President Barack Obama (WDCpix)

“A freeze in domestic discretionary spending,” they argued, “would immediately save $53 billion and more importantly demonstrate an immediate commitment to fiscal restraint.”

Over the next month, the “No-Cost Jobs Plan” remained a useful talking point for Republicans rebutting attacks on their “no” votes, a hook for op-eds, and not much else. But in early January, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag fueled speculation that the White House might want freezes in discretionary spending in the 2011 budget. On Monday night the White House leaked the news that President Obama would propose a three-year freeze on such spending, which makes up roughly one-sixth of the budget. In his State of the Union speech, the president confirmed it.

“Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years,” Obama said. “Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.”

This sudden and hardly expected shift–using the language of personal responsibly that Republicans have used since before Obama took office–has startled members of both parties and economists both critical and supportive of White House policy. And while they’re using the opportunity to needle Democrats on a policy that’s seen as unlikely to shrink the deficit, conservatives see Obama’s decision as a partial declaration of surrender.

“I never met a spending freeze I didn’t like,” said U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the chairman of the Republican conference. He pointed to the December 9 letter and gave his party full credit for appearing to change the president’s mind on spending. “I’d welcome a sincere attempt at a spending freeze.”

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley said he approved of the spending freeze but believes it can’t stand alone. It must be coupled, Grassley said, with “cutting things or just turning back the TARP money, as an example. That’s $200 billion right there.”

Grassley pushed the idea of a spending freeze last March as a method to stop the president’s “socialist” agenda.

U.S. Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ames, said he, too, supports the idea of a spending freeze but remains skeptical it will actually happen under the watch of “a president who spent more taxpayer dollars in his first year than any other president in history.”

As a short-term attempt to co-opt Republican rhetoric, the “spending freeze” promise is a success. The first poll on the idea, conducted by Rasmussen Reports, found a 56-24 percent majority in favor of a freeze, with a slim 48 percent plurality of voters predicting it would have at least “a little” impact on cutting the deficit. It followed multiple polls that have found the public skeptical that government spending can pull the economy out of the recession. That, according to some critics, explains why the White House would grab onto a Republican concept unlikely to have a major effect on the economy.

“It has to be evaluated on political terms,” said Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist who has clashed with fellow travelers over his opposition to spending cuts in a bad economy. “What’s he trying to accomplish politically by saying this? He’s trying to give the appearance of moving to the middle. As policy, it’s too puny to have an effect even if it’s implemented.”

Bartlett argued that liberal economists’ concerns about the impact of any kind of spending freeze were “overwrought, because nothing will come of this. But Obama’s sending mixed signals to everybody–his own supporters as well–as to what exactly his economic philosophy is.”

Deficit hawks have taken the same approach to the “freeze” concept as Republicans. At best, it points to the right policy but doesn’t get there fast enough. At worst, it’s a distraction from more deeply-needed cuts.

“We wouldn’t oppose this,” said Josh Gordon, director of policy at the budget watchdog group The Concord Coalition. “It’s an acknowledgment that the deficit is a problem. You have to start somewhere. My concern is that too much political capital could be wasted on small items, and not enough could be spent on long-term challenges, like entitlement and defense spending.”

“Voters aren’t stupid,” said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist. (Conant’s client Tim Pawlenty called the “freeze” concept “kind of like somebody eating three Big Macs and then deciding they’re going to control their weight by ordering a Diet Coke.”) “The spending issue is not going anywhere, with or without this spending freeze. It only pertains to a small part of the budget, not even the fastest-growing part of the budget.”

Conant doubted that Obama had taken a Republican issue off the table for 2010, despite the instant polls. “Republicans do deserve credit for having the president acknowledge a problem,” he said. Other Republican strategists agreed that the “freeze” wouldn’t shift public opinion on which party can grapple with the deficit; one suggested that Obama’s embrace of the frame might make it easier for Republicans to run on government-cutting while dodging the tricky questions of entitlement or defense spending cuts.

