“I think you could put it down like that,” Schulte said in an interview tonight.

As it stands she would make the Democratic primary here in western Iowa into at least a three-person contest as retired Presbyterian minister Rob Hubler of Council Bluffs and retired businessman Bob Chambers of Essex are in the race.

Schulte, 65, has lost two elections by wide margins to U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron. In 2006,  a weak year for Republicans that even saw the outster of Iowa icon Jim Leach in eastern Iowa, King pulled 58 percent of the vote to Schulte’s 36 percent in the sprawling, 32-county western Iowa district. King spent $620,000 compared to just $73,000 for Schulte. A largely self-financed Independent, Roy Nielsen of Orange City, spent $150,000 but failed to break into double digits with just 5 percent of the vote.

In 2006, Schulte beat Chambers to get the Democratic nod, and in 2004, Schulte bested former State Rep. Gene Blanshan of Panora in the primary.

During the interview Schulte, retired as the director of support services for Southwestern (Iowa) Community College in Creston, said she is working on collecting the necessary signatures for a run.

“I generally don’t start things that I don’t think are feasible,” Schulte said. “This is one of those things I want to do. I think its feasible.”

What would make 2008 different for Schulte than her earlier two failed bids against King, presuming the congressman doesn’t seek to trade up with a Senate run against Tom Harkin, D-Iowa?

“I wouldn’t want to divulge everything,” Schulte said.

Last week, Hubler told Iowa Independent he was well funded for a primary race with more than $80,000 raised. For her part Schulte said she’s not stared on that yet.

“I haven’t put my energies into that,” Schulte said.

On Tuesday night, Schulte noted that Iowa has never elected a woman to a congressional seat or to the U.S. Senate, and the Hawkeye State has never had a female governor.

She touched on that theme in an earlier interview on women in politics.

Is there any way a female candidate can win in the most conservative district in the state?

“That’s a fascinating way of putting a question, that women aren’t electable in Iowa,” Schulte said last spring.
Schulte said she knows the electoral history with women for top political positions in Iowa.

“Yeah, I know what the rule is at the moment,” Schulte said. “We’ve gone all the way up the ladder except moving into those top three.”

Why is that?

“It beats my five aces,” Schulte said. “You know, women are good to keep home and whatever. We brag about them in every way except. And I just don’t know whether it’s a figment of our imagination in a sense that women can’t do those top pieces in government. We do the top pieces in raising families. We do some of the top pieces in business.”

She noted that women are fighter pilots and astronauts.

“Why we can’t do it in Iowa for those congressional and senatorial pieces I’m not sure,” she said.

Sioux City Journal reporter Bret Hayworth has reported that Chambers has the signatures needed to enter the race. Here is Hayworth:

It was just a formality, but Iowa 5th District cogressional candidate Bob Chambers of Essex has gotten the necessary petition signatures to officially file nomination papers for the post held by Republican Steve King. Democrat Chambers met the requirement of getting 16 counties with 793 signatures. The 5th District is composed of 32 counties.

However, a leading watchdog organization, the American Institute of Philanthropy, released a report last month suggesting that 12 of the 29 charities the organization studied earned a failing grade. The API has instituted a 60 percentile passing threshold, meaning at least 60 cents for every dollar raised is spent directly on veterans and charitable programs. The worst ratings went to the American Veterans Relief Foundation, which passed along 1 cent for every dollar raised, and the National Veterans Service Fund, which passed along 2 cents on the dollar.

There are no laws regulating the amount of money charities spend on overhead. The API report contends that 20 of the 29 charities have mismanaged their resources, whether paying high overhead costs or direct-mail fund-raising fees to for-profit consultants. Furthermore, in some cases, higher overhead is due to six-figure salaries paid out to the charities’ leaders, including Help Hospitalized Veterans (HHV), which The Washington Post reports paid its founder and his wife a combined $540,000 in compensation and benefits last year.

This has drawn the ire of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who has been a longtime critic of charities that are abusing their tax-exempt status. “Taxpayers are subsidizing that tax exemption,” Grassley said in a statement. “Sitting on donors’ money or spending too much on contracts and salaries doesn’t benefit the public.”Daniel Borochoff, president of the API, also cited HHV, a charity that provides therapeutic arts and crafts kits to the hospitalized veterans, as an egregious example of abuse. The API reported HHV’s income at $71.3 million last year; the charity spent about a third of that on charitable work.

