Bleeding Heartland - Front Page

Poll confirms Vander Plaats is GOP front-runner

desmoinesdem — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:32:10 GMT

The Iowa Republican blog continues to release results from the poll it commissioned on the 2010 governor's race. Last week we learned about Governor Chet Culver's approval, favorability and re-elect numbers. This week we've seen some numbers about same-sex marriage and a hypothetical rerun of the 2006 race. I'll have more to say about the wording of this poll's questions in a future post. (Todd Dorman identified a glaring problem with the marriage question here.)

In today's installment, Craig Robinson highlights results from a straightforward question:

Question: If the Republican primary for Governor was held today, who would you vote for between Chris Rants, Bob Vander Plaats, Paul McKinley, Rod Roberts, Jerry Behn, and Christian Fong?
Republican Primary Voters
Bob Vander Plaats: 46%
Don't Know: 27%
Chris Rants: 14%
Neither/Other: 5%
Paul McKinley: 3%
Christian Fong: 3%
Rod Roberts: 1%
Refused: 1%
Jerry Behn: 0.2%
(Republican Primary Voters N=394 - Margin of Error ?5.0%)

Join me after the jump for some early thoughts about Bob Vander Plaats' front-runner status.
Vander Plaats brings a lot of advantages to the GOP primary race. He is the only currently declared Republican candidate who has campaigned statewide before, during the 2002 primaries and as the GOP nominee for lieutenant governor in 2006. Vander Plaats kept in contact with many Republican activists by chairing Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign in Iowa. Also, Vander Plaats has held far more public events around the state this year than any other Republican candidate.

Robinson correctly notes that Vander Plaats' huge lead in this poll stems from his much greater name recognition among Iowa Republicans. John Deeth is ready to celebrate:

We won't even need my convention scenario; they're ready to nominate Vander Plaats outright. He's near 50% and the Not Vander Plaats vote is splintered. All Gay Marriage All The Time will turn off moderates and Culver wins comfortably.
If the GOP unites, quickly, behind one non-BVP candidate, that candidate might pull it off, but do they even want to?

Not so fast, Deeth. The Republican primary is more than 10 months away. At a comparable time during the last election cycle, Hillary Clinton had commanding poll leads over other Democratic presidential contenders nationally and in every state but Iowa. Several factors derailed the Clinton inevitability train. She was known to be a polarizing figure, sparking fear among many Democrats that she would lose the general election. Barack Obama was an unusually gifted candidate who raised a ton of money to build a phenomenally successful organization. John Edwards went hard negative on Clinton in the fall of 2007, generating a lot of unflattering media coverage of the front-funner.

Just as Clinton and her Democratic rivals had similar positions on most issues, the potential Republican candidates for Iowa governor all back the same economic and social agenda. They support tax cuts, spending cuts and an amendment to ban same-sex marriage; they oppose state borrowing, abortion rights and any legislation backed by labor unions.

With no clear distinction on the issues, other Republicans will need to show Vander Plaats is a poor candidate and/or would be a poor governor in order to overcome his early advantage in the primary.

The Iowa Republican will publish results tomorrow on how Culver fared head to head against Vander Plaats and Chris Rants in its poll. I know Democrats have done internal polling this year, but I haven't seen any of the results. I can tell you that I don't know a single Iowa Democrat who thinks Vander Plaats would have a chance against Culver.

I'm curious to see who will be the first Republican to question out loud whether Vander Plaats can win the general. Lately Iowa Republicans have focused on happy talk about Culver's sinking popularity and the public supposedly backing the GOP on all the important issues. Krusty Konservative's take today is typical:

I don't care who Iowa Republicans nominate, the general election campaign will be about one thing and one thing only, the job Chet Culver has done as the state's Governor. Deeth is 100% right about one thing: people's rage is always targeted to the person at the top. So if we are still dealing with huge budget deficits, unbalanced budgets, additional budget cuts, a bad economy, and a high unemployment rate, Governor Culver is going to have to deal with it.
The piss poor condition of our state is Chet Culver's unpopular war so to speak. What should disturb Democrats like Deeth is Culver's insistence that everything is hunky-dory. It's not. People are hurting all across Iowa, and Culver's agenda will make it worse.
I don't give a rip who Culver brings in to turn things around politically. The hole Culver has dug is just too vast. I doubt that there is any chance he can manage to get himself out of it before next November.

If Republican primary voters believe Culver will lose no matter what, they may as well nominate Vander Plaats. He's the most familiar candidate, and he says things they want to hear. He will stop gay marriage on day one as governor by issuing an executive order. He promises that Republicans can win in Iowa again by embracing "bold-color conservatism."

Who in the Republican field will dare to point out that Culver brings a lot of advantages to this race and might not be so easy to beat?

Some Republicans have argued that same-sex marriage can't be overturned by executive order, but they'll need to make this case a lot more forcefully to bring down Vander Plaats in the primary. It's not going to cut it to say an executive order would be a waste of time or lead to a dead end legally. Vander Plaats claims,

''I've got constitutional lawyers that back me up,'' he said.
When asked to identify them, he named former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia and Herb Titus, a Virginia attorney. He did not name any Iowans.
''My belief is that marriage is clearly reserved for one man and one woman,'' he said. ''I believe government grew out of marriage. Marriage didn't grow out of government.''

For the record: Huckabee and Gingrich are not attorneys. Herb Titus was the Constitution Party's vice presidential candidate in 1996. Most legal scholars reject the idea that a governor can overturn a Supreme Court ruling, although Titus is renowned among conservative Christians who make Steve King look reasonable by comparison.

Like I said, Vander Plaats is telling socially conservative Republicans what they want to hear. They don't like gay marriage, and he can put a stop to it. He's so confident that this is a winning message that he told Jeff Charis-Carlson of the Iowa City Press-Citizen, "I'm betting my whole campaign on that executive order."

To cut into Vander Plaats' early lead, someone needs to tell Republican voters hard truths. Culver is not as vulnerable as some people suggest and could win against the wrong GOP candidate. By his own admission, Vander Plaats would provoke a constitutional crisis by issuing an executive order to halt same-sex marriages.

Share any thoughts about the governor's race in this thread.

Sotomayor confirmation hearings thread

desmoinesdem — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:25:50 GMT

I only watched a small part of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings today. I lost patience after 10 or 15 minutes of Senator Orrin Hatch asking the same questions over and over, even though she'd answered them the first time.

David Waldman liveblogged the hearings for Congress Matters. Click here for the morning session and here for the afternoon session. Waldman provided a bonus post with video of one low point: "Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, complete with his best Foghorn Leghorn stammer, reaches astonishing new levels of asshattery."

Talking Points Memo compared Senator Lindsey Graham's aggressive questioning today with his "obsequious" use of his time for questioning Judge Sam Alito. In 2006,

[Graham] took his allotted time as an opportunity to apologize to Mrs. Alito, who was upset by what was perceived to be overly tough questioning of her husband [...].

Click here for video clips of Graham.

I read that Senator Chuck Grassley got a laugh out of the room in a strange way. An anti-abortion heckler disrupted the hearings during Grassley's questioning time. After the man had been escorted from the room, Grassley said, "People always say I have the ability to turn people on." It reminded me of Grassley's somewhat off-color remark to Senator Kent Conrad during a Budget Committee meeting in March.

This thread is for any comments about Tuesday's hearings or Judge Sotomayor's confirmation in general.

UPDATE: Hilarious diary by Daily Kos user Upper West on "Sotomayor's Woody Allen/Marshall McLuhan Moment."

Follow Grassley's advice to find affordable health care

desmoinesdem — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:55:05 GMT

Health Care for America Now, in conjunction with the Iowa Citizen Action Network, is running an online ad that links to a "job application" citizens can fill out to request a position with Senator Chuck Grassley's office.

You may recall that Grassley told a constituent at a recent town-hall meeting to "go work for the federal government" if he wanted the same health insurance plan the senator enjoys:

Excerpt from an ICAN press release, which I have posted in full after the jump:

Senator Grassley, whose health care bills are picked up by taxpayers, pays $356.59 a month for health insurance. The most he pays when visiting a doctor or hospital is $300. His "Let Them Eat Cake" attitude ignores the plight of working families, farmers, and small business owners in Iowa who don't have adequate, affordable health care and are going broke trying to keep up with insurance premiums and medical costs.
"Polls show that the majority of Iowans, like the majority of people in America, want health care reform that achieves quality, affordable health care for all," said Betty Ahrens, Executive Director, Iowa Citizen Action Network. "Senator Grassley keeps blocking progress in the Senate Finance Committee. He talks about bipartisanship but is showing no intention of compromise, and after his comments in Waukon, we know just how out of touch Senator Grassley is with the real struggles of his constituents in Iowa. Everyone here should see this video, and we will do what we can to make sure Senator Grassley knows his "Get a Job Like Mine" solution to the health care crisis is unacceptable."

Excerpt from the "job application":

I work hard, and I pay my taxes, but I cannot keep up with health care costs that are rising four times faster than wages if I can even get health care at all, what with all the denials of needed care that my insurance company throws in my way. Meanwhile, Members of Congress get health care that's affordable, and nobody is going to deny care to an elected official!
Senator Grassley has so graciously offered to provide me health care as good as he has if I work for the federal government, and so I am applying for a position in Senator Grassley's office in the hope he will make good on that promise. If he cannot, the only hope I have to obtain quality, affordable health care for me and my family is if Senator Grassley drops his opposition and supports real health care reform - reform that gives me a choice of public or private insurance, make care affordable, and delivers good benefits.

Volunteers will deliver the "job applications" to Grassley's office next week. Although he's not going to change his mind about a public health insurance option, we can show how out of touch he is with Iowans.