“Ninety-five percent of Republican candidates, officials, staffers and advisers do not give a rat’s ass about fiscal restraint or government size,” one strategist told TWI. “At the end of the day, 95 percent of them believe people want to hear about fiscal restraint, but ultimately want government to give them stuff. This is how we default to talking about tax cuts, not spending, because everyone is afraid that if you criticize a spending item, you’ll offend someone. Well, you will. But when you bankrupt the whole country, which Obama’s proposal is not going to stop, you offend millions.”

Pence and other Republicans suggested that the “freeze” concept would come up again in a Friday meeting between the president and their party’s conference in Baltimore. Whatever the long-term political effect–whether or not a “freeze” happens–Obama critics are pleased that a year of arguments for more government spending are being swept aside.

“What he’s doing is actually pretty much what Bush didn’t have the guts to do in eight years,” said Veronique De Rugy, a libertarian economist at the Mercatus Center who has criticized the Keynesian spending policies of the Obama administration. “It’s nothing. But it’s more than Bush did.”

Bob Vander Plaats, left, and Terry Branstad (file photos)

At an event originally billed as a rally to oppose same-sex marriage, Iowa Family Policy Center (IFPC) chairman Danny Carroll announced the group’s endorsement of Republican gubernatorial hopeful Bob Vander Plaats. While that news wasn’t a shock, Carroll’s announcement that the group would sit out the 2010 governor’s race if former Gov. Terry Branstad wins the party’s nomination caught many by surprise.

“[Gov. Branstad] has failed to boldly address the values that we embrace,” Carroll said Tuesday. “And even if he were to win the nomination, the Iowa Family PAC would not support him.”

The endorsement followed a similar announcement last week by state Rep. Kent Sorenson, R-Indianola, where he, too, vowed only to support the nominee if it is Vander Plaats.

One Republican said the announcements are the start of a war that could “set back the Republican Party of Iowa for decades.”

“I am stunned and mortified,” said Brent Oleson, a Republican member of the Linn County Board of Supervisors and a former member of the party’s state central committee who has endorsed Branstad. “This is absolutely a recipe for disaster.”

After years of electoral defeats in Iowa, the GOP finally has the issues on their side, Oleson said. But now a “jihadist sleeper cell of so-called GOP leaders” is “refusing to work towards post-primary unity.”

Isaiah McGee, a member of the Republican Party of Iowa’s central committee and also a supporter of Branstad, used his Twitter account to express his frustration, saying that the party is trying to “snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.”

“While Gov. Culver’s [Condition of the State] speech flops, Republicans bicker,” he wrote.

Vander Plaats’ pledge to sign an executive order stopping same-sex marriage until a public vote on the issue could be held is one of the core reasons why social conservatives have rallied behind his campaign. Legal scholars say the idea isn’t plausible and would lead to a constitutional crisis, but Vander Plaats insists he will go forward with the order on day one of his administration even if it leads to his impeachment.

“It’s frustrating that leading Iowa Republicans do not recognize any acceptable position other than a poorly-advised executive order to somehow overturn the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court against all reason and junior high government class-level knowledge of separation of powers,” said Jeff Patch, a longtime Republican activist and former press secretary for U.S. Rep. Tom Latham.

If they truly believed in limited government they would be open to voices in their party who are skeptical of allowing politicians to decide what constitutes marriage, which is fundamentally a civil contract involving families and faith groups, Patch said.

“Instead, anyone who doesn’t support the exact agenda of some social conservative leaders is vilified as a ‘Republican In Name Only (RINO),’” he said.

In fact it is Carroll, Vander Plaats, Sorenson and the IFPC who are RINOs, Oleson said, if they refuse to support the party in the fall.

“They are not logical at all,” he said. “They are basically saying ‘If I don’t get my way I’m taking my marbles and going home.’”