The charity was founded in 1971 by Roger Chapin, 75, who received $426,434 in salary and benefits the past fiscal year. His wife, Elizabeth, 73, received $113,623 in salary and benefits as a “newsletter editor.” The Washington Post reports that HHV, in its tax filings, reported paying more than $4 million to direct-mail fund-raising consultants. The group also has run television advertisements featuring actor Sam Waterston, game show host Pat Sajak and other celebrities.

Borochoff points the finger at professional for-profit fund-raising consultants and companies that charities hire. “The wool is being pulled over the eyes of the donating public by some F-rated charities,” Borochoff said in a statement while testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Dec. 13, 2007.

“Veterans and other charities often enter into contracts with professional fund-raising businesses that may keep (for their profits and expenses) 80 percent or more of the contributions raised,” Borochoff informed the committee. “National Veterans Services Fund (NVSF) filed a 2004 contract with Bee LC that guarantees at least 15 percent of the gross revenues `for calling of individuals who have previously donated by telephone via this contract to NVSF.’”

The NVSF’s Web site states that the charity was founded in 1978 and is a not-for-profit organization located in Darien, Conn., that provides case-managed social services and limited medical assistance to Vietnam and Persian Gulf War veterans and their families, with a focus on families with disabled children.

Grassley also testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform at the “Assessing Veterans Charities” hearing. Grassley not only took veterans charities to task, but called for more rigid accountability and congressional oversight for all not-for-profit charities. “We need to ensure that the public continues to have confidence in these institutions,” Grassley said in a prepared statement. “Our veterans need to know that Congress is taking a hard eye at these charities to ensure that veterans are appropriately benefiting from donations.”

“Charities also receive billions of dollars in government grants, contracts and payments. Charities represent a bigger part of the economy than people might realize – just a little under 10 percent of the economy and the work force,” Grassley said in his testimony before recommending a possible solution. “So often, I see problems with charities because there is not in place basic governance — that is, independent, active board members — that are minding the store. Your committee should consider the possibility of requiring basic good governance structures and best practices — similar to those advocated by the Nonprofit Panel and watchdog groups such as the American Institute of Philanthropy — as a requirement for charities that participate in the Combined Federal Campaign or receive federal grants and contracts.”

Despite some of these failing charities, there are some that have helped benefit the wounded warriors returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “In the rush to help, there’s a lot of innovative work and good work happening, but there’s also a lot of fraud and waste,” Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, told The Washington Post. “There’s never been a greater need for veterans charities in a generation, and I hope issues like this don’t deter people from giving.”

Two such groups, the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (IFHF) and the Fisher House Foundation (FHH), received A ratings by the API.

The IFHF was established in 2003 and has provided close to $60 million in support for the families of military personnel who paid the ultimate sacrifice, and for severely wounded military personnel and veterans. IFHF claims on its Web site that 100 percent of the contributions go towards programs, while all administrative expenses are underwritten by the fund’s trustees. In January 2007, the IFHF completed construction of a $40 million world-class state-of-the-art physical rehabilitation center at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. The Center for the Intrepid serves military personnel who have been catastrophically disabled in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and veterans severely injured in other operations and in the normal performance of their duties.

The Fisher House is a program designed to provide military members and their families with services that meet a need beyond what the Department of Defense and the Veterans Affairs would normally provide. Fisher House donates comfort homes that enable family members to be close to their wounded love ones during hospitalization for an unexpected illness, disease or injury. There is at least one Fisher House at every major military medical center, and the foundation has served more than 10,000 families and has made available nearly 2.5 million days of lodging to family members since the program began in 1990.

Jim Weiskopf, spokesman for Fisher House, told The Washington Post that one reason his charity has had a higher ratio of success and lower overhead is that it does not use direct-mail advertising. “As soon as you do direct mail, your fund-raising expenses go up astronomically,” he said.

While the war in Iraq might loom large in the minds of Democratic caucus-goers, Iowa Republicans are much more focused on immigration and cultural issues, according to a new survey of state GOP chairs. The local Republican officials, like the leading GOP presidential candidates with the exception of Ron Paul, mostly agree that a stable Iraq is key to U.S. national security and the war on terror. But the Iraq war itself is not playing out as a stand-alone voting issue.