Fortunately, a group of Senate Democrats are strongly committed to the public option, dimming prospects for a bipartisan compromise on health care that would please Grassley.
ICAN press release of July 13, 2009:

WATCH VIDEO & APPLY FOR YOUR FEDERAL JOB HERE: HealthCareforAmericaNow.org/Job
Des Moines, Iowa - Iowa Citizen Action Network (ICAN) as part of Health Care for America Now (HCAN) - the nation's largest health care campaign - launched a new online ad in Iowa today taking Senator Charles Grassley to task for saying if Iowans want better health care, they should get a job like his. The ad appears on Iowa media websites and blogs and clicks through to a "federal job application" which constituents will deliver to the Senator's office next week.
The action is in response to Senator Grassley's remarks at a town hall meeting in Waukon, Iowa on June 30, 2009. Grassley - the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee - had an exchange with a constituent who asked why he couldn't have the same health insurance the Senator has. When the voter pressed Senator Grassley for more details about his health insurance plan - many being details the Senator was unable to answer - Senator Grassley suggested the voter get a job with John Deere if he wanted better health care.
John Deere has had to let go of hundreds of employees in Iowa alone so far this year. This shows that Senator Grassley is out of touch with Iowa and with what's best for the people of his state who - especially in times of economic difficulties - need health care they can count on, including health coverage they can afford and the choice of a public health insurance option.
Pressed again on why the constituent couldn't have the same health care coverage the Senator has, Senator Grassley snapped, "You can! Go work for the federal government!"
WATCH THE VIDEO HERE: HealthCareforAmericaNow.org/Job
Senator Grassley, whose health care bills are picked up by taxpayers, pays $356.59 a month for health insurance. The most he pays when visiting a doctor or hospital is $300. His "Let Them Eat Cake" attitude ignores the plight of working families, farmers, and small business owners in Iowa who don't have adequate, affordable health care and are going broke trying to keep up with insurance premiums and medical costs.
"Polls show that the majority of Iowans, like the majority of people in America, want health care reform that achieves quality, affordable health care for all," said Betty Ahrens, Executive Director, Iowa Citizen Action Network. "Senator Grassley keeps blocking progress in the Senate Finance Committee. He talks about bipartisanship but is showing no intention of compromise, and after his comments in Waukon, we know just how out of touch Senator Grassley is with the real struggles of his constituents in Iowa. Everyone here should see this video, and we will do what we can to make sure Senator Grassley knows his "Get a Job Like Mine" solution to the health care crisis is unacceptable."
Concerned Iowans will deliver the "applications" collected online through the ad to Senator Grassley next week. Application signatures are expected to grow considerably as MoveOn.org and Democracy for America plan to contact their members to "apply for a federal job" later this week.
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
Constituent 1: I pay about $3,700 a year for a $1,000 deductible and $5,000 maximum deposit [?]. My question is-if I'm right on this-why is your insurance so much cheaper than my insurance and better than my insurance? I think that I should have the same insurance that you have-health insurance.
Moderator: Senator Grassley?
Con. 1: Am I right on that? About how much you pay?
Sen. Grassley: I can tell you what percentage I pay. I don't--I pay 32%--
Con. 1: Thirty-two percent?
Sen. Grassley: Of the costs, yes.
Con. 1: Of the costs?
Sen. Grassley: And if you want a better insurance policy, go work for John Deere because they don't pay anything.
Con. 1: I'm asking you. I don't care about John Deere! I don't work for John Deere!
Sen. Grassley: And I'm answering your question! I just answered it! So why would you yell at me, "Why didn't I answer your question?" I said I pay 32%.
Con. 1: OK.
Sen. Grassley: Who's next?
Con. 1: How much deductible?
Sen. Grassley: I don't know that but I can get you that information but I don't carry-
Constituent 2: Senator I think you're on the same plan I am and I think it's-- we have a $250 deductible, 20% co-pay.
Sen. Grassley: [to Con. 1] Why don't you ask the people at the Farm Service Administration because we have the same plan federal employees have?
Con. 2: Right.
Con. 1: How come I can't have the same thing you have?
Sen. Grassley: You can! Go work for the federal government!

Northey passes on governor's race

desmoinesdem — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:58:16 GMT

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey has been saying for months that he was leaning toward running for re-election rather than for governor in 2010. On Saturday he made it official.

I announced to the crowd at Bill's BBQ Bash that I will run for re-election as Iowa Secy of Ag in 2010.

I've long felt that Northey would be a long-shot for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, having gone on record supporting a gas tax increase. Even if Northey won the GOP nomination, I think that with no base of support in eastern Iowa population centers, he would have been quite an underdog against Governor Chet Culver.

I'm curious to see whether Northey continues to employ the high-profile campaign staffers he hired in May, or whether they will jump to a different Republican gubernatorial contender.

Northey will be heavily favored against Francis Thicke, the most likely Democratic candidate for secretary of agriculture. Thicke is highly qualified and articulate, however, and has the potential to energize parts of the Democratic base who are dissatisfied with Culver and our statehouse leaders.

Now that Northey has ruled out running for governor, he will be able to focus more on his current job. I wonder whether anything will come of his working group on farmland protection. Northey announced plans to create it last August during his keynote address to the annual meeting of 1000 Friends of Iowa. However, the working group has only met once, in December 2008.

Iowa has been losing prime farmland at an alarming rate in the last few decades. Northey could do a real service for our country's food security if he would identify and advocate for some farmland protection strategies that have been successful in other states.

UPDATE: Northey is searching for ways to save money at the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, which was allocated about 15 percent less in the 2010 budget than in the fiscal year that just ended.

More details on extra help for Iowa's unemployed

desmoinesdem — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:35:05 GMT

I recently discussed how Iowa is fully utilizing federal stimulus funds to expand unemployment benefits, unlike many other states, which are leaving all or part of that money on the table.

The Iowa Senate highlighted steps taken during the 2009 session to extend unemployment benefits, which went into effect on July 1:

? Improving and expanding services for unemployed Iowa workers. By making reforms to Iowa's unemployment insurance program, our state will receive $70.8 million from the federal government to extend benefits for unemployed workers in training programs. It makes sense to support Iowans who are trying to upgrade their skills by attending community college and other types of training.
? Paying unemployment claims for replacement workers who become unemployed when Iowa National Guard and Reserve members return to their local jobs after active duty. When our soldiers come home, the state should help the replacement workers without penalizing employers.
? Providing $18.9 million to workforce field offices across Iowa. Iowa has 55 workforce centers, which provide job counseling, training, placement and other assistance. These services help laid off workers move forward and help local businesses find the employees they need.

For more details, read the full text of Senate File 197 here.

Note: the $70.8 million in federal funding for expanded unemployment benefits came from the economic stimulus bill, or American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. All House Republicans, including Iowa's Tom Latham and Steve King, voted against that bill, as did almost all Senate Republicans, including Chuck Grassley.

Grassley lectures Sotomayor on judge's role

desmoinesdem — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:39:32 GMT

UPDATE: Sotomayor discussed her judicial philosophy in her opening statement to the committee. Talking Points Memo posted excerpts from all the senators' opening statements.

The Senate Judiciary Committee began Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings today, and Radio Iowa has Senator Chuck Grassley's opening statement. He gave quite the lecture about "judicial restraint" as opposed to "President Obama's 'empathy' standard."

An excerpt is after the jump, along with some analysis of Grassley's selective concern about empathy and so-called activist judges.
Excerpt from Senator Chuck Grassley's opening statement:

The Constitution requires that judges be free from personal politics, feelings and preferences. President Obama's "empathy" standard appears to encourage judges to make use of their personal politics, feelings and preferences. This is contrary to what most of us understand to be the role of the judiciary.
Judge Sotomayor, President Obama clearly believes you measure up to his "empathy" standard. That worries me. I've reviewed your record and have concerns about your judicial philosophy. For example, in one speech, you doubted that a judge could ever be truly impartial. In another speech, you argued it'd be a "disservice both to the law and society" for judges to disregard personal views shaped by one's "differences as women or men of color." In yet another speech, you proclaimed that the court of appeals is where "policy is made." Your "wise Latina" comment starkly contradicts a statement by Justice O'Connor that "a wise old woman and a wise old man would eventually reach the same conclusion in a case." These statements go directly to your views of how a judge should use his or her background and experiences when deciding cases. Unfortunately, I fear they don't comport with what I and many others believe is the proper role of a judge or an appropriate judicial method.

Notice how Grassley quotes from Judge Sotomayor's speeches rather than from the more than 3,000 rulings she has written or joined. That's typical of Sotomayor's critics. They refuse to acknowledge, for example, that in nearly 100 race-related cases she has not shown unusual sympathy for litigants claiming discrimination.

I don't remember Grassley raising similar concern about Justice Sam Alito's empathy, even though Alito acknowledged during his confirmation hearings that he thinks about his own family's experiences when considering immigration or discrimination cases:

ALITO: [...] Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."
When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

As for Grassley's concerns about "judicial restraint," Big Tent Democrat (a constitutional lawyer) shows in this post that the Ricci decision

is an act of judicial restraint. The Second Circuit panel, which included Judge Sonia Sotomayor, deferred to a decision of the elected officials of the City of New Haven. Whether the decision was correct or incorrect, it was decidedly the opposite of judicial activism.

On the contrary, the five conservative Supreme Court judges who overturned the lower court ruling in Ricci were engaging in judicial activism.

I'll write more on the Sotomayor hearings later this week. Senate Republicans know that they don't have the votes to keep this highly-qualified, moderate judge off the Supreme Court, but they will try to damage her reputation (and by extension Obama's). Their phony concern about "activism" and "empathy" should not go unchallenged.

If you can't meet the standards, evade the standards

desmoinesdem — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:42:48 GMT

The Des Moines Register's Clark Kauffman reported Monday on some outside-the-box thinking by an assisted living center in Dubuque that has been fined repeatedly for providing inadequate care. I wouldn't be happy if one of my loved ones were among the center's 116 residents.

More details are after the jump.

Iowa's largest assisted living center has found a loophole in the law that will enable it to avoid all future government oversight and regulation even though it has been repeatedly penalized for poor quality care.
The Dubuque Retirement Community, which is currently home to 116 seniors, is giving up its state license to operate as an assisted living center. The home's owner, Assisted Living Concepts, plans to operate the building as if it were an apartment complex subject only to landlord-tenant laws.
Residents of the home who are dependent and need medical assistance will be able to stay in the building and pay for 24-hour health care provided by Swan Home Health, a wholly owned subsidiary of Assisted Living Concepts.
By separating the housing from the health care services, the company will be able to provide the same care to the same seniors in the same building, but without a license and all of the regulations that go with it. That means state health inspectors and the long-term-care ombudsman won't be visiting the home and checking on the quality of care that's being delivered.

The Dubuque facility has only been open for two years, and Kauffman lists the various fines it has received for "problems with insufficient staffing, food service, medication errors and other issues."

In addition to evading future inspections, the Dubuque Retirement Community will be able to accept new residents again. It had to stop doing so in April when state inspectors put its license on "conditional status," according to Kauffman.

Laurie Bebo, CEO of Assisted Living Concepts, claims the Dubuque Retirement Community's staff, residents and families are happy about the changes. (Kauffman doesn't quote any staffers, and the only resident he quotes was in the process of moving out because managers had raised his monthly rent by 33 percent.)

[Bebo] said the impetus for the change was a desire to let residents remain at the facility longer, past the point where their medical needs would otherwise force a move to a nursing home. By giving up its license, she said, the home won't be subject to assisted living regulations that dictate when its residents must move to a nursing home.

So, a center that already can't provide adequate staffing, food and medications for its residents will now be able to keep collecting rent from sicker, less-capable people who would otherwise have had to move to nursing homes. How generous of Assisted Living Concepts to "let" those people spend more time at the Dubuque Retirement Community.

Naturally, representatives of the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals are expressing concern about the lack of oversight. State Representative Chuck Isenhart of Dubuque told Kauffman that "he has asked the inspections department to monitor the situation and report back to lawmakers if they feel legislative action is needed."

I don't put high odds on the Iowa Legislature closing the loophole that made the Dubuque facility's switcheroo possible. During the 2009 session, Iowa lawmakers unanimously approved a bill sought by the nursing home industry, even though inspectors and advocates for the elderly opposed the measure. Legislators didn't heed concerns about letting facilities avoid fines for substandard care then--why start now?

Of course, I would love to be proven wrong.

The Insurer's Drop List keeps growing ...

jamess — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:08:44 GMT

As you may have learned last week from LA Times reporting, and from Congressional Hearings, that Insurance companies routinely try to drop your Insurance policy, if you happen to get one of their "Hot List" illnesses.

Getting any of these illnesses, can Trigger the Insurance Company's "Cancellation Police", into action.