Some Republicans are concerned that if Vander Plaats loses the nomination in June he will seek the state’s highest office as an independent. The Sioux City Republican re-enforced those fears last September when he endorsed an independent candidate running in state House District 8.

“Bob Vander Plaats needs to disavow this and he needs to do it soon,” Oleson said.

Ultimately, Oleson believes Branstad will be able to unify the party after the primary is over because “he’s done it before.” He’s referring to the 1994 GOP gubernatorial primary, where Branstad was able to win his fourth term in office after fending off a tough primary challenger.

“I’m glad he’s running,” Oleson said. “He’s providing adult leadership.”

But in 2002, while GOP candidate Doug Gross squeaked out a victory in a three-way primary the nearly two-thirds of Republican voters who didn’t support him never truly came home. Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack was able to easily win a second term in office.

Patch said the party doesn’t need to change its platform position on same-sex marriage but must at least be open to those who think government has more pressing problems to handle.

In case you were wondering, it sounds like his new office is quite nice:

A row of trees and the bright blue sky are visible through the glass windows, and the room itself offers a spacious environment complete with shelving, and quite pleasing for Yepsen, the table itself. The office — his office, as of April 1 — offers a much different environment than the newsroom of the Des Moines Register, where Yepsen worked for more than 34 years.

Kate and Trish Varnum, lead plaintiffs in Iowa's same-sex marriage case

Trish Varnum, who is now planning a quiet fall wedding, had a difficult time keeping her emotions under control while speaking to Iowa Independent by phone Friday morning.

Trish and her longtime partner, Kate Varnum, were lead plaintiffs in the case that led to a complete striking of an Iowa law that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“You cannot believe how nervous we were last night,” Trish said. “We had everyone here (in Des Moines) and, honestly, we just had a very difficult time getting any sleep. There was a very optimistic atmosphere, but, at that same time, there was always a little ‘what if’ voice in the back of your head.

“I can’t even tell you in words the feelings we experienced (when the decision was announced). Everyone was just in tears. It was so emotionally gratifying to finally be acknowledged as a full citizen of this state with all associated rights and benefits.”

The couple, residents of Cedar Rapids in eastern Iowa, had previously told Iowa Independent that their focus was not on history. While Trish maintains that their part in this legal battle was done for personal reasons, she’s also ready to accept the fact that their fight will forever be linked with the struggle of same-sex marriage advocates.

“I’m really proud of that fact,” she said. “I’m proud that our names will always be linked with this (legal case). This is a victory for everyone in Iowa — whether they realize it or not. Iowa was the state where this was always meant to be.”

Recounting the numerous ways that Iowa has led the national conversation — from being first in the nation with the Iowa caucuses to advancing civil rights well before landmark decisions were handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court — Trish said that historically it is appropriate and logical for Iowa to set a precedent on marriage equality.

“I’m so proud to be a part of Iowa once again leading the way, and I know Kate is as well,” she said. “Making history in this way? Well, I’ll be honest and say that I never expected my name would appear in a history book. But with this situation … well, I’m all about that. We cannot be more proud to be a part of this.”

While there might be some couples who move quickly to attain an Iowa marriage license following the court-imposed 21-day waiting period, Kate and Trish won’t be among them. The couple, who already had a larger ceremony, will wait until this fall to quietly make their married status legal in Iowa.

“We’ve done the big event,” Trish said. “And, I know people will likely take this the wrong way, but we feel in our hearts that we are already married in the eyes of God. So, we will do what we have to do to take care of this legal aspect, but it will just be family and close friends.”

Trish said that as a couple, she and Kate already have “everything we need,” and encouraged those who want to send wedding gifts to instead consider a donation to either Lambda Legal, the national gay and transgendered legal advocacy group that tried the case, or One Iowa, a statewide equality task force.

“The work they have done on behalf of us and on behalf of all the people of Iowa has been outstanding,” she said. “It was their hard work that made today possible, and we cannot thank them enough.”

