Blog for Iowa

Health Care Reform Update: Republican Voucher Plan for Medicare

Alta Price — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:00:00 -0600

Health Care Reform Update: Republican Voucher Plan for Medicare

by Alta Price, M.D.

During an interview with Katie Couric during the pre-game Super Bowl show, President Obama announced plans for a televised half-day summit to be held at the White House on February 25 to go through Democratic and Republican health care reform proposals. I sure hope it will be a replay of the Q & A session with the House Republicans!

To get ready for the summit, let’s examine a subset of health care, Medicare. I am sure Blog for Iowa readers are savvy enough to know that Republicans were opposed to the creation of Medicare back in 1965. In fact, the patron saint of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, recorded an LP (remember those?) for the American Medical Association in an effort to defeat Medicare. My favorite quote from the LP is his dire warning that if Medicare passes, "We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."

And Republicans have been trying to kill (or privatize) Medicare ever since.

One way they have tried to kill Medicare is by ignoring the fact that Medicare will soon run out of money – the Medicare trust fund will be depleted in 2018. The Republicans tried to scare everyone into privatizing Social Security, even though it will be solvent for many years past the time Medicare goes broke. At the same time they ignored Medicare’s problems, or made them worse by passing the Medicare drug bill without paying for it. (Did you know the Medicare drug bill, passed under reconciliation and added to our national debt with no attempt to pay for it, costs as much over ten years as the current health care reform bills passed by the Democrats?) And of course the Medicare Advantage plans (which were part of the Medicare drug bill) were part of a Republican plan to privatize Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans cost the Medicare trust fund 14 % more per enrollee and are designed to attract only the healthiest seniors.

To deal with Medicare and bring down deficits, Republicans want to give seniors a voucher to purchase private insurance in the individual market. The government would no longer directly pay for health care services for Medicare recipients.

The most current and detailed Republican health care reform proposal is part of the “Roadmap for America's Future". The chief architect of the plan is Representative Paul Ryan, ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Jonathan Cohn, Senior Editor for The New Republic writes about the Roadmap in an article “Yes, let’s talk about those Republican ideas”:

The health care portions of the plan, though, really would reduce what the government spends on health care. And they would do so, primarily, by extracting money from Medicare. Instead of continuing to provide coverage directly, the government would issue vouchers that seniors could use to buy private insurance. The value of the vouchers would rise far more slowly than Medicare spending is expected to grow if nothing changes.

The bills passed by the Democrats in the Senate and the House also cut Medicare spending over time. But they don’t do it by giving seniors a voucher inadequate to pay for private insurance. From the article again:

This is a critical difference. If you simply reduce the money flowing into Medicare, relying only on the wits of beneficiaries to figure out how best to spend what’s left, seniors are bound to end up with less care. That's the Republican method. But if you also introduce system-wide changes that reward more efficient care and force down provider prices, the dollars in the program really might go farther--so that spending less doesn't always mean getting less. That's the Democratic approach.

And what about seniors with pre-existing conditions? There are no insurance reforms in the Roadmap, so insurers can charge the sick more or refuse to cover them. You’ll be happy to know that the Roadmap envisions state high-risk pools for the sick elderly. That way it will be up to each state to decide if they want the financial burden of providing health care for the sick elderly who used to be covered by Medicare or if they will just let them die.

I just stumbled across some great analysis of the Roadmap health care proposal by someone (Baseline Scenario) on a financial blog, of all places. I highly recommend both part one “The Republican Plan, I: People Will Die” and part two “The Republican Plan, II: You’re On Your Own”.

Alta Price is a physician practicing Pathology in Davenport, Iowa. One of the original Deaniacs, she stays involved with Democracy for America, Iowa, and the Quad Cities. She advocates for quality, affordable health care for all, primarily as a volunteer with Progressive Action for the Common Good (Health Care Reform Issue Forum). Watch for Dr. Price's Health Care Reform Update every Tuesday here on Blog for Iowa. E-Mail Alta Price

Republicans Target Iowa's Second District With Fake Census

Trish Nelson — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:09:44 -0600

Republicans Target Iowa's Second District With Fake Census

Please pass on this urgent message from Congressman Dave Loebsack.