Denial Specialists scour your medical history, and cross-check that against your application, looking for any reason to Cancel, or rescind, your Insurance policy, thus saving the Insurance Company untold thousands in future payments for your expected Care. Denial Specialists, of course, earn bonuses for each Policy they cancel. What a system!

Those 4 illnesses (out of the 1000+ such Triggers) previously disclosed are:

breast cancer, high blood pressure, lymphoma and pregnancy

Well thanks to the tough questioning of the Oversight and Investigations Sub Committee, at least 2 more Triggering Illnesses have been disclosed, as indicated in the video and transcript of the Hearing:

The 2 other newly disclosed "Drop List" illnesses include:

ovarian cancer, and brain cancer
Here's the Congressional Video, where real Reps grill some Insurance Execs, dead-set on defending their perfectly "clinical" Cancellation policies:

Rep. Stupak Questions Witnesses On Rescission Triggers

Video Clip

Here are the specifics of that "Hot Seat" Hearing:

Terminations of Individual Health Policies by Insurance Companies Hearings
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
June 16, 2009

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing entitled "Terminations of Individual Health Policies by Insurance Companies" on Tuesday, June 16, 2009 in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing examined the practice of "post-claims underwriting," which occurs when insurance companies cancel individual health insurance policies after providers submit claims for medical services rendered.

Subcommittee website

Unfortunately the Panel Questioning portion of the Hearing and its Transcript is not on that Congressional website yet.

Fortunately however, after much searching, I finally found the Transcript elsewhere, which includes Stupak's Questioning from that Video Clip, plus other choice dialogs.

Here are some of the Grade-A excerpts, from the Hearing Transcript:

Date: 06/16/2009 - Location: Washington, DC
Statements Hearing Of The Oversight And Investigations Subcommittee Of The House Energy And Commerce Committee -

Terminations Of Individual Health Policies By Insurance Companies
Chaired By: Bart Stupak

REP. STUPAK: [...] Now, each of you provided to the committee information that relates to certain medical conditions that automatically triggers an investigation in the possible grounds of rescission.
Mr. Sassi, I left off with you. You had 1,400 different conditions that automatically triggers investigation.
Mr. Hamm, on behalf of Assurant there are 2,000 conditions that trigger investigation that you provide to the committee, these include breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and brain cancer.
Why does cancer trigger investigation?
[...]
MR. HAMM: I will answer it. What triggers the investigation are the types of medical conditions of a chronic nature where there is a high probability that the condition would have preexisted at the time of the application. It is not based on the cost of the claim, it's based on the medical condition. In fact, the people that make the rescission decision are not aware of the cost of claim. It's all about the information gathered --
REP. STUPAK: If it's the medical conditions -- if it's the medical condition, then before you sign them up why don't you get all the medical records, why don't you find it then? Why do you wait and until there is -- there is a claim?
MR. HAMM: If we were to receive all the medical records at the time of application, that would delay the process significantly, delaying people's access to health care and would add a tremendous amount of costs to the product --
REP. STUPAK: Well --
MR. HAMM: -- the vast majority of applicants provide all the information that's asked for at the time of application.
REP. STUPAK: So it's a cost issue.
MR. HAMM: It's --
REP. STUPAK: It's too costly to get the medical records?
MR. HAMM: It would add to the -- yes, it would add to the premiums that our customers would pay by a significant amount.
REP. STUPAK: So what does it cost $40, to get medical records?
MR. HAMM: I'm not familiar with the costs. But it would also delay the process.
REP. STUPAK: But isn't it better to delay the process to make sure a person is insured as opposed to pulling them when they are going through cancer like Mr. Raddatz?
MR. HAMM: The vast majority of our customers provide the appropriate information.
REP. STUPAK: So did Mr. Raddatz, but you still denied him coverage, right?
MR. HAMM: I unfortunately cannot comment on that particular case.
REP. STUPAK: Mr. Collins, I'm asking the same question of United. You insisted that you also use a computerized system to identify cases to automatically investigate for possible rescission. But there is no one at your company who knew how the computer decides which file should be reviewed. So is it the case that United has put the decision of which patients will have their health care treatment interrupted by a rescission investigation in the hands of a computer that no one understands?
MR. COLLINS: No sir that is not true. I haven't really been privy to the discussions between my staff and your staff on this issue. We've been trying to come to an understanding about how to best provide the data in a format that's easily understandable --
REP. STUPAK: Well --
MR. COLLINS: -- but that means to say --
REP. STUPAK: But can you tell us what conditions the computer considers for a possible rescission investigation?
MR. COLLINS: No single factor is used in our process to trigger an investigation. So we look at -- the system looks as it's screening claims that come in at the effective date of the policy, the effective date of the procedure, the severity, the type of service, and the diagnosis code those are all factors that go into the algorithm that pulls cases out for --
REP. STUPAK: Now, the algorithm, no one from your company could tell us. Will you commit to us today to produce whatever witnesses or documents that are necessary to explain your algorithm, your computer selection process? Could you do that? Will you commit to do that for us?
MR. COLLINS: Yes, sir.
REP. STUPAK: We are still trying to figure it out.

Transcript Link

Nothing like having an incomprehensible Computer Screening Program, "standing in between" you and your Doctor!

==========

REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Today we're going to hear the results of a year-long congressional investigation into abuses in the individual insurance market. [...]
Overall, what we found is that the market for individual health insurance in the United States is fundamentally flawed. One of the biggest problems is that most states allow individual health insurance policies to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions. So if you lose your job and you can't qualify for a government program like Medicare or Medicaid, it's nearly impossible to get health insurance if you're sick or have an illness.
This creates a perverse incentive. In the United States, insurance companies compete based on who is best at avoiding people who need life-saving health care. [...]
But what we found is that when people with individual policies become ill and then they submit their claims for expensive treatments, then insurance companies launch an investigation. They scour the policyholder's original insurance application and the person's medical records to find any discrepancy, any omission, or any misstatement that could allow them to cancel the policy. They try to find something -- anything -- so they can say that this individual was not truthful in that original application.
It doesn't have to even relate to the medical care the person is seeking, and often it doesn't. You might need chemotherapy for lymphoma, but then when the insurance companies find that your coverage was based on a failure to disclose gallstones, well, they want to cancel your policy, after the fact.
[...]
It may come as surprise to most people, but the insurance companies believe they are entitled to cancel the policies even when these omissions or discrepancies are completely unintentional. And they believe that they have the right to cancel policies even when someone else, like an agent who sold the policy, was responsible for the discrepancy in the first place. In addition, they can terminate coverage not just for the primary policyholder, but they go to terminate the policies for the entire family, including innocent children who did nothing wrong.
Some insurance companies launch these investigations every single time a policyholder becomes ill with a certain condition. In other words, if you happen to have ovarian cancer you should prepare -- be prepared to be investigated. It's the same with other conditions such as leukemia.
In the written statement for today the three insurance companies downplay the significance of these practices, arguing that rescissions are relatively rare. But these three companies save more than $300 million over the past five years as a result of rescissions. And I'm sure they view this amount as significant. More importantly however, these terminations are extremely significant to the tens of thousands of people who needed healthcare and couldn't get it during these five years because their policies were rescinded.

Transcript Link

"There ought to be a Law to stop this stuff!" ... Hmmmm?

==========

REP. JOE BARTON (R-TX): [...] The letter further informed Ms. Beaton that an investigation into her claim for benefits, when the company had thoroughly reviewed her medical records that she submitted when she applied for the coverage, and that they discovered that she had misinformed them on several pieces of information.
One of them was that she didn't list her weight accurately. And the other, that she failed to disclose some medication that she had taken for a preexisting heart condition. The record will show that she was not taking that medication at the time that she submitted her initial application for coverage.
Robin's claim in June of 2008 was not for weight control, it was not for a heart condition. It was for cancer surgery, double mastectomy for breast cancer.
Yet her policy was rescinded three days before that surgery was scheduled to take place. It was bad enough that she had to deal with the trauma of breast cancer. But to be denied coverage right before potentially life-saving surgery, quite frankly is something that no human being should have to undergo.

Transcript Link

Great "bed-side manner" those Insurance Giants have, eh?

I bet Ms. Beaton is still raving about that wonderful "form letter" she got!

(We wish her well, sometimes, that's all you have left, wishes ...)

==========

REP. STUPAK: Well, thank you.
And thank you all for your testimony. We'll go to questions.
Mr. Sassi, let me ask you this because you're -- you threw a bunch of statistics at us, but I was just looking at the State of California alone and it seems to me, if I remember correctly, in July of 2008 Anthem Blue Cross, which is a subsidiary of WellPoint, paid a $10,000 fine and had to reinstate 1,770 rescinded policies. And in February of '09, once again, California Anthem Blue Cross, again, one of your subsidiaries, had to pay a $15 million fine and reinstate over 2,300 rescinded policies. And then another settlement, ($)5 million, and another 450. So it seems like in the last year you've had to reverse 4,500 rescissions and pay a fine of $30 million just in one state. Is that true?
MR. SASSI: I don't believe the numbers are exactly accurate, but the premise is accurate. The issue of rescission first surfaced in the media particularly in California, [...]
MR. SASSI: -- or individuals enter into settlements for a variety of reasons.
REP. STUPAK: Let me ask you this. And I'll ask all three of you, why don't you just vet these policies before you ever collect a premium? Why don't you just go through these policies and make sure there's no problems with it before you insure the people? Only one state requires you to do that and that's Connecticut, right?
MR. SASSI: Chairman, we do investigate. The applicants are -- we have very rigorous underwriting requirements. As we review an applicant's application, we rely on the applicants to be truthful and completing.
[...]
MR. SASSI: -- there were over 16,000 investigations triggered, 92 percent of those were dismissed.

REP. STUPAK: Okay.
MR. SASSI: And no action was taken --
REP. STUPAK: Right. But why do you have 14 different conditions which trigger an investigation now? What's the common theme amongst these 1,400 that would trigger an investigation?
MR. SASSI: I would say there is no common theme other than these are conditions that had the applicant disclosed their knowledge of a condition at the time of initial underwriting. We may have taken a different underwriting action. And so that is what the investigation really is about is to determine did the applicant have the condition? Did they know about the condition?
REP. STUPAK: I thought you said you did pre-screening before, you screen them before.
MR. SASSI: We do, but in many of these applications --
REP. STUPAK: Well, then why would you have to go back? If you screened them before and there wasn't a problem, then why would you have a list of 1,400 different conditions that triggers investigation? If you prescreen, if your prescreening is good, you wouldn't need a list of 1,400, would you?

Transcript Link

So I guess, it's OK to Mr. Sassi, that ONLY 1280 of his patients were left in the lurch --

Since they were actually gunning for 16,000 of them?

1280 -- no BIG Deal -- it's only a number!

==========

Well, as noted in the next blurb, at least Congress is shocked, about it all, about this cold-hearted Practice of Rescission, once a person gets sick. Hopefully their amazement will turn into finally Standing UP for the People, for a change!

