Iowans Know The Source of the Deficit by Paul Deaton
"It is easy to harp about the size
of government and deficit spending. It is easy to say we are “taxed
enough already.” What is harder is for congressmen and women to
demonstrate the political will to take action that impacts everyone in
the country in the pocketbook..." When Paul O’Neill was appointed Treasury Secretary, some of us were hopeful that something positive would come out of the George W. Bush presidency, which seemed to be heading for mediocrity before September 11, 2001. O’Neill was CEO of Alcoa, and through conversations with friends and business associates who worked there and knew O’Neill, all indications were that it was a well managed company. If O’Neill could do for the country, what he had done at Alcoa, then there was hope.
In an often reported dialogue with Vice President Dick Cheney, O’Neill warned that the surpluses of the Clinton administration had dissipated and that growing budget deficits, that were expected to hit half a trillion dollars at the time, threatened the economy. Cheney responded, “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter. We won the midterms. This is our due.” It was a defining moment in the Bush-Cheney administration. O’Neill was fired soon after this discussion.
In Iowa, there are 15 challengers to the three incumbent Democrats in congress. They frame themselves as conservatives and some express anger at the spending that is going on in Washington. No one wants to burden our children and grandchildren with the debt that is mounting from the financial crisis about which O’Neill warned us. Part of me wonders where these folks have been during the last ten years. More importantly, what do they propose to do about it?
It is fair to ask these conservatives whether they will support President Obama’s plan. On February 18, President Obama signed an executive order creating a bipartisan national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform, saying we need to make “the tough choices necessary to solve our fiscal problems,” putting “everything on the table” for discussion. This isn’t rocket science. Reducing the federal deficit boils down some combination of improving the economy so there are more tax revenues, controlling spending and changing the tax structure so as to yield more revenue. Before Obama’s executive order, both houses of congress considered creating the commission, but could not find the votes. In the Senate, the vote was 53-46 in favor, but in the cynical 111th Congress, it takes 60 Senate votes to get anything done.
Whatever one thinks of the president’s commission, it will produce recommendations, hopefully by the end of 2010. The consideration then will be what Congress will do about the recommendations. Some in Congress are calling for an up or down vote on these recommendations and to this writer; having such a vote seems to be a viable course of action. If such a vote would fail, Congress needs try again and soon, as the issue is too important to go unaddressed.
On Saturday, a small group of us sat down with Congressman Loebsack in the 2nd District to provide feedback. I asked how Congress should address deficit spending. Loebsack framed up an answer along the lines of this post and he has come to understand the congressional dynamics that make this a complex and challenging issue.
As progressives we should not let conservative talk dominate the air waves. It is easy to harp about the size of government and deficit spending. It is easy to say we are “taxed enough already.” What is harder is for congressmen and women to demonstrate the political will to take action that impacts everyone in the country in the pocketbook, which is what the commission’s recommendations, or any other solution, seems certain to do.
Congressman Loebsack understands that there are no easy answers and that is something the conservatives seem reluctant to admit. We should not let them get away with natty sound bites and pabulum, but should bird dog them and call them out on their vapidity. Democrats will be the ones to resolve deficit spending and we shouldn't let up.
~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. He is also a member of Iowa Physicians for
Social Responsibility and Veterans for Peace.E-mail Paul
Deaton
Iowa Democratic Congressmen See 15 Challengers File
by Paul Deaton
"While the field of challengers makes assertions about
patriotism and the framers’ intent in the constitution, our Democratic
delegation strives to do right by us."
While we waited for the next vote on health care, the Iowa filing
period for federal candidates closed and fifteen Republicans lined up to challenge Iowa’s
Democratic Congressional delegation, Bruce Braley (1st District),
Dave Loebsack (2nd District) and Leonard Boswell (3rd
District), in the midterms. The incumbents will face a hard-won campaign and the
anticipation is that progressives will support them with vigor. What else could
we do, considering the alternative?
The challenger biographies on the web assert their strengths.
Each man, and one woman, asserts their viability by distancing themselves from
politics as usual whether Republican, Democratic or Washingtonian. It is
difficult to characterize the field as a whole, and that seems to be the point.
They appear to seek a return to the agrarian individualism that characterized
the pre-industrial age, only with Twitter accounts.
These Republicans talk a lot about the founding fathers,
patriotism and the constitution. It drives me crazy. My ancestors were named
Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson in honor of famous Virginians, but weren’t
famous themselves. Our family established itself in Virginia a hundred years
before the American Revolution. It was unclear that there was going to be a
country, even when seven Virginians signed the Declaration of Independence. We
thought, like many did, that things could be worked out with King George. We
were wrong about that. My family continues to assert that our relatives won the
Revolutionary War in the Wilderness. It all seems pretty far fetched in 21st
century Iowa.
The truth is that while the artifacts of a person’s life
might make a great story, we have at best an inadequate view of what 17th
and 18th century folks outside the landed gentry thought or intended.
Each of us spins a story about what remains. The artifacts of history are mute
in and of themselves.