Friends,

I was very disappointed when I heard from concerned citizens in the 2nd District that Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, has sent a fundraising appeal into our district that looks like an official Census document. This fundraising letter even calls itself a 'Census survey' and asks people to pay for the cost of processing the census form.

The Census is vital for our communities because an accurate count helps ensure that Iowans get adequate funding for schools, roads, and hospitals. It is also critical for flood recovery, and helping our disaster stricken neighbors.

Please look for your official Census in the mail over the next few months. It will not ask for party affiliation or for money.

That the RNC would target our district shows just how determined they are to take back the House. Please stay vigilant and please be in contact if you see any further attempts to mislead our community.

Sincerely,

Dave

Labor Update: Time for President Obama to Make Recess Appointments

Tracy Kurowski — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:00:00 -0600

Labor Update: Time for President Obama to Make Recess Appointments

by Tracy Kurowski

"I hope that we can get more cooperation here. I have been someone.... who has tried hard not to have the president do recess appointments. But what alternative do we have? What alternative do we have?" - Harry Reid

Senator Scott Brown was sworn in earlier than scheduled last Thursday, marking the end of the Democrats' heralded 60 vote cloture proof majority in the Senate. The 60 vote majority was an illusion. The Democrats never had total control over all sixty Senators in their caucus – give me a break, Lieberman and Kucinich in the same camp?

The Massachusetts Senator-elect, had agreed to be sworn in on February 11th when the Obama Administration assured the GOP that the Democrats would not attempt to rush through any health care vote before Brown was seated. But then, Brown demanded to be sworn in early, on February 4, so he could effectively block votes concerning National Labor Relations Board appointee Craig Becker, former SEIU lawyer whose comments concerning strengthening labor laws in favor of workers have raised red flags among conservatives.

We should be thankful, at least, that Patricia Smith’s appointment as Solicitor General made it past the cloture hurdle before Brown barged in, because there are nearly a hundred Obama appointments that have yet to be approved by the Senate – Republican obstructionism has prevented even this most basic of operations.

It is now long past the time for the Obama Administration to undam those operations and start making recess appointments – especially after GOP Senator Richard Shelby made the scandalous announcement last week that he was going to block all appointments unless his district gets some pork.

Despite the howls that are surely to erupt by conservatives when Obama finally does the right thing and starts making recess appointments, the power of the President to do this is vested by the Constitution. Cloture votes and filibustering are not – those are manipulations of parliamentary procedure – rules, not laws. In fact, the cloture rule wasn’t implemented until 1917.

Senator Harry Reid, aware of the urgent need to overcome GOP obstructionism, announced in a bold statement last week that Obama will have no choice but to make recess appointments. "I hope that we can get more cooperation here. I have been someone, Madam President, who has tried hard not to have the president do recess appointments. But what alternative do we have? What alternative do we have?"

History of Recess Appointments

The use of recess appointments goes back to the 1st president, when President George Washington appointed John Rutledge as Chief Justice of the United States. People complained Washington exceeded his reach, and the appointment served just until the next congress – the way the law is spelled out in case of unpopular or unjust appointments. But this initial use has been repeated hundreds of times since. In fact, fifteen Supreme Court Justices began their tenure with a recess appointment, and nearly every president since that time made recess appointments.

Obama has yet to use it.

Though some have argued that making recess appointments to overrule a Senate block is not what the Constitution intended, President Truman spelled out that his use of this power was because the Senate wouldn’t move on his choice for ambassador. “I find no reason in the record of the hearings to change my high opinion of Mr. Jessup's qualifications for this post. I consider him particularly qualified to serve as a representative of the United States to the General Assembly of the United Nations. Accordingly, I am giving him a recess appointment.”

When Obama had criticized Bush’s appointment of John Bolton as US Ambassador to the UN, it was not because he thought it was an abuse of presidential power, but because Bolton was no diplomat. Obama said at the time, “John Bolton is the wrong person for the job. The president is entitled to take that action, but I don't think it will serve American foreign policy well." Bolton had said this of the UN “The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. The United Nations is one of the most inefficient inter-governmental organizations going. UNESCO is even worse.”

The kind of gridlock we are seeing imposed by the Republican majority over the effective functioning of our government was foreseen by the Forefathers at the Constitutional Convention when drafting the Constitution and the clause to empower recess appointments passed with little opposition. “The Recess Appointments Clause was adopted by the Constitutional Convention without dissent and without debate regarding the intent and scope of its terms.” One framer put it this way: “Though the Senate is to advise [the president] in the appointment of officers, &c., yet, during the recess, the President must do this business, or else it will be neglected; and such neglect may occasion public inconveniences.”