Haven't we had enough of weasely Executive Testimony, who never admit guilt, but who are always quick to excuse their own lies and their reversal of "good faith" contracts? Haven't we have enough of Executive Excuses, (ala Tobacco Execs) which claiming the shield of it's just "marketing facts of life" in today's ruthless "competitive world"? If they didn't play hardball, they couldn't "survive"! (Say ... WHAT about the Survival of their Patients!?)

Hah! Those pencil-pushing Execs, should try competing with a Public Option plan, so that they can learn first hand, what Care is All About! They should be "encouraged by market forces", to become the enablers, NOT the deniers, of Health Care.

It's True! Health Insurers Tell Congress They Cancel Policies of Sick Patients
July 6 2009

Rescinding health policies of 20,000 people in past five years saved health insurers $300 million
Patient testimony at the congressional hearing told a different story. Patients revealed that, time after time, insurance companies dropped people for technicalities, honest mistakes, or inadvertent omissions.
For example, because a Texas nurse failed to disclose a visit to the dermatologist for acne, her insurance coverage was dropped when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. A Los Angeles woman was dropped for failing to report a weight-loss medication she no longer takes and because of irregular menstruation.
To the utter amazement of the congressional committee, the health insurance executives refused to commit to limiting rescission to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud.
The committee discovered that health insurers target up to 1,400 expensive conditions or illnesses. These include breast cancer, high blood pressure, lymphoma and pregnancy. It was also revealed that employees at these health insurers are rated in performance reviews for high-dollar rescissions.
Both democrats and republicans condemned these practices. Rep Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), said, "No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact." Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) added, "This is precisely why we need a public [insurance plan] option."

http://www.darkdaily.com/healt...

Thank goodness, that such Congressional Oversight, is finally happening, even if much too slowly!

Now if only there were some equally serious Congressional follow through, on their outrage!

Insurance Companies that Deny Care, after-the-fact, only to save a buck, should be a criminal offense -- a breach of a "good faith" contract, with the People they supposedly serve.

But alas, this is the legacy, that "Compassionate Conservatism" has given us. No Regulations, and No Watchdogs... Only Millions of Victims ...

Let's hope that this legacy finally ends here.

Let's hope the Insurers, DON'T manage to "Cancel Our Voices" in DC, once again -- like they can somehow, always manage to do; somehow, always manage to AFFORD!

A lot of Republicans owe Pelosi an apology

desmoinesdem — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:00:00 GMT

In May a chorus of Republicans inside and outside Congress made hay out of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claim that the Central Intelligence Agency had not revealed its waterboarding policy during a 2002 briefing. Many demanded an investigation into the allegations. Minority leader John Boehner said of Pelosi,

"She made this claim and it's her responsibility to either put forward evidence that they did in fact lie to her, which would be a crime, or she needs to retract her statements and apologize."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was among the Republican talking heads who demanded Pelosi's resignation. According to Gingrich's, Pelosi's assertion was "stunning" and "dishonest."

Representative Steve "10 Worst" King (IA-05) accused Pelosi of "actively undermining our national security" and called for suspending the speaker's security clearance:

Speaker Pelosi has accused the CIA of committing a federal crime - lying to Congress. The CIA and other American defense and intelligence agencies cannot trust Nancy Pelosi with our national secrets, let alone our national security, until this matter is resolved. If true, there has been a serious violation of federal law. If false, American national security requires a new Speaker of the House. The severity of Speaker Pelosi's accusations leaves no middle ground, and her security clearance should be suspended pending investigation.

Now we have learned that

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency's director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday. [...]
Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

So not only was Congress misled, CIA staff did not even inform Panetta about the program until four months after he was sworn in. Charles Lemos is absolutely right that it's time for a special prosecutor to investigate this matter.

Republicans who trashed Pelosi in May and June owe her an apology, but like Rude Pundit, I'm not holding my breath. They've always been easygoing about Bush administration law-breaking while throwing fits about Democrats who criticized it.

In Retrospect: Who is Really Un-American??

RDemocrat — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:23:15 GMT

Crossposted from Hillbilly Report.

You know, one thing I get so sick of hearing from all the right-wing loons is how Progressives like myself and many of you are un-American. We have our patriotism questioned on a daily basis. Right-Wing idiots on the radio rail about how we do not believe in the Constitution and the values this country was founded on. Well, details that have emerged in the last couple of days show that the Bush Administration and their shameless enablers in the Republican Party and the former Republican Congress are the ones who really do not believe in the Constitution, or the freedoms granted by it.

Despite all the accusations against Progressives and our ideals and candidates the sad truth of the matter is that Conservatives by blindly following the worst President in American history did more to shred the Constitution and the protections contained therein than any Democrat or Progressive would have ever dreamed.

Now, most Progressives were dead-set against granting such an ideologue, and reckless irresponsible man such as George W. Bush with unprecedented powers not granted him by our Constitution because of his own incompetence in stopping the terrorist attacks on 9-11. We had serious problems with rolling back generations of Constitutional protections for anyone. For that, our patriotism was questioned and we were branded as cowards, or worse yet traitors.

Details now not only should scare all Americans half to death but show that Progressives who opposed Bush, Cheney and all their enablers within our government were not only patriotic in their actions, but were dead-on right about the Republican shredding of the Constitution through their own failures and propoganda.

A team of Inspectors General has determined that the true unpatriotic and un-American actions came from the Republican side of the aisle and were much more widespread than we had feared:

WASHINGTON - Not enough relevant officials were aware of the size and depth of an unprecedented surveillance program started under President George W. Bush, let alone signed off on it, a team of federal inspectors general found.
The Bush White House pulled in a great quantity of information far beyond the warrantless wiretapping previously acknowledged, the IGs reported. They questioned the legal basis for the effort but shielded almost all details on grounds they're still too secret to reveal.
The report, mandated by Congress last year and delivered to lawmakers Friday, also says it's unclear how much valuable intelligence the program has yielded.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...

These Inspectors General found not only that the Bush Administration was spying on an unprecedented level, but that these programs were not sufficiently monitored and leads generated had nothing to do with terrorism:

The report, compiled by five inspectors general, refers to "unprecedented collection activities" by U.S. intelligence agencies under an executive order signed by Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Just what those activities involved remains classified, but the IGs pointedly say that any continued use of the secret programs must be "carefully monitored."
Most of the intelligence leads generated under what was known as the "President's Surveillance Program" did not have any connection to terrorism, the report said. But FBI agents told the authors that the "mere possibility of the leads producing useful information made investigating the leads worthwhile."

Now, I do not know what FBI agents found this activity "worthwhile" but they should immediately be dismissed. Just like the failed Bush Administration they seem to think that shredding the Constitution is all right as long as it may make their jobs a little easier. I thought their job was to protect the Constitution, not shred it.

Even scarier is that it appears that only one person got to determine who could know about programs that desperately needed oversight by elected officials and of course, the Bush Administration did not admit to most of the spying they did:

The IG report said that Bush signed off on both the warrantless wiretapping and other top-secret operations shortly after Sept. 11 in a single presidential authorization. All the programs were periodically reauthorized, but except for the acknowledged wiretapping, they "remain highly classified."
Former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made a terse reference to other classified programs in an August 2007 letter to Congress. But Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said that when she had asked Gonzales two years earlier if the government was conducting any other undisclosed intelligence activities, he denied it.

Despite the claims of the Bush Administration it appears that these programs had little to do with counter-terrorism:

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden - the primary architect of the program - told the report's authors that the surveillance was "extremely valuable" in preventing further al-Qaida attacks. Hayden said the operations amounted to an "early warning system" allowing top officials to make critical judgments and carefully allocate national security resources to counter threats.
Information gathered by the secret program played a limited role in the FBI's overall counterterrorism efforts, according to the report. Very few CIA analysts even knew about the program and therefore were unable to fully exploit it in their counterterrorism work, the report said.

This report also shows that the Bush Administration ignored the illegal nature of these programs by interpreting the law how they wanted it to be, not how it was written:

The report questioned the legal advice used by Bush to set up the program, pinpointing omissions and questionable legal memos written by Yoo, in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. The Justice Department withdrew the memos years ago.
The report says Yoo's analysis approving the program ignored a law designed to restrict the government's authority to conduct electronic surveillance during wartime, and did so without fully notifying Congress. And it said flaws in Yoo's memos later presented "a serious impediment" to recertifying the program.
Yoo insisted that the president's wiretapping program had only to comply with Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure - but the report said Yoo ignored the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which had previously overseen federal national security surveillance.

But to me, the most disturbing part is that although Democrats in the House seem to want to bring more oversight to these operations the White House seems determined to keep them going without oversight:

In the wake of the new report, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt, renewed his call Friday for a formal nonpartisan inquiry into the government's information-gathering programs.
House Democrats are pressing for legislation that would expand congressional access to secret intelligence briefings, but the White House has threatened to veto it.

Now, we all know that the Bush Administration will be remembered as a dark stain on freedom and American history. We all know they saw the Constitution as toilet paper, and nothing that should have stopped them from doing whatever the hell they wanted to do. What is quite perplexing to me is why our current administration would see fit to veto a bill that would give the Congress oversight over these programs.

Unlike the Republicans, we simply cannot fall behind a leader of our party blindly and follow him like sheeple no matter what is done. We need Congressional oversight over these programs no matter whether Republicans or Democrats are in the White House. I for one want no part in the shredding of our Constitution and the robbing of American freedoms. That is Republican territory.

What we desperately need is for the Congress to enact legislation that allows our elected Representatives to provide oversight over these programs which the Republicans were all to eager to just trust their failed "god-king" on. Every Administration is subject to the protections of the Constitution no matter what letter is behind their names.

The Obama Administration would do well to bear this in mind:

Although the report documents Bush administration policies, its fallout could be a problem for the Obama administration if it inherited any or all of the still-classified operations.

We simply cannot afford to inherit facism and not end it.

Did wholesalers' conspiracy keep food prices artificially high?

desmoinesdem — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:22:15 GMT

The Des Moines Register published a fascinating story on Saturday about a Mount Vernon grocer's lawsuit against the industry's top two wholesalers, SuperValu Inc. and C&S Wholesale Grocers. Gary's Foods filed suit eight months ago and was joined by a Maine grocer in January. What's at issue:

The class-action lawsuit seeks monetary damages equal to triple what grocers in the Midwest and New England allegedly have overpaid for food due to the lack of competition since September 2003. [...]
Court papers describe C&S and SuperValu as the nation's top two grocery wholesalers by dollar volume, with combined 2008 revenues in excess of $28 billion. Documents say the companies strongly competed against each other in New England for much of the late 1990s, but things changed dramatically after C&S purchased the assets of a bankrupt Midwestern wholesaler in 2003.
"Faced with the prospect of competing against C&S in the Midwest, SuperValu had one of two options: Either vigorously compete, which would have substantially reduced prices to retailers, or conspire with C&S to eliminate competition between the wholesalers," court papers say.
C&S ultimately sold its new Midwestern assets to SuperValu in September 2003 as part of a deal that also had C&S purchase all of SuperValu's distribution facilities in New England. But court papers allege that there was a separate, "secret noncompete agreement" signed at the same time - a deal that was not publicly disclosed and unknown to the plaintiffs until "a former SuperValu executive" disclosed its existence to them in late 2008.

The wholesalers are trying to have the lawsuit dismissed on procedural grounds. According to the Des Moines Register, a hearing is expected next month in a Minnesota court.