In the case of the constitution, we have been interpreting
those words since they were written. Part of signing the constitution was the
unwritten agreement to delay consideration of the slavery question for the
first 20 years of the republic. Thank the Quakers for remembering and lobbying
for abolition at the first congress in Philadelphia. I suspect there have been
unwritten deals in the capitol throughout our history. It is part of who we are
as a people.
What I know is that my family was not one of the seven
Virginians and members of the landed gentry that signed the Declaration of
Independence. We had other worries then and still do. When I consider the worries
of middle class Americans and the harshness of society in the post Reagan era,
I am thankful for Braley, Loebsack and Boswell. I feel they represent our
voices.
While the field of challengers makes assertions about
patriotism and the framers’ intent in the constitution, our Democratic
delegation strives to do right by us, right here and right now. We sent them to Washington to bring
change and they are. In the opinion of this writer, they have
earned our support.
~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. He is also a member of Iowa Physicians for
Social Responsibility and Veterans for Peace.E-mail Paul
Deaton
IPP Report on Fixing Healthcare in Iowa Iowa Policy Project senior research consultant Colin
Gordon has issued a new report for the IPP, “Prescriptions and Placebos: Fixing
Health Care in Iowa.”
In the Cedar Rapids Gazette, James Lynch reported that Gordon
“recommended ... that Iowa lawmakers scrap the ‘piecemeal’ approach they’ve used
in recent years if their goal is health care coverage that is affordable,
accessible and maintains a high level of quality.” From his
story:
‘‘Our health
care financing system does not work, and it’s understandable that state
legislators see a need to step in,’’ said Gordon, a senior research consultant
for the Iowa Policy Project and co-author of the report — Prescriptions and
Placebos: Fixing Health Care in Iowa — for the non-partisan Iowa Fiscal
Partnership. ‘‘They must be careful, however, to take a long-term view and not
miss the underlying problem of spiraling health care
costs.’’
Previous efforts have encouraged
employer-based coverage through tax credits, small-employer purchasing pools,
mandates for large employers and other ideas, said Gordon, a historian who
wrote ‘‘Dead on Arrival: The Politics of Health Care in Twentieth-Century
America.’’
On their own, these proposals
represent a fragmented approach to the problem that would do little to expand
coverage or increase affordability, and could actually make things worse, he
said.
‘‘I really think that trying to patch
up employer-based insurance is like moving furniture into a burning house.
It guarantees double-digit inflation and rising uninsurance into the future,’’
Gordon said.
We
encourage your review of this new report as the Iowa General Assembly prepares
to return to the Statehouse in January.
Best regards,
Mike Owen Assistant Director The Iowa Policy Project (319)
338-0773 Iowa City (319) 643-3628 West
Branch ipp@Lcom.net
People Party vs. Money Party: Who's Who Among the Democrats
By David Sirota, AlterNet The fact that our nation's politics is divided not between Democrats
and Republicans but between the People Party and the Money Party is
obvious to anyone who looks at the political system honestly (which is
to say, not most journalists or Washington political hacks). Calls for
"bipartisanship" and faux "centrism" that has nothing to do with the
actual center of American public opinion are most often moves to prevent the political debate from analyzing the People vs. Money divide
that actually fuels our politics. We already have plenty of
"bipartisanship" -- Republicans and a faction of Democrats who
regularly join hands to screw over the vast majority of Americans.
Many
people ask me who? Who are the leading members of both sides of the
actual divide? The answer is that there is no official list because no
one is forced to formally declare their allegiance to the People Party
or the Money Party. But it is fairly obvious which lawmakers in the new
majority have specifically defined themselves on economic justice
issues.
Though this is by no means a comprehensive list, here are the ones to watch in the coming Congress:
People Party Leaders
Freshman Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jon Tester (D-MT) and Jim Webb (D-VA):
This is the core group of economic populists who defined the larger
populist trend in the 2006 election. Brown has a long record in the
House as an economic justice champion, as has Sanders (who I worked for
years ago). Tester (pictured above from an event he did here in Helena
last night) made his campaign about cleaning up K Street corruption,
and Webb has declared that his top issue is going to be addressing the
taboo issue of economic inequality.
Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL): Dorgan has been one of the strongest voices against profiteering by the energy and pharmaceutical companies, and has recently written a book called "Take This Job and Ship It,"
which is one of the strongest declarations against lobbyist-written
trade deals from any sitting Senator in recent memory. Similarly, Feingold has voted against every major lobbyist-written trade deal
that has come through the Senate, even airing campaign ads on the issue
well before that kind of message became more popular. Kennedy, as the
incoming chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
(HELP) Committee is expected to continue his rabid support for the
People Party on nearly every economic issue. And Durbin, now the number
two Democrat in the Senate, has also had a solid record on trade, and
is additionally talking about pushing public financing of elections --
the most effective way to cut off K Street's ability to manipulate
Congress.