All modern Presidents have made recess appointments both during the shorter breaks within a session of Congress as well as during the longer recess between the two sessions. In fact, the last five Presidents used it with frequency: George W Bush 171 times, Clinton 139, HW Bush 77, Reagan 242 and Carter 68. Presidents Jackson, Taylor, and Lincoln made hundreds of recess appointments during their terms.

President John F. Kennedy appointed our nation’s first black Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in October 1961, getting around opposition from Southern senators. President Dwight Eisenhower made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953) and Associate Justices William Brennan (1956) and Potter Stewart (1958). Each later received Senate confirmation. On one day alone, President Reagan made a record forty-six recess appointments.

With the next Senate recess approaching over President’s day holiday, and with nearly a hundred qualified nominees waiting in the sidelines, Obama needs to wield his Constitutionally-sanctioned power to make recess appointments. Hopefully he’ll do so before another appointee withdraws his name due to political contention.

Tracy Kurowski is currently AFL-CIO Community Services Liaison at the United Way of the Quad City Area. She has been active in the labor movement for ten years, first as a member of AFSCME 3506, when she taught adult education classes at the City Colleges of Chicago. She moved to the Quad Cities in 2007 where she worked as political coordinator with the Quad City Federation of Labor, and as a caseworker for Congressman Bruce Braley from 2007 - 2009.

Tracy Kurowski writes a labor update every Monday on Blog for Iowa

The Future of Iowa Grassroots Politics

paul deaton — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:00:00 -0600

The Future of Iowa Grassroots Politics

by Paul Deaton

"In Iowa, young people are leaving the state in droves and this begs the question of the relevance and longer term viability of Iowa in the national debate."

On the dust cover of The Audacity to Win by David Plouffe, it says, “Plouffe was not just the architect of the campaign that put Barack Obama in the White House; he also built a grassroots movement that changed the face of politics forever and re-energized the idea of democracy itself.” A bit self serving on the part of the publisher, Viking Penguin, but of course it would be. If the campaign Plouffe organized changed the face of politics, the citizenry does not like the way it looks, especially the partisan visage we see on the 111^th Congress and the President’s inability to pass many of his major initiatives during his first year in office.

Regardless of what happened during the run up to the 2008 Presidential Election, a grassroots movement, by its nature, can seldom be replicated in the same way or with the same energy. This is not to denigrate the work Plouffe and the legions of staff and volunteers did, but to say that campaigns are the stuff of dreams, woven in delicate silk mixed with coarse jute fibers. The utility of such cloth is of short duration.

In the Iowa precinct where I live, the coalition we built for the 2008 election included people of every demographic and every political viewpoint. We could see the harm being done by the previous administration and a dysfunctional congress. It was time to “take back our government.” Having done that, we figuratively turned over the keys on inauguration day and did not look back. We elected the president and congress and after the election, expected them to govern. Most of us have a life outside of partisan politics.

It is unlikely this same coalition will come together again in 2012 and more certainly, not in this year’s midterm elections. A grassroots organization is always changing and political campaigns are notoriously different, one from the other. Conservatives where I live have woken up and are saying the same thing we did, “it’s time to take our government back.” The next two election cycles will be challenging for those of us in the party in power, in the same way the opposition was challenged in 2008.

For people who grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, we wonder how many more times we can engage in these campaigns. A friend of mine wrote in an e-mail, “My own personal perspective, however, is that after spending decades of of my life fighting for environmental/political/social progress, including rising again and again from the coals after temporary 'burn-outs', I honestly have reached the end-of-my-rope regarding the battles and no longer care to expend time or energy doing so further.” This view is not uncommon in my cohort. Many of us will fire up the boiler again, yet there is a constraint on the degree to which we can continue to be active in campaigns. Likewise, the older we get, the more it is not about us.