If these allegations are true, millions of consumers probably have been paying too much for food for nearly six years.

Government Accountability Office praises Iowa's handling of stimulus money

desmoinesdem — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:12:50 GMT

I see a Chet Culver campaign ad in our future after reading this Radio Iowa story. The non-partisan U.S. Government Accountability Office examined how 16 states are using stimulus funds from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act:

"We found that Iowa has a foundation of safeguards to help ensure the funds are being spent in the way that they were intended and to minimize the fraud, waste and abuse," [GAO Iowa division head Lisa] Shames said. The G.A.O. report also praises Iowa for setting up an Accountability and Transparency Board.
"We found that there were many good features in place and that bodes well in terms of the Recovery Act dollars and to ensure that they're going to create the jobs and retain the jobs that the law intended," Shames said.

Click here for the summary of the G.A.O's report on Iowa. From that page you can download the full report (a 40-page pdf file). Reports on other states are available here.

Did I mention that unlike many states, Iowa is fully utilizing stimulus funds intended to help unemployed people?

And that compared to many states, Iowa has wisely invested its stimulus funds for transportation?

We'll be hearing more about this next year in response to Republicans attacks against Governor Culver. No doubt ragbrai08 is right, and some version of this Tom Vilsack re-election message from 2002 will return to Iowa airwaves in 2010:

My opponent suggests in negative ad after ad that a bunch of problems that have struck virtually every state in the nation are somehow unique to Iowa. That's his whole campaign. The truth is that in Iowa, we've met that challenge better than most.

Though unemployment remains a significant problem in Iowa, our unemployment rate is well below the national average during this recession. Our state officials are doing a good job allocating federal funds intended to save and create jobs, and the I-JOBS program will save and create additional jobs.

Don't expect Iowa Republicans to pay attention to the G.A.O.'s findings. They never got the point of the stimulus anyway.

Chet Culver news roundup

desmoinesdem — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:59:40 GMT

Governor Chet Culver hired John Frew as chief of staff yesterday to replace Charlie Krogmeier, whom Culver appointed head of the Department of Human Services in May. Frew goes way back in Iowa politics, having worked for Senator John Culver (the governor's father) and managed Tom Harkin's first Senate campaign in 1984. Frew will begin as chief of staff in late September. Until then, Culver has named his general counsel Jim Larew as acting chief of staff. After the jump I've posted a news release from the governor's office with more background on Frew and Larew.

Also on Thursday, the Culver/Judge re-election campaign announced that

A long-time and respected political strategist is returning to Iowa to help Governor Chet Culver's campaign committee prepare for 2010. Teresa Vilmain will serve as a senior advisor to the Chet Culver Committee.
"Teresa Vilmain is not only synonymous with well-run, well-organized political campaigns around the nation, but she knows and loves Iowa," said Governor Culver. "As we start to look ahead to 2010, Teresa will play a leading role in helping us prepare our effort to reach out to Iowans about the important issues we are working on in our state."

I've posted the full text of that news release, containing more background on Vilmain, after the jump. Some highlights: she was deputy manager of Harkin's 1984 campaign and general consultant to both of Tom Vilsack's winning gubernatorial campaigns. Vilsack had to come from behind to beat Jim Ross Lightfoot in 1998 and faced re-election in 2002, which was a challenging national environment for Democrats.

First Lady Mari Culver was in Mason City on Thursday

to talk about state grant funding for shelters for domestic abuse, emergencies and the homeless and the need to apply for it soon.
Available through the $10 million Public Service Shelter Grant Program, a part of the Iowa Jobs Program (IJobs), the funding is for construction, expansion or upgrades. [...]
Funding can be used for deferred maintenance issues, additional security measures and expansion, said Culver [...]

I recommend reading the whole article in the Mason City Globe-Gazette for more on the pressing needs of Iowa's crisis shelters. Click here to listen to the first lady's comments about this program in an interview with KGLO radio. Applications for this portion of the I-JOBS money are due next Wednesday, July 15. Click the link for the Iowa Finance Authority's contact information. Republicans can criticize the I-JOBS borrowing all they want, but this is another example of how I-JOBS will improve services that Iowans need.

Finally, I want to call your attention to a new poll that The Iowa Republican blog has been highlighting this week. I will have more to say about the poll in a future post, but for now, here are some important facts:

This statewide poll conducted by Voter/Consumer Research found that 53 percent of Iowans approve of the job Culver is doing as governor, while 41 percent disapprove. Furthermore, 48 percent of respondents had a favorable impression of Culver, while 41 percent had an unfavorable impression.

Of course, The Iowa Republican blog is putting a Republican spin on these results. Criag Robinson headlined one post "53 percent of Iowans want a new governor," based on a question suggesting that 36 percent said Culver deserves re-election, while 53 percent said it's time to give someone else the chance. He also touted the findings on some issue-based questions that had ridiculously biased wording.

The bottom line is this: in a Republican-commissioned poll, Culver has a 53 percent approval rating and a 48 percent favorability rating. Also, the statewide survey sample contains "35% Republicans, 37% Democrats, 25% Independent or declined to state, and 2% other/don't know." I'm looking into how that compares with the proportion of Democrats and Republicans who have cast ballots in recent Iowa general elections.

I'll write more about this poll when The Iowa Republican releases more of the findings.

LATE UPDATE: Forgot to mention this story:

Gov. Chet Culver on Thursday directed state revenue officials to delay any enforcement against taxpayers who claimed disaster-related credits on their state tax returns that later were not validated by Iowa lawmakers.[...]
The federal changes approved for 2008 offered income-tax deductions, exemptions and other advantages for such items as disaster-related expenses, business equipment depreciation, education-related expenses, tuition and fees and certain sales tax charges. The state, however, did not retroactively adopt those deductions as part of the state tax code.
On Wednesday, Culver asked the state Department of Revenue to provide him "any and all options" to address the issue, and one day later he sent a letter to agency director Mark Schuling directing him to "hold off specific enforcement" for taxpayers who may have claimed federal disaster relief provisions on their state returns.
"I am aware that changes must be made by the Iowa Legislature in order for these same disaster relief provisions to be available for Iowa tax purposes," Culver said in the letter. "This will require legislation in 2010 to couple with the federal law changes that will benefit those individuals and businesses directly impacted by the 2008 disasters."

From the office of Governor Chet Culver:

Thursday, July 9, 2009
Governor Culver Names John Frew As Chief of Staff
Iowa Native Returns in September to Lead Governor's Staff; Jim Larew to Serve as Acting Chief of Staff
DES MOINES - Governor Chet Culver today named John Frew as Chief of Staff in the Office of the Governor.
"John not only brings a great combination of experience in both the public and private sector to this position, but a career that has been committed to improving the quality of life everyplace he goes," said Governor Culver. "I'm not only glad to have John back home in Iowa, but to have someone with his skill and stature working with the Culver/Judge Administration as we move our state forward."
"I appreciate the confidence Governor Culver and Lieutenant Governor Judge have in me, and am honored to be a part of their team," said Frew.
Frew was raised in Des Moines. He is a graduate of Dowling High School, and received both a bachelor's and master's degree from the University of Iowa. He is also a graduate of the Creighton University School of Law.
Frew's first experience in politics and government was working in 1979 and 1980 for Governor Culver's father, U.S. Senator John Culver. He has played key roles in several state-wide campaigns around the nation, including managing two back-to-back winning U.S. Senate campaigns - Tom Harkin in Iowa, in 1984, and Tim Wirth in Colorado, in 1986. Frew also served as Chief of Staff to U.S Senator Wirth.
In addition to having practiced law in Denver, Frew has worked on a number of major sporting venues, events and attractions. His work includes counsel to the authority that developed a major league baseball stadium in Denver, president of a trade group representing ski resorts in Colorado, creator of the Grand Prix of Denver, and developer of minor league sports facilities in both Colorado and Texas.
Frew and his wife, Marcia, have two daughters and will be relocating to Des Moines.
Frew will begin as Chief of Staff on September 28th.
In the interim, the Governor's general counsel and senior advisor, Jim Larew, will serve as Acting Chief of Staff.
Prior to joining the Governor's office, [Larew] was an attorney in private practice in Iowa City. A graduate of Harvard University and the University of Iowa College of Law, his general law practice focused on employment, civil rights and railroad law. He has appeared in State and Federal District Courts in Iowa and in Illinois and before the 7th and 8th Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. He is married to Mary Spalding Larew, a pediatrician and member of the faculty of the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine. They have two children.

From the Chet Culver campaign committee:

July 9, 2009
VILMAIN JOINS CULVER CAMPAIGN AS SENIOR ADVISOR
DES MOINES - A long-time and respected political strategist is returning to Iowa to help Governor Chet Culver's campaign committee prepare for 2010. Teresa Vilmain will serve as a senior advisor to the Chet Culver Committee.
"Teresa Vilmain is not only synonymous with well-run, well-organized political campaigns around the nation, but she knows and loves Iowa," said Governor Culver. "As we start to look ahead to 2010, Teresa will play a leading role in helping us prepare our effort to reach out to Iowans about the important issues we are working on in our state."
"Iowa is home, and so I care very deeply about who wins and who loses the elections that impact people across the state," said Vilmain. "I am excited to have this opportunity to work for Governor Culver and Lieutenant Governor Judge, and do everything I can to help them continue their work on behalf of Iowa."
Vilmain was born and raised in Cedar Falls, where she graduated from Northern University High School.
Vilmain's political work began in Iowa on the Culver for U.S. Senate campaign. She also served as deputy campaign manager on Tom Harkin's first U.S. Senate race in 1984 and Iowa Director for the Dukakis presidential campaign in the 1988 caucuses. She was a general consultant to Governor Tom Vilsack's campaign in 1998 and 2002, as well as the Vilsack for President campaign, and then served as the Iowa State Director of Hillary Clinton for President.
Her success and experience in Iowa has taken her to campaigns around the nation. In Wisconsin, Vilmain was a consultant to Jim Doyle's successful gubernatorial campaign in 2002 as well as to U.S. Senator Herb Kohl's winning campaigns in 1988 and 1994. She has also managed campaigns in Pennsylvania, New York and California, and was a consultant to both the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Most recently, Vilmain was a Fellow at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

Iowa taking full advantage of stimulus unemployment funds

desmoinesdem — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:31:37 GMT

When Congress was debating the stimulus bill earlier this year, Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody's, compared various forms of government spending and tax cuts in terms of economic stimulus "bang for the buck." He concluded (pdf file) that various forms of government spending did more to stimulate the economy than various kinds of tax cuts.

The best kinds of spending in terms of stimulative effect were food stamps and extending unemployment benefits. Every extra dollar the federal government spends on food stamps generates approximately $1.73 in economic activity, and every dollar the federal government spends to extend unemployment benefits generates approximately $1.63 in economic activity. People who need these services are likely to spend additional money quickly, helping preserve jobs in the retail sector.