“The war is certainly an issue, but I don’t think it carries the same impact the media says it does,” said John Markham, chair of the Dubuque County Republican Party in eastern Iowa.

The war is “probably not [hitting home] as much as it was two years ago,” said Rev. Harold Miller, who served as chair of the Grundy County Republican Party until recently.

In a series of phone interviews conducted by Huffington Post’s OffTheBus project, 37 of Iowa’s Republican county chairs were asked to name the issues most important to GOP caucus-goers this year.  Almost universally, immigration and social issues were mentioned.  Asked about the Iraq War, many county chairs downplayed its significance.

“The war has overshadowed the real things that need to be spoken about,” said Alice DeRycke, chair of the Iowa County Republicans in central Iowa.

“I think [the war] is probably the third or fourth item down the list of importance,” said Dave Stolb, GOP chair of rural Guthrie County in western Iowa.  “The immigration issue” is the most important in Iowa.  “Immigration is number one, with ’social agenda’ … definitely high up there.”

These insights may help to explain why, despite one Republican polling firm’s data showing that more than 50% of Republican caucus-goers support withdrawal from Iraq within six months, the most successful Republican candidates in Iowa oppose any current plans for withdrawal.  (No sources we reached seemed to fit into the supposed majority of GOP caucus-goers who support withdrawal, and several did not believe that the poll was accurate.  But at the very least, the poll raises questions about how the war plays politically across the state.)

Vonnie Kinkaid, chair in Union County, attempted to add a bit of perspective to the discussion when asked about the poll data.  “Listen, no one here is pro-war.  There are much worse wars.  We lose more people to the war on alcohol, more to substance abuse than to the mission in Iraq,” she said. “There are worse problems at home, things we got to straighten out here.”

In terms of what those problems are, most county chairs were in general agreement: immigration and social issues trump the war and most other issues in the minds of GOP caucus-goers.  Several county chairs also helped to shed light on why this may be.

Irene Blom, chair of the Marion County Republicans in central Iowa, said that the biggest issues for Republicans in her area are abortion, gay marriage, and “the downfall of morals and religion.”  Blom, like a significant number of Iowa’s social conservatives, is of Dutch descent, and her family’s history has played a role in shaping her political views.

“My parents were born in the Netherlands,” she explained. “20 to 25 years ago, my [Dutch] relative came to visit and predicted that America should be careful, as it is going the same way as Holland.  You know what has happened there.”

Religion itself also appears to motivate caucus-goers, particularly when it comes to how their children are educated.  Cheryl Adams, Van Buren County GOP chair, identified “Prayer — the freedom of prayer in the public schools” and “the right to display the Ten Commandments in public places” as the most important issues in the minds of GOP caucus-goers in her area.

Mark Lundberg, county chair in Republican-rich Sioux County, noted that although his county’s public schools are excellent, parents send 25% of school-age children to private, Christian schools.  “The electorate here is strongly pro-family and anti-gay marriage,” he said.  “There is a strong Christian conservative influence here.”

But even more than moral issues, immigration was named by county chairs most often as the top issue on GOP caucus-goers’ minds.

“I think Iowans, and for that matter, people as a whole across the nation, are concerned about the illegal immigration problem that we face,” said Loras Schulte, Benton County Republican chair.

Connie Hoelscher, chair in Hamilton County, agreed: “We need to get the non-US citizens out of our country.”

In some cases, immigration was tied directly to local unemployment.  “They have taken jobs away from our people,” Hoelscher claimed.  In other cases, the reasons for prioritizing immigration were less clear.

Iowa’s recent hispanic immigrants, mostly from Mexico, tend to live in small pockets across the state near meatpacking plants, where they often work.  In those areas in particular, anti-immigrant sentiments can be high.

Decades ago, meatpacking plants paid some of the highest wages in rural Iowa, and their employees were unionized.  Rick Halvorsen, chair of the Warren County Republicans, gave his account of what has happened in the plants and their surrounding communities over the past two decades:

I’m not a union man, but the plants broke the unions and saddled the community with supporting the workers.  [The packing plants] wouldn’t pay a living wage [to workers doing] those really pretty awful difficult jobs.  So they went south of the border and now it’s 50% from Mexico and just 12-15 years ago these were all-white towns.  They have to hire Spanish-speaking teachers for the schools.  [The packing companies] broke the unions 20 years ago.  Those workers moved away.  We’re 50% Hispanic now.  Packing companies like Swift have been making huge profits, and they don’t pay the workers enough to live… The Mexicans have large families, the wives and kids coming up, but the plants won’t pay.  Low wages and large families means the taxpayers are supplementing the companies’ profits.  We pay for the health insurance and benefits for their workers.  We’ve had enough of that.