In Iowa, young people are leaving the state in droves and this begs the question of the relevance and longer term viability of Iowa in the national debate. Iowans value the millions of dollars spent in the state as each presidential cycle unfolds. Being first in the nation presents an opportunity for those campaign dollars to be spent here and it is one place where the two major political parties agree. Too, Iowa continues to be an active participant in shaping national policy. When we consider the national discussion on health care reform, we can see how Iowans helped shape policy among the candidates in 2007, and ultimately in Washington in the 111^th Congress. If Iowa does not engage our sons and daughters enough for them to stay in the state, Iowa may lose its relevancy and the continuing opportunity to shape the national debate.

When I think of David Plouffe and the work he did, I also think of James Carville and his role during the first campaign of Bill Clinton. While once considered to be brilliant, with time, Carville has become a craggy and irrelevant talking head on networks that no longer engage us. I hope this is not Plouffe’s fate.

Let’s hope children born in the 1980s and after do not cling to the excitement of the 2008 election cycle, but learn from it, let go and continue to engage in local and national politics. Many of the twenty-somethings I know have already done this and are waiting for us to catch up. All we can do is say we are trying.

~Paul Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County. Check out his blog, Big Grove Garden. E-mail Paul Deaton

HF 2100: The Risks of Nuclear Power Belong to Iowans

paul deaton — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 05:00:00 -0600

HF 2100: The Risks of Nuclear Power Belong to Iowans

by Paul Deaton

"Who pays for the real possibility of failure or cost overruns? The answer is you, me and every utility customer."

The last electrical utility bill we received at our house was unexpectedly high. No doubt this is due to my recent retirement, more computer time, more cooking on our electric range and keeping more lights on in the early hours of morning. Even though the bill was double what we expected, we could afford it. The cost of electricity on the power bill is cheap.

We are customers of a Rural Electric Cooperative and it is hard to say where the electricity comes from. When a substation in Ohio went out last year, our lights went out. I suspect that the fuels that generate our electricity are a mix of mostly coal with some natural gas, nuclear fission and wind. The electric utilities are reasonably reliable in providing the service, so we don’t think much about electricity or where it comes from. Maybe we should.

The Iowa legislature is considering HF 2100 which in its current version contains language that would provide incentives to electric utilities (Section 1, Paragraph 5) to build nuclear power plants in Iowa. The incentives would enable them to recover their costs in the event a nuclear power plant was designed, partially built, was litigated against and/or the plant did not go on line.

There is significant risk in building the first nuclear power generating plant approved since the 1970s and the Iowa legislature is, in the language of HF2100, removing the financial risks from the electric utility who might build a nuclear reactor in Iowa. Who pays for the real possibility of failure or cost overruns? The answer is you, me and every utility customer.

In any business venture, the business owner takes risks in going to market and the customer pays for the product or service and everything involved with developing it. According to the U. S. Energy Information Agency, “there has been no new order for a nuclear power plant since the 1970s. The last nuclear plant to be completed went on line in 1996. A few, perhaps four, construction licenses are still valid or are being renewed for half-completed reactors, but there are no active plans to finish these reactors.” The trouble with nuclear reactors is that the risk of failure or of cost overruns for a new plant is too high. That's why electric utilities in Iowa want the incentives in HF2100. That's also why Iowans should be concerned with the legislation.

The Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives has registered for the bill on the lobbyist web site. If I was an electric utility and could avoid the financial risk of my nuclear power generating plant not getting finished, running over on costs, or facing litigation from any source, I would favor the bill too. It would be a sweetheart deal.

While the powerful interests in Des Moines influence the legislation that is considered, the role of the legislature should be to consider a bigger picture of achieving energy independence for Iowa with an electrical utility system structured to meet the needs of Iowans in terms of risk, costs and the environment. I am a citizen who buys the electricity for my home and have to rely on the Iowa Utilities Board and the legislature to protect my interests. This may be too much to ask.

As an alternative, let’s hope HF2100 does not make it out of the Commerce Committee through the funnel until all of the risks and costs are better understood. I urge you to contact your elected officials and tell them as much.

Here is a link to find your legislator. Please let them know how you feel about HF2100.

~Paul Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County. Check out his blog, Big Grove Garden. E-mail Paul Deaton

An Iowa Veteran Remembers A Local Hero and Howard Zinn

Ed Flaherty — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:00:00 -0600

An Iowa Veteran Remembers A Local Hero and Howard Zinn

by Ed Flaherty

The loss of two heroes hit hard last week. Several hundred people gathered Jan. 30 in Iowa City to commemorate the life of our local hero, Peggy Stokes, who died Jan. 9. The death Jan. 27 of Howard Zinn, our national and international hero, shocked and saddened hundreds of thousands.