With this in mind, you might imagine that the states would take full advantage of money allocated to unemployment benefits in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. But you would be wrong, according to this article by Olga Pierce from ProPublica:

So far, only about half of the $7 billion included in the stimulus package [for expanding unemployment insurance] has been claimed by states. [...]
Four states have explicitly rejected the funding, but many others have so far failed to pass legislation qualifying them for incentive payments. [...]
Under the stimulus bill [2], states can qualify for the extra funding by extending unemployment insurance to new categories of workers. To receive a third of the funding, they must begin using something called an alternative base period, which would allow more low-wage workers to receive unemployment benefits. [...]
To get the other two-thirds of the cash, they must adopt at least two other changes from a list that includes covering part-time workers and offering $15 extra per week for each dependent.
If states meet the requirements, they qualify for a federal lump sum payment that will cover the cost of expansion for at least three years, or longer in many cases. It was on those grounds - that after the federal funding runs out states will have to find another way to cover the cost - that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal [3], Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour [4] and others [5] that said they would reject the funding.

Bleeding-heart liberal that I am, I believe basic fairness justifies extending unemployment benefits to more part-time and low-wage workers. But even if you don't care about fairness, Zandi's analysis shows that extending unemployment benefits will get money circulating in the economy.

Click here for a map and a chart showing how much federal unemployment money each state has claimed.

As of mid-June, 17 states had claimed none of the stimulus funding for unemployment benefits, and another 12 states and the District of Columbia had claimed only part of that money. In some of those states, Democrats are in charge. Progressives who have ridiculed Republican governors for rejecting stimulus money for unemployment benefits should also hold Democrats accountable on this score.

Fortunately, Iowa is among 21 states that have fully used these stimulus funds as Congress intended. Thousands of Iowans struggling to get by will benefit from the $70.8 million the stimulus bill appropriated to our state for unemployment benefits. Democrats in the state legislature and Governor Chet Culver deserve credit for enacting the necessary legislative changes to collect this funding.

Many of the states that have left stimulus money on the table have significantly higher unemployment rates than Iowa, by the way.

Speaking of boosting the economy, Zandi's report showed that infrastructure projects were the third-most stimulative form of government spending. Every extra dollar spent on infrastructure generates an estimated $1.59 in economic activity. Remember that next time Iowa Republicans bring out their misleading talking points about the the I-JOBS program. Also remember that Iowa has used the stimulus bill's transportation funding wisely compared to many other states, according to a recent review by Smart Growth America.

In contrast, most kinds of tax cuts Republicans advocate generate less than one dollar of economic activity for every dollar they cost the government. As a gesture to Republicans, Democrats replaced some spending in the stimulus bill with $70 billion allocated to fixing the alternative minimum tax, even though Zandi's analysis found that a dollar spent on fixing the alternative minimum tax generates only about 49 cents in economic activity.

It's too bad the Obama administration made a number of concessions to Republicans on the stimulus bill. Like Bob Herbert wrote a few months ago, when the GOP talks about the economy, nobody should listen.

Steve King "distinguishes" himself again

desmoinesdem — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:33:38 GMT

Congressman Steve King showed us again on Tuesday why Esquire magazine named him one of the 10 Worst members of Congress last year. It wasn't his hyperbole regarding the American Clean Energy and Security Act (which in King's view "will cost millions of Americans their jobs.") Lots of Congressional Republicans are making equally ridiculous claims.

On Tuesday King distinguished himself as the only member of the U.S. House to vote against placing "a marker acknowledging the role that slave labor played in constructing the Capitol" in a "prominent location in the visitor center's Emancipation Hall." This was not a partisan resolution; 399 members of Congress voted yes, including certifiable wingnuts such as Minnesota's Michele Bachmann.

King released a statement explaining his vote, and I'm posting it after the jump in case other Bleeding Heartland readers can make more sense out of it than I can. He claims the resolution acknowledging slave labor "was used as a bargaining chip" in negotiations over a Republican-sponsored resolution "Directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the National Motto of 'In God We Trust' in the Capitol Visitor Center." King objects:

Our Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation and should not be held hostage to yet another effort to place guilt on future Americans for the sins of some of their ancestors.

Reading King's statement reminded me of Esquire's observation:

King believes himself to be clever, and his list of idiot declarations is probably the longest in Washington.

Maybe someone else can find logic in King's vote on Tuesday. As far as I'm concerned, and I have said this before, he's like school in the summertime: no class.

UPDATE: Iowa Democratic Party chair Michael Kiernan released the following statement on Thursday:

"Iowans have a rich history of embracing diversity and of leading the nation in support of civil rights for African Americans. Years before the Civil War, Iowa Courts determined there would be no place for slavery in our state. Nearly a century before 'Separate But Equal' was deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, we in Iowa desegregated our schools, opening opportunities for children and families without regard to race. And in the years since, our elected officials and courts have protected these rights, which we hold so dear. This is a tradition we can be proud of.
But Congressman Steve King has flown in the face of our history of inclusion, and of progress. This vote is an embarrassment to his constituents, and to Iowa. Congressman King has once again showed that he is out of touch with Iowa values, and he must be held accountable for this vote. Iowans deserve better."

SECOND UPDATE: King spoke with Radio Iowa about his reasons for casting this vote.

July 8, 2009
King: America's Judeo-Christian Heritage Not A Political Bargaining Chip
Congressman Steve King today issued the following statement after voting against H RES 135 last evening. The resolution directs the Architect of the Capitol to place a marker in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center acknowledging the role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol.
"In the Capitol Visitor's Center, we agreed to change the name of the Great Hall - which honored the immigrants that came legally to America - to Emancipation Hall to honor the 645,000 slaves and their descendants who were brought to the United States more than two centuries ago.
"Last night I opposed yet another bill to erect another monument to slavery because it was used as a bargaining chip to allow for the actual depiction of 'In God We Trust' in the CVC. The Architect of the Capitol and liberal activists opposed every reference to America's Christian heritage, even to the extent of scrubbing 'In God We Trust' from the depiction of the actual Speaker's chair in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"This is just the latest example of a several year effort by liberals in Congress to scrub references to America's Christian heritage from our nation's Capitol. Liberals want to amend our country's history to eradicate the role of Christianity in America and chisel references to God or faith from our historical buildings.
"Our Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation and should not be held hostage to yet another effort to place guilt on future Americans for the sins of some of their ancestors. Christian abolitionists gave their lives by the hundreds of thousands to end slavery. Great American leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. worshipped God just as our Founding Fathers did. We must never forget this important aspect of our heritage or use it as a political bargaining chip."

Give me a break

desmoinesdem — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:00:00 GMT

The parent company of the firm that allegedly exploited mentally disabled workers in Iowa claims not to be subject to our state's labor laws, the Des Moines Register's Clark Kauffman reported today.

In May, Iowa Workforce Development fined Henry's Turkey Service $900,000 for 9,000 violations connected to men who worked at a plant in West Liberty. They received pitiful wages after fees were deducted for housing, food and other expenses.

But the parent company of Henry's Turkey Service sees things differently:

An attorney for Hill Country Farms said in a written response that the company "is organized, operated and controlled according to the laws and regulations of the State of Texas" and is not subject to the Iowa laws it's accused of violating.
The company maintains that all of the Iowa workers who lived for decades in a bunkhouse in Atalissa, near the West Liberty plant, were technically residents of Texas and that their real employer was West Liberty Foods, not Hill Country Farms.
State and corporate records support some elements of that argument but undercut other aspects of the company's case.
For example, some of the Atalissa men were enrolled in Texas Medicaid - a program that in theory is open only to residents of Texas. But the W-2 tax forms in which the men's wages were reported to the Internal Revenue Service indicate that Hill Country Farms, not West Liberty Foods, was the employer.

Kauffman writes that "it could be a year" before an administrative law judge rules on this case. I'm not an attorney, but I would hope Hill Country Farms is not able to get away with claiming men in Atalissa, Iowa, as Texas residents.

Staff at Iowa Workforce Development and the state legislature should look for ways to close any loopholes companies may be using to evade our labor standards.

Click here for the archive of Des Moines Register reports on Henry's Turkey Service and the men it housed in Atalissa.

Senator Franken making us proud already

desmoinesdem — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:47:45 GMT

The first bill Senator Al Franken co-sponsored after being sworn in yesterday was the Employee Free Choice Act. It's a cause Paul Wellstone would have supported strongly. (Click here for background on the EFCA.)

The Hill reported yesterday,

As expected, Franken has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee, Indian Affairs Committee and Aging Committee. He will also sit on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee once the panel finishes marking up the healthcare reform legislation.

I don't understand the logic of making Franken wait until after the health care bill markup before joining the HELP Committee, but at least he will be there when the Employee Free Choice Act is debated.

Getting to 60 votes on the EFCA will be a challenge, but Senator Tom Harkin has been working on a compromise since March. He told Bloomberg News in May that the "card check" provision may have to be dropped from the EFCA in order to get the bill through the Senate. "Card check" means that workers could form a union if a majority sign a document stating that they would like to join a union. Harkin suggested that a compromise bill might incorporate other changes to the election process and procedures for forming a labor union.

In that interview, Harkin did not mention whether binding arbitration would be a part of a workable compromise. Some people consider binding arbitration provisions to be as important a part of the EFCA as card check.

Whatever compromise Harkin crafts, I'm glad to know that Franken will be a voice for strong labor reform on the HELP Committee. I can't wait to go hear Franken keynote Harkin's steak fry on September 13.

UPDATE: Harkin's communications director Kate Cyrul told Iowa Independent that Harkin is still working on this bill and expects the EFCA to pass this year.

Christian Fong dusts off Obama's playbook

desmoinesdem — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:43:26 GMT

Given Barack Obama's Iowa caucus breakthrough and convincing general-election victory here, it was only a matter of time before someone else built an Iowa campaign around his strategy. I didn't count on a Republican being the first person to try, though.

Enter Christian Fong, who made the Republican race for governor a lot more interesting last week.

Some early impressions of Fong's personal narrative, political rhetoric and electoral prospects are after the jump.
How Fong is adapting Obama's playbook

If you felt a sense of deja vu while reading or listening to Fong last week, you're not alone. He sketched his core values in an interview with Radio Iowa (audio here):

I grew up in western Iowa, the son of an immigrant who came to Iowa, came to America because of the American dream, the Iowa dream. It's opportunity. It's hard work. It's respect for your neighbors. He came to Iowa and found all those things. As I've grown up, now that I've got my own kids, I've got neighbors that I care for. I've got a city that I've cared for through disaster recovery over the past year. In my own generation and the next one, I want to see that dream restored. I see it slipping away, sometimes being actively torn away by policies, by a government that starts to lose touch with its own people. I want to see all those things restored.

In his first television commercial for the general election, Obama used similar language to describe the lessons he learned as a child:

I'm Barack Obama. America is a country of strong families and strong values. My life's been blessed by both. I was raised by a single mom and my grandparents. We didn't have much money, but they taught me values straight from the Kansas heartland where they grew up. Accountability and self-reliance. Love of country. Working hard without making excuses. Treating your neighbor as you'd like to be treated. It's what guided me as I worked my way up - taking jobs and loans to make it through college. It's what led me to pass up Wall Street jobs and go to Chicago instead, helping neighborhoods devastated when steel plants closed. That's why I passed laws moving people from welfare to work, cut taxes for working families and extended health care for wounded troops who'd been neglected. I approved this message because I'll never forget those values, and if I have the honor of taking the oath of office as President, it will be with a deep and abiding faith in the country I love."