(Straight from the horse’s mouth, that’s about as clear a summary of immigration politics in Iowa as I’ve seen.)

But despite widespread consistency among county chairs about what issues matter to GOP voters, the presidential race in Iowa remains fragmented and volatile.  “A lot of people are on the fence, a lot of people [are] undecided,” said Trudy Caviness, chair in Wapello County, before she quickly rephrased.  “People are undecided on who to vote for, but not on the issues,” she concluded.

But the energy bill that passed was merely a shadow of its former self, as a 15 percent renewable electricity standard and provisions for new taxes on oil companies were stripped out.

Ethanol and biodiesel producers will have plenty to celebrate, as the bill calls for the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, a significant increase from the approximately 5 billion gallons of ethanol last year. Under the bill, 21 billion gallons of biofuels will be required to come from sources other than corn-based ethanol by 2022.

The bill will raise fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks for the first time since the 1970s. Fleet-wide fuel economy will be raised to 35 miles per gallon, up from today's level of 25 mpg.

President Bush, who had threatened to veto the bill last week, is signaling that he will sign the bill now that the tax increases and renewable electricity standard have been removed.

Like this June Washington Post article, which boldly declared that "the corn price increases flow like gravy down the food chain, to grocery stores and menus." It states "the nation's unquenchable thirst for gasoline — and finding an alternative to what's been called our addiction to oil — has produced an unintended consequence: The cost of the foods that fuel our bodies has jumped. Beef prices are up. So are the costs of milk, cereal, eggs, chicken and pork. And corn is getting the blame."

Or just read the first sentence of this Newsweek International article, published last week under the ominous title "Blame It on Biofuels." The article starts off by saying: "High food prices always hit the poor hardest, and these days there is plenty of bad news. Corn prices are nearly $4 a bushel, almost double their 2005 level."

The fact is, corn prices have been trending downward for almost eight months. Today at the Chicago Board of Trade, September corn is going for about $3.25 a bushel. But consumer food prices have not followed that downward trend.

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey told Iowa Independent this week that prices farmers are paid for their crops have only a minor effect on final prices at the grocery store.
"We've seen it all through history — it seems like farm prices get blamed for consumer prices going up. We've seen that constantly," said Northey, who is a corn and soybean farmer. "But we've never seen them say that things got cheaper because of farm prices. If you look at our prices, our prices are no higher now than decent prices were back in the '90s, or back even in the '70s."

A lot of people, he said, are making excuses for higher consumer food prices and they're not being altogether honest. "They're blaming the farmer when our prices aren't at all out of line. And it's usually a very tiny portion of those final consumer prices. If you look at popcorn, you look at even meat, it's not a huge portion. And each of them have their own demand-and-supply situation."
Very few farms can pass on their costs, he explained. "They just get what is the market price for their products. There may be some of those consumer prices that increased at the same time that the corn price increased, but many of those haven't gone down the way corn's gone down since January. We had $4 corn and now we have corn in the $3.15 and $3.20 range. So let's don't blame corn or ethanol for those higher prices."

A recent American Farm Bureau Federation study showed that the value of the corn that is used to make a box of corn flakes is less than a nickel. Grain prices make a difference in consumer food prices, but according to that study, only slightly.

What is more likely to affect food prices is the overall cost of energy for production and transportation of the products — and even more significantly, as stated in that Newsweek article referenced above, rising global demand for food. As that article says, in the second to last paragraph, "perhaps the most significant factor is rising wealth, particularly in the developing world. Since 2002, the combined GDP of the 24 largest emerging markets has doubled, according to Bank of America, and per capita income has risen by nearly 14 percent a year. As families get richer, they can more regularly indulge in meat and dairy products. In China, beef consumption has gone up by 26 percent since 2000, and pork, which was already popular, rose by 19 percent." 

As reported here on Iowa Independent, corn farmers have a big crop coming this fall, and a corn shortage is not expected. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has projected that 2007 will bring the second-largest corn crop in history.