Stokes and Zinn didn't know each other, but they were a lot alike. First off, they both would be saying that there is too much living and work to do to spend much energy mourning.

Stokes took loving care of her own family and spent 23 years at the University of Iowa Pediatric Center for Disabilities and Development helping innumerable families and children. For the last five years, she has led a peace vigil every Friday afternoon at the southeast corner of the Pentacrest in Iowa City.

Zinn, a B-17 bombardier in World War II, was beaten and arrested in the 1960s and 1970s protesting for civil rights and against the Vietnam War. He authored "A People's History of the United States" which has sold nearly 2,000,000 copies, and never stopped applauding the heroism of everyday citizens. (Stokes was one of those "everyday citizens.")

They were both rather audacious and not easily embarrassed, because they acted not for self-glorification but out of a deep affection for others and an unshakable commitment to peace.

They did everything possible to inspire us, and it is now up to us to take up their sweet burden.

Ed Flaherty is a member of Veterans for Peace and Johnson County Democrats Central Committee and other suspect groups. Ed is a retired banker.

Iowans Should Challenge the Military Establishment

paul deaton — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:00:00 -0600

Iowans Should Challenge the Military Establishment

by Paul Deaton

"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

When President Eisenhower said, in a 1961 speech, “A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction” people had little understanding of what a powerful force the military establishment would become a decade into the 21st century.

In his February 1 remarks on his proposed budget, President Obama pointed to the flaws of the military establishment, “We save money by eliminating unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe. One example is the $2.5 billion that we're spending to build C-17 transport aircraft. Four years ago, the Defense Department decided to cease production because it had acquired the number requested -- 180. Yet every year since, Congress had provided unrequested money for more C-17s that the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's waste, pure and simple.” The argument of the military establishment was that we cannot cease making the Boeing C-17, even if we don’t need or want more of them, because it would take too long to ramp up production should they be needed in the future. The continued funding of the C-17 is an example of the military establishment’s influence in Congress.

In his January 29, 2010 Editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Vice President Biden wrote of the nuclear weapons complex of the military establishment saying, “For as long as nuclear weapons are required to defend our country and our allies, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal. The president's Prague vision is central to this administration's efforts to protect the American people—and that is why we are increasing investments in our nuclear arsenal and infrastructure in this year's budget and beyond.” The administration proposes to add $5 billion to stockpile and delivery system stewardship. The reasons for maintaining a nuclear weapons arsenal return to the Eisenhower era and the notion of deterrence.

So what does this talk about the military establishment and infrastructure mean for Iowans? Eisenhower provided an answer, “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” Iowans must be that alert and knowledgeable citizenry.

The discussion over national security in Washington is as heated and partisan as ever. According to the Wall Street Journal article on February 3, Russia and the United States are close to agreement on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Once the treaty is signed by Obama and Medvedev, the partisan politics can be expected to begin. On one side will be Senator Jon Kyl and the conservatives questioning the administration’s negotiations, centered on parity and verification. On the other we can expect Vice President Biden and Senator John Kerry to lead an effort to win the 67 votes needed for ratification. It will be this way on START. It will be this way on every national security initiative of the Obama administration.

To resolve the issue of partisan politics, Iowans must understand that in addition to being “scary,” national security has its roots in the actions of people like us. It is up to Iowans to petition Senators Grassley and Harkin on issues related to defense, nuclear proliferation and the entire military establishment.

The partisan nature of the Senate makes every Senator’s vote an important one. Our willingness to speak out to our Senators on national security issues may be our last, best hope for living without the fears engendered by the powerful interests at work behind the military establishment.

~Paul Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County. Check out his blog, Big Grove Garden. E-mail Paul Deaton

Anti-Equality Extremists Pushing for Constitutional Amendment in Iowa Legislature

Trish Nelson — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:29:56 -0600

Anti-Equality Extremists Pushing for Constitutional Amendment in Iowa Legislature

OneIowa.Org

Opponents of marriage equality have made a divisive constitutional amendment their first priority. We expect them to push their devastating agenda on the House floor early next week.