Obama's commitment to serving others was a running theme of his campaign. In his stump speeches during the Democratic primaries, he often mentioned that he "walked away from a job on Wall Street" to be a community organizer in Chicago and "turned down the big money law firms" to be a civil rights lawyer.

Fong also has chosen public service alongside his day job in real estate finance for AEGON. He has served on the Generation Iowa Commission and stepped up to be a "flood recovery leader" in Cedar Rapids.

Another crucial element in Fong's life story is that he returned to work and raise a family in Iowa, even though he could have chased the dream anywhere after finishing second in his class at Dartmouth business school. As Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 has noticed, Iowans love affirmation that this state has something of value to offer. While living elsewhere for 15 years, I felt proud when others shared positive impressions about our state. I felt stung by references to "flyover country" or insults like, "You don't sound like you're from Iowa" (translation: You don't sound dumb). Fong is living proof that the best and the brightest still belong in Iowa.

Then there's the "vision thing." Obama let everyone know that

the next president has to have a broader strategic vision about all the challenges that we face.
That's been missing over the last eight years. That sense is something that I want to restore.

Fong asserts that "the uniqueness of my story and the uniqueness of my vision" will set him apart from the other Republican gubernatorial candidates. His allies have been pushing this talking point as well. For instance, "Age shouldn't be a factor, Fong's fellow Generation Iowa Commission member Mitchell Gross said. 'It should be about vision.'" The conservative Hawkeye Review blog told its readers is bold type,

Christian Fong is a brilliant man with incredible skills, VISION and wisdom.
When you consider the attributes you wish to have in our state's highest elected official and CEO, aren't these exactly the benchmarks we seek? Christian has a VISION for our state and combined with his economic expertise and real world experience in the business community, we may just have the dynamic governor to lead us back to prosperity on many levels here in the Hawkeye State.

Fong's vision includes standard Republican elements like cutting government spending and being "pro-marriage" and "pro-family", with a couple of Obama-like twists: empowering individuals to effect change and rejecting intense partisanship. I heard echoes of Obama's "We are the change we've been waiting for" in Fong's first interview with Radio Iowa:

I'm a Republican because I'm optimistic about the future. I'm optimistic that grassroots power of the individual has the power to change our state.

Fong went on to say that he's not advocating change "for the sake of change," but "restoration" to a government that "reflects the values of hard-working Iowa families." That may sound like a standard-issue Republican promise to you, but Fong promises to get there by reaching across party lines. That's quite different from Chris Rants' way of relating to Democrats in the legislature and Bob Vander Plaats' assertion that Republicans can win by embracing "bold-color conservatism."

Fong testified at a contentious public hearing on tax reforms earlier this year and claimed not to be a partisan. When Radio Iowa's Kay Henderson asked him why, Fong explained,

When I stood up at that hearing I was speaking to friends that I have on both sides of the aisle. If Iowa wants somebody that has spent the last 10 years, 15 years just living within their party, just soaking in the ideas that come out of one faction of Iowa, I'm probably not the guy. I do -- I have friends across the aisle that we share ideas with each other and we find common causes that rise above party labels. [...] Here in Cedar Rapids I've always been a coalition builder...It's coalition leading that is my vision and really my strength as my leadership style.

Again, I hear echoes of Obama, who used to tell Democratic voters during the primaries,

There's no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don't need more heat. We need more light. I've learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you.

Fong has put his money where his mouth is, and his small campaign contributions to personal friends who are Democrats have outraged some Republicans. Henderson asked Fong about his donations to State Representatives Tyler Olson and Elesha Gayman, and Fong turned a political faux pas into an expression of his values:

I had served with them on a commission and I wanted to support them as one friend to another. Again, if somebody's looking for somebody who's been running for governor for the last 10 years, who has shaped their life that way, I'm probably not the guy. If they want someone who is loyal, is looking for ways to partner with others, then I'm going to be a good candidate for them.
You know, would I do it again? Look, I will always be loyal and I will always support my friends. In hindsight, look, they represent things and they represent votes that I don't support and, you know, it was probably a mistake to give money to those causes, but I'll never apologize for being loyal to my friends and being loyal to fellow Iowans. I think loyalty and neighborliness is a core value that all Iowans celebrate and share.

As a candidate, Fong shares a weakness with Obama: he has much less experience in government than some of his rivals. Obama dealt with this question in two ways. He defended the value of his life's work outside government: "It's experience rooted in the real lives of real people, and it's the kind of experience Washington needs right now." As for why he didn't wait another election cycle or two before running for president, Obama cited the "fierce urgency of now":

At this defining moment, we cannot wait any longer for universal health care. We cannot wait to fix our schools. We cannot wait for good jobs, and living wages, and pensions we can count on. We cannot wait to halt global warming, and we cannot wait to end this war in Iraq.
I chose to run because I believed that the size of these challenges had outgrown the capacity of our broken and divided politics to solve them [...].

Fong made the same kind of case with every reporter he talked to last week. James Lynch wrote at Covering Iowa Politics,

He's ready to stack his 13 years of experience in the private sector, his service on the Generation Iowa Commission and work as CEO of Corridor Recovery and chairman of its small business task force up against the "experienced governmental officials who have given us $1 billion deficit, the experienced politicians trying to borrow their way out of a recession, the experienced politicians that denied Iowans the right to vote on marriage." [...]
Besides, Fong added, holding elected office isn't always an asset.
"The experience I bring is not the experience of elected office, not the experience of government that is broken and doesn't reflect the values of its people," he said.

Speaking to Radio Iowa, Fong said

I've got the life experiences that understand what Iowa families are going through right now. Really, this is about looking toward the future and saying, "Who has the skill set and the experiences to get Iowa through the recession, a budget crisis, an out-of-touch government?"

So, the Republican race for governor now includes a fresh face with a compelling life story, a thinker in his party's mainstream but not closed to perspectives from the other side, a high-achiever with a commitment to public service and experience outside the typical political channels. You're probably all wondering the same thing I am: will Iowa voters buy what Fong is selling?

Can Fong win with Obama's strategy?

The short answer is that it's way too early to tell, but if you've made it this far into this post, you're not looking for short answers. Let's examine Fong's strengths, in addition to the personal narrative I discussed above:

Geography. It's been a long time since eastern Iowa Republicans had one of their own in a competitive gubernatorial primary (Jim Nussle cleared the field early in 2006 by choosing Vander Plaats as his running mate). There are a lot of Republican votes in that part of the state, enough to win a primary if western Iowa conservatives are split and Fong can overcome concerns about his short political resume. I'll be surprised if Fong does not dominate Linn County and Johnson County. Then again, other GOP candidates from eastern Iowa may join the race. Iowa Senate Minority leader Paul McKinley is forming an exploratory committee, and I've heard speculation about Quad Cities businessman Mike Whalen.

Fundraising. The Cedar Rapids/Iowa City corridor has a a lot of wealth for Fong to tap. Also, he has Ed Failor of Iowans for Tax Relief in his corner, which will help him raise money across the state. The question mark is whether central Iowa business-oriented Republicans will embrace Fong as their best shot against Chet Culver. As American007 wrote in her excellent review of the Republican field (before Fong's announcement), Doug Gross and others have been trying without success to recruit a moderate alternative to Rants and Vander Plaats. If that community gets behind Fong, big money will come his way. If a more experienced candidate from the Des Moines area joins the race, he or she could cut into Fong's potential fundraising.

A political niche. For now, Fong looks like the most moderate voice in what may become a crowded field of conservatives. Some may discount his inexperience, but Terry Branstad triumphed over two older hands in the 1982 Republican gubernatorial primary because they split the moderate vote and he had conservatives to himself. Fong should do very well among younger Republican voters, although it will be a lot of work to mobilize them for a primary.

Some of Fong's weaknesses include:

Inexperience. Republicans aren't known for choosing fresh faces; they like politicians to wait their turn. Many may agree with Krusty Konservative that Fong should be running for mayor or state legislature instead of trying to jump to the head of the line.

On a related note, because Fong hasn't run for office before we don't know how he will do on the stump or under pressure from rivals. If he doesn't have Obama's communication skills, he may stumble when he starts speaking to Republican audiences.

Taxes. Fong supported the local-option sales tax initiative Linn County residents approved in March to help fund flood recovery. Most statehouse Republicans opposed the bill that allowed that tax, and many rank and file Republicans voted against it in the referendum. Fong has also said he would consider ending federal deductibility if basic tax rates were lowered enough. I expect Republican rivals to make taxes an issue against Fong. He'll need Failor to help defend him.

Not strident enough. Fong says he is "100 percent pro-life" and opposes same-sex marriage, but he has criticized fellow Republicans for "raging against" the Iowa Supreme Court ruling and making "frantic calls" for amending the constitution. If social conservatives line up behind one other candidate, they could sink Fong's chances. He needs that part of the Republican base to be divided among several alternatives.

Too close to Democrats. Other Republican opponents, as well as conservative radio hosts and bloggers, will be sure to remind social conservatives of Fong's donations to Gayman and Olson. Furthermore, he has criticized the I-JOBS borrowing to fund infrastructure projects without (so far) commenting on the Linn County projects that have received I-JOBS money.

A few wild cards could either help or hurt Fong in the GOP primary. First, as the candidates become better known, there will be opinion polls showing how each of them would match up against Culver. Those polls could show Fong in a stronger position than other Republicans, or they could indicate that Iowans are looking for someone a little more seasoned.

Second, he could be depicted as "not Iowan enough." I'll never forget Tom Latham's television commercials attacking "Massachusetts professor Sheila McGuire" in the fifth Congressional district campaign of 1994. McGuire had grown up on a western Iowa farm, received undergraduate and medical degrees from the University of Iowa, and set up a practice in Boone. However, in some Republican eyes it was not enough to compensate for her grave sin of completing a three-year post-doctoral fellowship at Harvard.

Along the same lines, and I'm trying to think of a polite way to say this, the Republican Party includes some nativist types who may not appreciate Fong's background. Perhaps I'm reading too much into a couple of "tweets," but Fong seems to go out of his way to let people know that he can't read Chinese or even pronounce his own name without an Iowa accent.

I think it would be foolish for Fong's Republican rivals to play the "more Iowan than thou" card, but it could happen if someone gets desperate. I suspect that kind of attack would help Fong's campaign, because only an idiot thinks there's some shame in having an immigrant father or attending an elite school before settling down in Iowa.

The last wild card is that certain conservatives with big megaphones will pounce on Fong at every opportunity. WHO radio host Steve Deace has blasted Fong's donations to Democrats and led with that question in Fong's first interview on his show. Krusty Konservative of The Iowa Republican blog has taken several shots at Fong already, most recently for supporting across-the-board budget cuts. (After reading Fong's posts at the Hawkeye Review blog, I have to wonder if a little professional jealousy is at work here. In terms of writing ability and logical reasoning, Krusty kan't hold a kandle to this guy.)

Anyway, becoming a punching bag for loudmouth conservatives could help Fong among some Republican groups while hurting him with others.

If Fong manages to get through the Republican primary, I have to agree with ragbrai08 that this would become one of the most interesting gubernatorial races in the country, because Fong will go after core Obama groups such as students and upwardly mobile suburbanites. Conservative attacks on Fong's treachery during the primaries would help Fong in a general election campaign. I think Culver is strongly favored to beat any Republican opponent, but Fong might give him more of a race than, say, Rants or Vander Plaats.