After releasing a contented sigh, she added: “It’s a new day in Iowa.”

U.S. Rep. Steve King

But all that could vanish with a single sentence: “I’m Congressman Steve King and I want to be Iowa’s next governor.”

The Democratic salivating began in February when King, a Republican from Kiron, refused to rule out a gubernatorial run on Iowa Public Television. It’s escalated to full-frontal lip smacking with news that King, whose congressional district covers western Iowa, plans to headline an anti-abortion event in eastern Iowa next week.

Residents of eastern Iowa, who have never had an opportunity to cast a ballot based on their displeasure of King’s extreme social conservative viewpoints, are especially relishing the idea of being able to vote against “the state’s cancer,” as King has been referred to on more than one occasion.

“It’s never enough to just limit cancer,” explained Allan Hale, a resident of Ely. “You have to eradicate it. You have to destroy it. If you don’t, it will fester and spread. Even if I’ve never had a chance to vote against him, his policies and his stupidity impact me.”

Those that believe such statements to be too inflammatory for proper political discourse need look no further than King’s own statements.

“What kind of a nation are we if we can’t have open dialog?” King asked members of the Sioux City Rotary Club last year while defending his own controversial rhetoric.

Mike Carberry, a Johnson County Democrat, likens the Democratic want of a persona like King on the 2010 gubernatorial ballot with the same push Republican pundits gave to then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid.

“They saw her candidacy as an opportunity to motivate their base because of all the negative bias against her,” Carberry said. “This is the same principle.

“Steve King never misses an opportunity to embarrass himself or Iowa. While our state used to be known as the place of corn and hogs, now we are nationally associated with ignorance and intolerance because of King. The bottom line is that Iowans will line up to vote against him.”

Even within the predominantly conservative counties that make up Iowa’s 5th Congressional District, some residents have not only voted against King, but created a Web site declaring that King does not represent Iowa values. The group points to King’s continued quest to raise his congressional pay, his inability to pass a major federal bill, and even his possible quest at a gubernatorial run as reasons King should be known as an ineffective lawmaker and an embarrassment to the entire state.

When King described military service members who married foreign spouses as drunks on binge — in addition to saying that foreign widows of fallen U.S. soldiers exploit the U.S. immigration system — the former president of the Reserve Officers Association of Iowa said that King “wraps himself in the flag at every opportunity, and yet has chosen to malign the loved ones of deceased service members.”

Such statements, which King himself has described as calculated, have drawn to his side a negative national following as well. When he declared in March 2005 that “Congress created all of the courts” and that “whatever Congress gives, they can take away,” he came under intense scrutiny.

Nearly every feminist in the world tied King to a verbal whipping post in June 2006 when he said that deceased terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi probably wouldn’t have “72 virgins in the hell he’s at,” but, “if there are, they probably all look like Helen Thomas,” referring to the legendary White House correspondent of more than five decades.

From describing the events at Abu Ghraib as “hazing,” to describing war-torn Iraq as safer than Washington, D.C., to equating immigrant people with livestock, to proclaiming that terrorists and their sympathizers would be “dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11,” 2001 if Barack Obama was elected president, King has touched nearly every public interest group with a sharp tongue.

Although the eastern Iowa event featuring King is an anti-abortion “educational” meeting hosted by Linn Area Pro Life United at the Crowne Plaza in Cedar Rapids on April 6, King even has his dissenters within that community.

“He takes every opportunity he can to put down the poor and the oppressed and expresses only what we consider contempt for the people whom Jesus said ‘are the least of these,’” Frank Cordaro, a former Catholic priest and human rights activist, said in February when King spoke at the statehouse on behalf of a Catholic-backed gathering of anti-abortion activists. “It humiliates Catholics who work among and struggle for the poor and disenfranchised in this state.”