You've probably already contacted your Representative by email and phone, and asked them to stand with House leadership to tackle problems affecting all Iowans, instead of being sidetracked by an amendment meant to pit neighbor against neighbor.

Will you also help by donating $300, $175, $65, or even $25 right now?

Our staff is working day and night to make sure legislators hear from fair-minded Iowans. But we need your financial support to keep our exhaustive work going.

Supporters of equality from all over the country write to us daily, calling Iowa a "beacon of hope." And anti-equality extremists know if we continue upholding our values of fairness and equality, it's only a matter of time before all Americans - from California to Maine - reject discrimination in all forms.

So they're hastily flooding the legislature with lobbyists, advertisements, and money - again. They've already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to take away our freedom, and they've pledged not to stop until all marriages fit their definition.

A surge of support today will lessen their anti-equality stranglehold on some elected officials, and show fair-minded legislators they have community support to stand strong.

Thank you, ahead of time, for your generous support.

Research 2000 Poll: What Republicans Believe/Iowa

Trish Nelson — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:00:00 -0600

Research 2000 Poll: What Republicans Believe

"Today's poll about Republicans was like a Margaret Mead study; except she studied more advanced tribes." [found on OTOOLEFAN's Twitter feed]

This week, a Research 2000 poll commissioned by Dailykos, revealed that the GOP of today, the party of "no," is scarily stuck in the past. 2,003 self-identified Republicans (actually, quite a large sample size for a political poll), were randomly selected by the last four phone digits, and interviewed over the phone. Click here to read the entire poll and methodology.

Here is some of what the polling found:

A full sixty-eight percent of Republicans polled said 'yes' or were 'not sure' to the question, "Should Barack Obama be impeached or not?" (39% 'yes'/29% 'not sure').

Fifty-eight percent (more than half!) said 'no' (36%) or 'not sure' (22%) to the question, "Do you
believe Barack Obama was born in the United States or not?

Almost a quarter of respondents said they believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win (24%). Thirty-three percent were not sure (God bless this subset of independent-minded Republicans...).

Only fourteen percent of Republicans, according to this poll, believe that Barack Obama is more qualified to be President than Sarah Palin (!) In a way, this seems the most preposterous of all the results. GOP, as long as we've got your attention, here are the facts:

Sarah Palin's resume: a Bachelor's degree earned via five different schools (not that there's anything wrong with that); mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, (a town about the size of Marshalltown); and an incomplete, ethics-violation-riddled term as Governor of Alaska. Oh yes, a book with five (long) chapters that her own PAC spent $60,000 buying copies of, and that are being handed back out to donors in exchange for more PAC contributions.

President Obama's resume: U.S. Senator 2005-2008 (resigned to take job as President); served three terms in the Illinois senate; graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School (magna cum laude), and was editor and first black president of Harvard Law Review; a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years; a civil rights attorney; community organizer; also authored two books, that actually take time to read and are interesting.

To give the GOP some credit, more than a third, thirty-six percent, answered 'no' to the question, "Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates white people?" But of course that leaves sixty-four percent who answered 'yes' (31%) or 'not sure' (33%).

And we'll give credit where credit is due, fifty-eight percent of Republicans do NOT want their state to secede from the union, leaving forty-two percent who either do want to secede (23%) or are not sure (19%).

Republicans apparently are very solid in their belief that Congress should not make it easier for workers to form and join labor unions. Check out this number: sixty-eight percent said 'no.' Another twenty-five percent 'not sure.'

The GOP respondents overwhelmingly believe same sex couples should NOT be allowed to marry (77% no/7% yes/16% not sure).

They (coincidence?) equally believe public school students should be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world. (77% yes/15% no/8% not sure)

Thirty-one percent of the respondents said contraceptives should be outlawed.

Thirty-four percent believe the birth control pill is abortion.

Seventy-six percent believe abortion to be murder (statistically speaking, even if these last two groups did not overlap at all, which would be highly unlikely, that leaves at least 10% who believe that taking birth control pills is murder).

Now that we know what Republicans believe, one naturally moves to the next head-scratching quandary.

Q: Where do they get these ideas?

This one's easy.

A: (1) Fox News; and (2) Talk Radio

We should not be surprised by the results of this poll. How could it be otherwise? Fox News has been propagandizing for - we don't know, but it seems like a really, really long time, at least since the Clinton years. And Limbaugh goes back at least that far. When Ronald Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, it allowed right-wing media to flourish, well financed, and unrestrained by the guidelines of journalistic balance and public interest.