In a general election, some holes in Fong's vision would become apparent. He wrote that the Democrats' bonding plan "is simply extending the pain, and delaying the inevitable." I'd like to know how this "flood recovery leader" would pay for the rebuilding projects that I-JOBS is making possible. Where would he have found $45 million to help rebuild Linn County landmarks? Or does he not think those projects are good investments for the future of greater Cedar Rapids?

It's easy to repeat sound bites like this:

"I've had to make tough calls on how to get through a recession," he said, "and I didn't do it by borrowing. ... That is not a common-sense approach."

But as Fong surely knows from his day job, borrowing can be necessary and even wise for businesses and homeowners during a recession. Borrowing itself is neither good nor bad; it all depends on how borrowed money will be invested and whether the borrower has the capacity to repay. When interest rates are low, borrowing to achieve worthwhile long-term goals makes sense.

Nor is Fong convincing when he complains about Democrats passing along too much debt to the next generation. Even after approving the I-JOBS borrowing, Iowa's per capita debt load is among the lowest in the country.

I also find it amazing that Fong claims no state department (such as education) should escape an across-the-board budget cut, because "In business, that's not how you do it." Businesses don't cut all departments equally when they downsize; they may deeply cut or eliminate some operations while protecting or even expanding priority areas.

I'll end this post where I began. Whatever you think about Fong, he certainly makes the GOP field more interesting.

With that, I'm opening the floor to any comments from Bleeding Heartland readers about Fong's candidacy or the Republican gubernatorial race in general.

Some things still run smoothly in Washington

desmoinesdem — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:30:38 GMT

Such as the revolving door between Congress and corporate lobbyists:

The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records. [...]
Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.
The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.

So corporate groups are spending $1.4 million a day on lobbying to block a real public health insurance option, which most Americans want.

That's on top of the millions of dollars the same corporate groups have donated directly to Congressional campaigns. Iowa's Senator Chuck Grassley has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industries with the most at stake in health care reform.

Members of Congress claim lobbyists and campaign money don't shape their opinions, but Grassley should know better. He understands that big money from pharmaceutical companies can influence the conclusions of medical researchers--why not elected officials?

Nate Silver has found strong evidence that special-interest money affects Democratic senators' support for the public option in health care reform.

By the way, I wasn't too cheered by Senator Chuck Schumer's promise over the weekend that the health care bill will contain a public option. The current draft in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions excludes lots of people from choosing the public option over their current health insurance. That will limit competition for the private insurers that have near-monopolies in many markets.

Back in 2003 all the Democratic presidential candidates talked a good game on health care. Now Dick "this is a moral issue" Gephardt is lobbying for a pharmaceutical company. I'll stand with Howard Dean and hope that John Edwards was wrong about the system being rigged because corporations have too much power in Washington.

Final note: Moveon.org is organizing health care rallies this Thursday, July 9, at senators' offices in their home states. Sign up here to attend a rally near you.

Events coming up during the next two weeks

desmoinesdem — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:37:51 GMT

Political activity slows down a bit during the summer, but there are still plenty of things to do if you're not spending hours a day training for RAGBRAI. Read all about it after the jump. As always, post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you know of something I've left out.

If you live in the first Congressional district, consider attending one of Bruce Braley's town-hall meetings on health care reform in Dubuque, Oelwein, Davenport and Waterloo (click "there's more" for details). According to a statement from his office,

Braley will discuss the draft House health care reform bill, listen to constituents' concerns, and take questions. Braley is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the committee in charge of authoring healthcare reform legislation.
Braley's town hall meetings on healthcare reform are free and open to the public.
Attendees are strongly encouraged to RSVP at: http://braley.house.gov/townhall.

Speaking of health care reform, Moveon.org is looking for people to help deliver petitions this Thursday, July 9, to the Iowa offices of Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley. Click here to sign up.

UPDATE: I added information about Governor Chet Culver's upcoming appearances in eastern Iowa to highlight I-JOBS and Rebuild Iowa projects.
Monday, July 6:

Congressman Bruce Braley is holding two town-hall meetings on health care reform. The first is from 10:00am to 12:00pm at the Jansen Music Hall, Clarke College, 1550 Clarke Drive in Dubuque. The second is from 2:00pm to 4:00pm at Oelwein Middle School, 300 12th Avenue SE in Oelwein.

Governor Culver will be in Burlington to discuss infrastructure funding and the I-JOBS Initiative. Public Works Building, 3510 Division Street, 4 pm.

Tuesday, July 7:

This is the deadline for nominating conservationists for the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation's Hagie Heritage Award:

This annual award recognizes Iowans who "have demonstrated an extraordinary personal service and commitment to improving the quality of Iowa's natural environment and who encourage others to do the same." All nominees and their nominating organizations receive publicity. The winner also receives a $1000 check and hand-carved sculpture. The nomination process is simple: letters from two people (or more) that explain why this nominee deserves the award. The nomination deadline is July 7. Get award details, links to past winners and nomination tips.

Bruce Braley is holding another health care town-hall meeting from 9:30am to 10:30am at Adler Health Education Center, Genesis Hospital, East Campus, 1227 East Rusholme Street in Davenport.

Governor Culver will be at the Muscatine Fire Station at 11:30 am to recognize the $200,000 in improvements awarded to Muscatine under the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF). The Muscatine Fire Station is located at 1100 Oregon Street.

Culver will help formally celebrate the opening of NW Boulevard/Route 130 at 1 pm at the Machine Shed Restaurant, 7250 NW Boulevard in Davenport.

Culver will discuss job creation, infrastructure funding, and the I-JOBS Initiative during a meeting at 3:15 pm with civic leaders in Dubuque. Straka Johnson Architects, P.C., 3555 Digital Drive.

Thursday, July 9:

Moveon.org is looking for people to help deliver petitions to the Iowa offices of Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley. Click here to sign up to help.

Saturday, July 11:

From the Iowa Environmental Council's electronic newsletter:

The Cedar Falls Annual Community Read for the Environment (ACRE) partners are hosting Chef Kurt Michael Friese, author of A Cook's Journey, Slow Food in the Heartland, on Saturday, July 11, from 5:30 - 8:00 at Hartman Reserve Nature Center, 657 Reserve Drive, Cedar Falls. Chef Friese will make a presentation about slow foods--which, he says, is food "raised with care, prepared with passion and served with love." Friese will also sign books purchased at University Book & Supply (UBS). Everyone is invited to this free ACRE potluck event, which includes children's activities. Please bring a dish or two to share, tableware for your use, and a beverage. For information, please go to ACRE's website, http://www.cedar-falls.lib.ia.... or call Patty Achey-Cutts at UBS at 319-266-7581 or Hartman Reserve Nature Center at 319-277-2187.
Fence Maintenance Day at Whiterock Conservancy
Many of our aged fence lines are in need of removal or repair. Come spend a day in the scenic Whiterock Valley and work alongside WRC staff and volunteers on Saturday, July 11th. Spend an hour or a day, your assistance will help us to make the landscape safer and more accessible to visitors. No experience necessary. Please wear outdoor work appropriate clothing and bring leather gloves. Lunch and refreshments will be provided. Contact emily@whiterockconservancy.org for more info or directions.
The Raccoon River Watershed Association will hold its annual "Paddlefest in Adel" on Saturday, July 11 in Kinnick Feller Park. This year the event with feature canoe/kayak races from Perry to Adel. $100 prizes for winners in five categories. The opening ceremony, featuring Nate Hoogeveen, will begin 10:00 a.m. at Kinnick-Feller Park in Adel. The event will include a canoe and kayak show (bring your hand made wood and canvas boats and other unusual paddle craft), canoe and kayak races and float trips, music by Rob Lumbard, BBQ by Cafe in the Park, bird programs by Dr. James Pease, K ay Newman and Lee Searles, nature photography show, fly fishing demonstrations by Central Iowa Fly Fishers, displays by outdoor sports and environmental organizations. Go to the Paddlefest page on the RRWA website www.northraccoon.org for additional information.
Iowa Lakeside Lab Centennial Celebration
Iowa Lakeside Laboratory will be observing its centennial on Saturday, July 11 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. The event will include a mix of historical and environmental activities, including walking tours, portrayals of historic Lakeside personalities, an exhibit on the Civilian Conservation Corps, water analysis demonstrations, and a virtual tour of the Iowa Great Lakes watershed. The David Rogers Big Bugs sculptures will be on display. "Bug Chef" David George Gordon will give cooking demonstrations. DNR Director Rich Leopold and University Hygienic Lab Director Chris Atchison will speak at 2:30. For more information, go to http://www.continuetolearn.uio...
Cedar River Cleanup and Festival
Both land and water cleanup activities will concentrate on the Cedar River where it reaches Cedar Falls on July 11, with an emphasis on areas still recovering from the 2008 floods. A land-based crew will also be working the same day. No experience or canoes necessary, however both are always welcome. Visit www.crfgroup.org and click on "Get Involved" to reserve a canoe, make a contribution or simply let us know we'll see you at the cleanup. An arts and music festival will be held from 1-7 p.m. Sunday, July 12 at Island Park in Cedar Falls. For more information visit www.crfgroup.org or call 319-610-7507.

Monday, July 13:

From the Iowa Environmental Council newsletter:

Water Policy and Politics-One Week Course
Iowa Lakeside Lab, near Milford, is offering a one-week course on Water Policy and Politics from July 13 to 17. The emphasis is on current legal and policy debates, but the course also reviews the history of water development and politics in the United States. The instructor is Dian Gottlob J.D., Ph.D. of the University of Iowa. Participants enroll through the University of Iowa but can also arrange to receive credit at Iowa State, UNI, or Drake. A non-credit option is available. The cost is $242 ($381 for graduate credit) plus a registration fee of $40; room and board are available at additional cost at Lakeside Lab. For more information please go to http://www.lakesidelab.org/ust...

Tuesday, July 14:

There will be a "Des Moines Bike Summit" with Bicycle Plan Public Input Meetings at the Downtown Des Moines Public Library, 1000 Grand Avenue, 12:00 noon to 1:30 p.m. and 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

Thursday, July 16:

Join Iowa Recycling Association noon to 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 16, at the Des Moines Botanical Center, for an afternoon of networking, industry updates and a "Sustainability" panel discussion featuring Liz Christianson (Univ. of Iowa, Office of Sustainability), Adam Hammes (Urban Ambassadors), Bill Diesslin (ISU Council of Sustainability), and Sheila Samuelson (City of Dubuque). For more information and to rsvp: www.iowarecycles.org or 515-265-1596.

Saturday, July 18:

Lambda Legal is sponsoring a Family Potluck & Parents' Day Celebration from 4 pm to 7 pm. This gathering for LGBT parents and their children will take place at Evelyn Davis Park, South Shelter, 1400 Forest Ave, Des Moines. Please RSVP to mfender@lambdalegal.org or call (646) 752-5932.

Sunday, July 19:

Bruce Braley is holding another health care town-hall meeting from 3:00pm to 5:00pm at Barrett Forum, Allen College, 1990 Heath Street in Waterloo.