When looking at King’s motivations for wanting to headline an event on the opposite side of the state from his congressional district, there is no denying the possible longer term impact of reapportionment and redistricting, which will almost certainly include the loss of one of Iowa’s federal representatives in 2012. While it is much more likely that Democrats Bruce Braley, who represents the 1st District, and Dave Loebsack, who represents the 2nd, will be placed in the same congressional district, there remains a possibility, depending on how the new four districts are drawn, that King and fellow Republican Tom Latham could reside in a newly drawn district.

It would be close to impossible, however, to draw a district that would include King’s home in Kiron with Cedar Rapids, the site of King’s upcoming appearance. Given that, there is no reason to place King’s visit in connection with redistricting concerns.

“The chances of seeing a district slice across the center of the state like that are extremely slim,” said David Redlawsk, a political science professor at the University of Iowa. “The code charges that districts should be compact, and although the exact meaning of ‘compact’ has been debated, I think that a district spanning from one side of the state to the other would clearly not meet that goal.”

Any political capital King might garner from his upcoming eastern Iowa visit could only be spent on a statewide race — which can only be described as music to the ears of Iowa Democrats.

In Iowa, Obama leads Republican John McCain 52 to 39. The last Big Ten poll had Iowa as virtually tied at 42.7 percent for Obama and 42 percent for McCain.

“In September, we saw virtually the entire Big Ten as a battleground,” said Charles Franklin, co-developer of Pollster.com and a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Now Obama is clearly winning the Big Ten battleground. The dominance of the economy as a top issue for voters is the overwhelming story.”

Head-to-head results for individual states

Illinois	Obama 61%	McCain 32%
Indiana	Obama 51%	McCain 41%
Iowa	Obama 52%	McCain 39%
Michigan	Obama 58%	McCain 36%
Minnesota	Obama 57%	McCain 38%
Ohio	Obama 53%	McCain 41%
Pennsylvania	Obama 52%	McCain 41%
Wisconsin	Obama 53%	McCain 40%

The surveys consisted of phone interviews of between 562 and 586 randomly selected registered voters and those likely to register to vote before the election in each of the states and were conducted by phone with live interviewers from Oct. 19-22. The polls each have a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points.

Here is the Harkin news release on the endorsement:

DES MOINES, IA – The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Political Action Committee (VFW-PAC) announced that it has officially endorsed Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) in his bid for re-election to the United States Senate.

In a letter to the Iowa Senator, Director of the VFW-PAC Larry Rivers wrote, “In addition to comments received from VFW leaders in your state, this endorsement is based on your strong support for veterans, national security/defense, and military personnel issues.”

The Veterans of Foreign Wars Political Action Committee is the nation’s only major Veterans Service Organization PAC. VFW-PAC provides 2.2 million members of the VFW, its auxiliaries and their families, with an opportunity to collectively support candidates for federal office. VFW-PAC endorses only those candidates for federal office who support our nations’ veterans and stand in support of a strong national defense.

“It is a great honor to receive this endorsement,” said Harkin. “I have a long history of working for our veterans, for those bravely serving our country abroad and for military families here at home. Many steps have been taken at the Federal level to provide the best care possible for these individuals, but we still have a long way to go. If I have the privilege of being re-elected to the Senate, I plan to continue fighting for those who have sacrificed so much for our country.”

Harkin saw two of his crucial veterans bills become law during this Congress. The Senator joined with another member of the Iowa delegation, Congressman Leonard Boswell (IA-3) in pushing for passage of the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act.  This bill – which is named for a soldier from Grundy Center, IA who took his own life after returning from Iraq – directs the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to step up screening, counseling and other mental health services for returning war veterans.  The bill passed unanimously in the House and Senate and was signed by the President in November 2007.

Harkin also recently introduced and ensured passage of the Coming Together for Guard and Reserve Families Bill. This legislation will increase support for families of those deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially members of the National Guard and Reserve.