Fact: Ninety-one percent of talk radio today is conservative - not because the public wants it this way, but because of the orchestrated effort and infusion of money by the conservative right. BFIA has posted on this issue until we are blue in the face. Please check out our posts on this topic, then consider making a commitment to doing something locally about media reform. We promise you there is an AM station in your listening area that airs exclusively conservative talk with no progressive programming for balance. See BFIA ACTION ALERT below the links.

Click on these links to access BFIA Archived posts:

'Shock Jocks on the Radio Airwaves in Iowa'
Glenn Beck Sells Snake Oil to Unsuspecting Iowans
A Step in the Correct Direction for Talk Radio in Iowa
Current State of Talk Radio in Iowa a Crime
Are Iowans Being Brainwashed by Fox News?
Support the Fallon Forum, Iowa's Progressive Talk Radio
Congress, FCC Abandon Citizens: Appeal to Rupert Murdoch Our Only Hope
Future of Conservative Talk Radio
Extreme Right Watch in Iowa: WHO Radio's Steve Deace and Friends on Rachel Maddow
Conservative Talk Radio - How Much is Too Much?
Obama's Radio Address: Why Can't We Get It Here?
Iowa Congressmen Support Local Community Radio Act (HR1147)
Most Outrageous Available on Iowa Stations
Study: Localism Key to Correcting Conservative Talk Radio Imbalance
Iowa Civility Gains Foothold Against Right Wing 'Shock Jocks'
Our Second Priority: Media Reform
Help Take Back the Media
Media Reform Activist Toolkit
Media Reform Conference Sessions Now Online
Iowa Media Reform Group v Sinclair Broadcasting
Keith Olbermann Calls For Media Reform In Special Comment
Media Reform to be National Priority
Bog Krause Talks to BFIA about Health Care, Media Reform, and RAGBRAI
A Whole 'Nother Approach to Media Reform
Obama's Radio Address: Why Can't We Get it Here?
Iowan on FCC Reform Panel to Advise Obama Transition Team

...and on and on

**BFIA ACTION ALERT**

If you live in any of these ten broadcast areas, please consider calling or e-mailing your local station. Or stop by the station and tell them you would like to examine their public inspection file. Tell them you want BALANCED programming that serves the whole community, NOT exclusively right wing talk. Remind them the broadcast airwaves are publicly owned. If they do not listen, click here to file a complaint with the FCC.

Burlington Talk Radio KCPS
KCPS 1150
205 S. Gear Avenue
W. Burlington, Iowa 52655
Phone (319) 754-6698
E-mail kcps@aol.com
Glenn Beck, 9-11a; Limbaugh 11a-2p;Dennis Miller 2-5p; O'reilly 5-6p; Michael Savage 7-9p;

Cedar Rapids WMT 600
600 Old Marion Road
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
Phone: 319-365-0600
Toll free: 800-332-5401
*600 on your US Cellular Phone
johnlaton@clearchannel.com
Limbaugh 1p-4p; Jim Bohannon 9p-12a

KXIC Iowa City 800 AM
(319) 354-9500 /866-609-TALK (8-2-5-5)/news@kxic.com
Hannity, Dennis Miller,

WOC Quad Cities
1420 AM
563-344-7025
news@woc1420.com
Limbaugh 11a-2p; Hannity 6-9p;Dennis Miller 9-12a;

Des Moines WHO Radio
1040 AM
2141 Grand Ave
Des Moines, IA 50312
Phone: 515-245-8900
vanharden@clearchannel.com, Program Director
joelmccrea@clearchannel.com, General Manager
Jan Mickelson,9a-11:30;Limbaugh 1-4p;Steve Deace 4-7p;Michael Medved 9-10p;Michael Reagan 10p-1a; Jim Bohannon 4-5a.