House Chairpeople George Miller (D-CA), David Obey (D-WI), John Conyers (D-MI), Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Henry Waxman (D-CA):
Miller will now head the Education and Workforce Committee where he is
expected to turn his longtime leadership on pension security, wage
protection and union organizing rights into legislative action. Obey,
who will head the Appropriations Committee (and who I worked for a few
years back), will make sure that any budget submitted by the White
House that slashes health care, education and labor law enforcement
will be dead on arrival, and replaced with a real spending plan that
protects people (Obey was the guy who famously authored amendments to
slash tax cuts for millionaires in order to better fund these
priorities). Conyers will head the Judiciary Committee, which oversees
all sorts of regulatory affairs where his pro-consumer record will
finally have a chance to shine. Slaughter will chair the powerful Rules
Committee -- the panel that governs how the entire chamber operates.
She has been an outspoken leader against media consolidation -- one of
the toughest issues to champion because the broadcasting industry is so
powerful. And finally Waxman will head the Government Reform Committee,
where we will now have a chairman who is serious about rooting out the
waste, fraud and corruption that has plagued the no-bid Iraq contracts
given to President Bush's cronies.
Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) Nancy Boyda (D-KS), and Bruce Braley (D-IA):
Ohio's trio of Kaptur, Ryan and Kucinich have been among the staunchest
critics of lobbyist-written trade pacts and advocates for the
middle-class agenda in the House. Freshmen Boyda and Braley both ran
their campaigns almost exclusively on the trade issue. In Braley's
case, the Wall Street Journal noted
that he made opposition to the Bush administration's free-trade agenda
a centerpiece of his campaign" urging "more focus on labor rights in
national trade policy and talked of using economic sanctions to keep
America competitive."
Dave
Loebsack ran a great, dignified campaign against a tough opponent, and did what
no other challenger could do in 30 years. He beat Jim Leach. Way to go Dave.
Enjoy DC.
Bruce Braley beat a tough opponent also, as did Leonard Boswell. Iowa now has
three Democratic Congressmen. Times are good. Thanks also to Selden Spencer and
Joyce Schulte, who ran good campaigns in tough areas.
We also have a new Democratic governor, a new Democratic Secretary of State,
and a good candidate for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture in 4 years. O'Brien ran
a good campaign about important issues, and should continue to work for the
people in the state of Iowa. We need her.
On to the Iowa House. Andrew Wenthe, McKinley Bailey, and Eric Palmer beat two
tough GOP incumbents. As did Elesha Gayman, who, at 28, is, I think,
Iowa's youngest ever female elected to the State House. She will work there
with Tyler Olson, who graduated high school in 1994. The future of our party is
in good hands. Meanwhile, Social Studies Teacher Art Staed takes over a former
GOP seat, as did Doris Kelley. Mark Nolte and Sally Vitamvas both ran good
campaigns, but came up short.
The State Senate also went well for Democrats. Rob Hogg, Bill Heckroth, and
Stacci Appel all won seats previously held by Republicans, Becky Schmitz beat
an incumbent in Southern Iowa.
Actors in New Whalen Ad Are as Phony As Charges Leveled
By Jeff Giertz
Waterloo, Iowa– Today the campaign of First District Democrat Bruce Braley released the following statement in response to another false attack ad from Bush-Republican CEO Mike Whalen.
“Mike Whalen can’t find real Iowans to attack Bruce Braley, so he has to use actors,” Braley campaign spokesman Jeff Giertz said. “It’s no surprise that a George Bush Republican would use these tried and true Washington tactics to attack a political opponent.
“Now that these facts have come to light, can Mike Whalen be trusted to level with the people of Iowa?”
Whalen’s new ad features “Ann,” a pregnant woman who cannot find a doctor because of Bruce Braley. The ad also features “Dave,” a man who can’t find a job because of Bruce Braley.
But “Ann” and “Dave” are both actors; footage used in the Whalen ad can be found at Getty Images’ online film database, http://creative.gettyimages.com.
It seems like history is repeating itself. In 2002, Republican US Senate candidate Greg Ganske was widely criticized after using an actress in an attack ad who falsely claimed to be an Iowan
The Iowa City Press-Citizen called the Ganske ad “an intentional deception of Iowa voters.” Columnist Rekha Basu called the Ganske ad “fraud.” [Press Citizen, 9/20/02; Register, 9/15/02]
The Whalen ad featuring actors can be viewed at the following link:
A well connected Enron lobbyist has entered the First District Congressional race funding negative campaign ads against Bruce Braley. Sue Walden, a former lobbyist for Enron, is listed in IRS documents as the contact person for the 527 smear group, “Americans for Honesty in Issues”. She was also a Bush Pioneer for 2000 and 2004 and a Bush Ranger for 2004.
Americans for Honesty on Issues (EIN: 134341094) is a 527 committee running attack ads against nine Democrat candidates in the 2006 mid-term elections, the New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/us/politics/11donate.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print) October 11, 2006. It states that its purpose is "to engage in political issue communications in compliance with Federal and state laws."
*IBLTV is a group of citizens from the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids area who are concerned about the decline in the quality of local television. Fight local media consolidation, as it leads to an unaccountable medium that enriches itself while disregarding the need to serve the public good.
*The rational counter to 'The Point,' 'The Counterpoint' critiques and corrects the daily editorial by Sinclair Broadcasting's corporate vice president, Mark Hyman, that is broadcast on all Sinclair-owned television stations across the country
