6.5 percent spending reductions on 205 state programs in next year’s budget. According to the Des Moines Register,

“We’re not going to tax our way out of a tight budget,” [Culver] said. […]

Culver will continue to ask lawmakers not to raise taxes. His budget will propose no tax increases, according to a copy of the governor’s remarks provided before a speech at the Iowa Business Council’s annual meeting.

Culver would like to protect certain areas from the full effect of the 6.5 percent cut: public safety, workforce development, human services, disaster relief, the teacher quality program, and early childhood education.

He will recommend that $200 million from the state’s cash reserves be used during the next budget year.

Via e-mail I received this joint statement from Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, Senate President Jack Kibbie, House Speaker Pat Murphy, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy:

“In these tough economic times, we appreciate Governor Culver and Lt. Governor Judge taking another step to ensure a balanced state budget by releasing this proposal.

“Because of the deepening national recession, this year will be very tough for many Iowans.  While Iowans had little to do with the mismanagement, greed, and financial carelessness that is causing the worst national economic situation since the Great Depression, we will be sharing in the pain.

“In the coming weeks and months, we are committed to:

·        Listening to our constituents

·        Working with the Governor, Lt. Governor and Republican legislators, and

·        Passing a fiscally responsible state budget that attempts to protect the progress we’re making on creating good-paying jobs, improving student achievement and teacher quality, and ensuring affordable health care.”

As you can see, the Democratic statehouse leaders did not unconditionally endorse the governor’s proposal or the principle of relying solely on spending cuts and tapping reserve funds to balance the budget. Some statehouse leaders have advocated raising the gas tax to help pay for road works.

As I have written before, I think it would be a big mistake to rule out any tax increases for next year.

As a political sound bite, it’s appealing for a governor to say, “I balanced the budget without raising a single tax.” But seriously, does Culver believe that Iowa has no obsolete tax loopholes that cost the state far more than they benefit the economy? The Iowa Policy Project has identified “wasteful, secret subsidies to big companies through the tax code.” (pdf file) How about asking those companies to share in the sacrifices that need to be made in the coming year?

Borrowing money to pay for certain infrastructure projects is reasonable, but a modest gas tax increase could reduce Iowa’s debt burden in future years without much pain. There may be other tax increases that make sense, if the funds raised could be linked to specific spending priorities that create jobs.

Politically, it’s risky for any governor to raise taxes, but Culver should balance those considerations against the risk that large spending cuts could prolong the recession:

Almost every single economist agrees, the last thing we want to do in a recession is slash government spending. We want, in fact, to increase that spending so that it is a counter-cyclical force to a deteriorating economy. So the question, then, is how to most safely generate the revenue to maintain or increase that spending. By  “most safely” I mean how to raise the revenue in a way that will minimize any negative economic impact. And the answer comes from Joseph Stiglitz:

 

“[T]ax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families.”

So, first and foremost, you don’t want dramatic spending cuts (beyond the usual rooting out of waste/fraud) and you don’t want to raise taxes on middle- and lower-income citizens who both need the money for necessities, and are the demographics that will most quickly spend money in a stimulative way. That leaves taxes on the super-rich, and Stiglitz – unlike anti-tax ideologues – has actual data to make his case.

For more information, see Budget Cuts or Tax Increases at the State Level:

Which is Preferable During an Economic Downturn?

I’m sure the Iowa Business Council will applaud Culver’s promise this evening to balance the budget with no tax hikes of any kind.

But economic considerations as well as basic fairness dictate that taxes should be on the table when the legislature drafts the 2010 budget. We should not let the fear of Republican-funded attack ads scare us away from sensible steps to increase revenues.

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).

Iowa voters handed Democrats the keys to run the state in 2006 and expanded the Democratic majority in the legislature this year. Now we have to prove that we are capable of governing well. Like almost every other state, Iowa is facing a deteriorating revenue base while demands for government services rise in a tough economy. Governor Chet Culver has already imposed two rounds of budget cuts, and more difficult choices will need to be made during the upcoming legislative session.

There is no perfect solution to the budget problem, but some proposals are so bad that they should be ruled out immediately.

Selling the Iowa Lottery is a terrible idea on every level.

I don’t often agree with Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen, but he is right about this:

Why would anyone want to sell their seed corn? And why would Iowa want to do something that may lead to expanded gambling? […]

We should privatize those governmental functions that cost the taxpayers, not the ones that make them a profit. […]

Since 1985, the Iowa lottery has netted state government $1 billion. Why would we turn some of those profits over to the gambling industry? It’s short-term thinking to give up $50 million in annual lottery profits for a lump sum now.

Also, this idea breaks faith with the promise made to Iowans when we started down the path of expanded gambling: If Iowa was going to get into legalized gambling, it was going to be heavily regulated.

Now we’re going to invite casino owners and others in the gambling industry to run our lottery? I’m sorry; the history of the gaming industry is just too checkered to put people from it in charge.

I have never bought a lottery ticket, and I hate to see the state encouraging people to throw their money away on the lottery. But now that Iowa has a lottery, we should keep the profits in state hands. Selling the lottery would bring in cash this year, but we’d need to replace the lost revenue in future budgets. It wouldn’t solve the problem, and it would make Democrats look incompetent.

By the way, State Auditor David Vaudt described the idea as “a very short-term Band-Aid approach.” The plan he described would involve

a lease of the lottery for up to 50 years in exchange for a lump sum payment of $200 million and some annual lease fee.

The lottery generates more than $50 million a year in profits for the state’s budget, and Vaudt predicted the lump sum would quickly evaporate.

Of course it would.

Vaudt may be the Republican nominee for governor in 2010, and he was warning about budget problems long before Culver and the Democratic leadership in the legislature started talking about budget cuts. Do we want to hand him another talking point on Democrats’ alleged fiscal irresponsibility?

If selling the lottery is bad policy and bad politics, why would anyone consider it? Here is Yepsen’s theory:

[T]he fact that Culver is entertaining sale of the lottery is an example of how big gambling money and influence slosh around Iowa politics.

The delegation that called on him to promote the idea included former Iowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell, who is a longtime friend, adviser and donor of Culver’s, and Jeff Link, a leading Democratic campaign strategist who also runs referenda campaigns for gambling interests.

Culver will need to show how selling the lottery is a good deal for taxpayers and not just his cronies and campaign contributors on the gambling industry’s payroll. Watch to see how much gambling money starts showing up in Culver’s re-election warchest – and in those of Democratic legislative leaders.

Democrats helped gambling interests last session by putting an unjustified exemption for casino floors into the smoking ban bill. If we care about workers’ health, why should casino employees be less protected than those who work in restaurants and bars?

Handing over the lottery would play right into Republican talking points about “special interests” controlling the Democratic Party.

Culver, House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal should nip this speculation in the bud by ruling out any plan to sell the lottery for short-term gain.

What else, if anything, should be “off the table” in the context of balancing the budget? I agree with Culver that going into debt should be considered.

I also believe that shared sacrifice requires some kind of action on the revenue side, such as closing tax loopholes that primarily benefit the well-off. When middle-income and lower-income Iowans bear the brunt of cuts in services, wealthier Iowans should also be asked to help bring the budget into balance. Some economists have shown that during an economic downturn, raising taxes on the wealthy does less harm to the economy than cutting government spending.

I understand the political arguments against raising taxes in any form now. There will be plenty of time to debate that later. For now, Democrat leaders should make the easy call: keep the Iowa Lottery in state hands.

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.