Dubuque WDBQ(no website)
1490 AM
5490 Saratoga Road Dubuque
Phone: (563) 557-1040
Limbaugh 11a-2p

Estherville KILR
1070 AM (no website)
Phone: 712-362-2644
Limbaugh 11a-2p

Mason City KGLO
AM 1300
341 S Yorktown Pike
Mason City, IA 50401
(641) 423-1300
Tim Fleming, tfleming@kglo.threeeagles.com
Brian Fancher, bfancher@kglo.threeeagles.com
Limbaugh 1p-4p M-F

Sheldon KIWA (has advertiser list on website!)
1550 AM
411 9th Street
Sheldon, IA 51201
Phone: 712-324-5377
E-mail: Walt Pruiksma, Station Mgr., at walt@kiwaradio.com (good luck...there is a picture on the website of Walt with Bush)
E-mail: Wayne Barahona, Program Director, at wayne@kiwaradio.com
Limbaugh 11a-2p; Hannity 2-5p; L & H Saturdays also

Sioux City KSCJ
1360
2000 Indian Hills Dr
Sioux City, IA 51104
(712) 239-2100
sarthur@powelliowa.com
Limbaugh, 11a-2p; Hannity, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Dennis Miller, Bohannon

Waterloo KXEL
AM 1540
514 Jefferson Street
Waterloo, IA 50701
General Manager: Tim Mathews tim@radiogroup.net
Phone: 319-234-2200 or 800-584-7024
Coverage Area: Waterloo-Cedar Falls-Cedar Rapids-Iowa City
5-6a Jim Bohannon; 8-11a Glenn Beck; 11a-2p Limbaugh; 2-5p Hannity

Cedar Valley Voices: Is Grassley An Embarassment to Iowa?

Dave Bradley — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 05:00:00 -0600

Cedar Valley Voices: Is Grassley An Embarassment to Iowa?

by Clara Oleson

The Cedar Valley Voices project is a citizen response to state Representative Jeff Kaufmann’s column in the West Branch Times during the Iowa legislative session.

In considering the current state of our representation by Senator Chuck Grassley and his bid to continue it through 2018 when he will be eighty-five years old, I have two major areas of concerns, one politically incorrect, one simply of confounded amazement.

As a lifelong Democrat, I have not particularly admired Grassley, nor thought him aboveboard. His “I’m just a farmer” stance, doing farm work one week a year while he and his family raked in a million bucks in farm subsidies, seems duplicitous. His lame attempts to rant about $700 Department of Defense hammers while never doing anything serious to vote down the defense budget is also annoying.

However, I understand partisan politics and thought, like many Iowans, well, we have one, and they have one. It was handy, when my Republican friends complained about Harkin I could complain about Grassley.

More importantly, Grassley never embarrassed me. I disagreed with his priorities, most recently his earmarking $50 million for a fake rainforest in Iowa, the fantastical brainchild of one of his millionaire contributors, Ted Townsend. Nevertheless, that is what you get when you have private money fueling the electoral process.

But all that was before he started talking about “death panels,” suggesting that AIG executives commit suicide, and taking care of “grandma.” One day he was presenting himself as a serious negotiator in the health care reform debate, the next as a diehard opponent to any health care reform that was not wedded to the free market.

He seems to have morphed into the most cantankerous old coot of the heartland. In Pocohantas, he stood silent when a constituent at a health care forum, standing one foot away from him, invited like-minded crazies to go to the White House with their guns. Does Iowa need this kind of national attention?

So, while it is politically incorrect to raise the issue of age and mental competency, I think someone has to ask for the release of his medical records including a mental competency exam. As a voter, I feel like I am wondering if grandpa needs his license pulled, for the sake of everyone else in the electoral process. Is all this an act and he is a perfectly reasonable person? Are the increasing instances of his odd behavior simply political theatre? I hope so, and he can end this difficult speculation by giving us the medical information we need to be reassured that someone is not representing us in the early stages of mental dementia.

The second area of concern is his use of the filibuster. It confounds me. Following the lead of his party, Grassley now acts as if a supermajority is needed to pass any legislation in the Senate. Ironically, our founding fathers, usually claimed by conservatives as their private birthright, loudly rejected supermajorities except in limited circumstances. As a senior senator, I would expect Grassley, even when in the minority, to understand that this voting pattern is a serious danger to our national system of governance. It is a bastardization of our history, antithetical to majority rule and out of character for him to embrace the “sixty votes for anything the opposite party wants to do” rule.

The combination of his behavior and his embrace of supermajority voting has me confused and ashamed by his representation.

Grandpa, we need to talk.

Clara Oleson
West Branch
email Clara