Harkin served in the Navy as a jet pilot on active duty from 1962 to 1967 and then continued to fly in the Naval Reserves. He is a member of American Legion Post 562 in his hometown of Cumming, IA.

Courtney’s comments to the Iowa Independent Tuesday follow a hearing to examine the program last week at the Statehouse. Iowa is one of six states to pay grocers for accepting food assistance payments, which are processed like debit cards and can carry a similar transaction fee. At 7 cents per transaction, Iowa’s payments are the most generous in the nation.

Critics call the payments a wasteful corporate handout.The Department of Human Services, which administers the program, has itself opposed the payments for four years. Roger Munns, a spokesman for the department, called the payments a “gift.”

“This is providing grocers the incentive to do something they would do anyway,” Munns told the Iowa Independent. “They aren’t going to stop selling $300 million in groceries if the state doesn’t provide them 7 cents per swipe on a swipe card.”

The Iowa Fiscal Partnership, a joint initiative of the Iowa Policy Project and the Child and Family Poverty Center, also opposes the program. Mike Owen, spokesperson for the partnership, said the time has come for Iowa to stop the payments. “If the program goes away, Iowa taxpayers save half a million dollars,” he said.

But grocers want the payments to continue. Jerry Fleagle, president of the Iowa Grocery Industry Association, said eliminating the program would force grocers to shift the costs of accepting food assistance payments onto all consumers in the form of higher prices. “I think Iowa ought to be proud that they reimburse,” Fleagle said.

Opponents see it differently. Ending the program would merely treat food assistance payments the same as other forms of electronic payment like credit cards and debit cards, argued Munns. “If groceries are having a hard time with that 7 cents, then they should raise their prices.”

Electronic Benefit Transfer Cards replaced paper food stamps as the means of distributing federal food assistance starting in the late 1990s. Today, food stamps remain “stamps” in name only – recipients usually make purchases by swiping their cards in the very same machines that other customers use for their credit and debit cards.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the transition to an electronic system helped reduce fraud and abuse in the program, as well as lessened the stigma that some food stamp recipients felt when using the paper coupons in grocery stores.

Iowa currently spends about $500,000 a year on its program, and the federal government matches the money, bringing the total payments to $1 million. Were the program to end, Iowa would no longer qualify for the $500,000 in matching federal funds.

At last week’s hearing, the Iowa Grocery Industry Association argued that if the Department of Human Services is concerned about cutting costs, it should instead look to a program designed to help people on food assistance access farmers’ markets. In that initiative, which cost $378,004 in 2007, the department helps farmers pay for wireless systems to process food assistance payments and then reimburses them for the transaction fees. In 2007 alone, the department spent $268,562 on outreach, including statewide radio advertisements, posters, flyers, and coloring books designed to publicize the farmers’ market program.

The department rejects the idea that there is any contradiction between its support for the farmers’ market program and its opposition to the grocer subsidy.

Courtney also defended the program. “The farmers’ market culture is important to our culture in Iowa,” he said. “For now, there is a feeling in the Legislature that that is worth saving.”

Although Courtney confirmed that there may be changes coming to Iowa’s reimbursement program, so far, there are no proposals being seriously considered. Last week’s hearing was not meant to resolve the issue.

Asked why payments to grocers continued despite a four-year push for their elimination, Munns sounded a cynical note. “I think the grocers are getting their money’s worth with their lobbyists,” he said.

“They’ve got more money than we do.”

City officials are expected to close Ottumwa's Market Street Bridge in the coming days.

The gates are wide open on the Ottumwa Hydroelectric Dam. The river is expected to crest at 21 feet, one foot less than the record set during the flood of 1993.

Volunteers pitch in to place filled sandbags on pallets so they can be loaded on trucks and taken to areas of town where they are needed.

Some people gathered near the water's edge to get a look at the rising Des Moines River.

Local bow fishermen were taking advantage of the situation, watching for confused fish on the lower side of the hydroelectric dam in Ottumwa.