Bag Man for Governor

Back in 1991 freshman congressman Jim Nussle appeared on the floor wearing a paper bag over his head to protest the Rubbergate scandal, in which House members had been writing bad checks from the House bank. Since then Nussle became the chairman of the Budget Committee in 2001, and has taken over the job of writing bad checks for the entire nation.

During his tenure as Budget Committee Chairman Nussle has turned a projected 10 year $5.6 trillion budget surplus into a $2.6 trillion deficit, adding to the crushing national debt of over $7 trillion. Yet Nussle still touts himself as a fiscal conservative.

Now Nussle has set his sights on the 2006 Iowa Governor’s race, with the overwhelming support of Iowa House and Senate Republicans behind him. He should be reminded that Iowa can’t run these huge budget deficits; we don’t have the Federal Treasury to print money, and cover our bad checks.

In the Mob the bag man’s job is to collect money. But Nussle sees his job as just the opposite. He rationalizes the $106 billion in tax cuts factored in to the 2006 budget resolution as ultimately increasing federal revenues. Tax cuts = growth = increased revenue. His thinking echoes that behind Iowa Republicans sole solution to any problem facing state government: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. But this kind of overly simplistic Never-Neverland economic theory doesn’t stand up to the harsh realties of real world economics. Jim Nussle should stay in Washington; Iowa’s budget just can’t handle a hapless bag man.

A Grumpy Grandpa Grassley

Iowa’s favorite curmudgeon, Senator Grassley, threw a hissy-fit during Tuesday’s Senate Finance Committee hearing on social security reform plans. Wagging his finger at the panel, and referring to himself as “Grandpa Grassley”, the Senator shouted: “Doing nothing is not an option, because doing nothing is a cut in benefits.” Grassley railed against critics of private accounts, saying: “Those of you who are badmouthing every other suggestion out there, suggest your own plans.”

Perhaps emboldened by Grassley’s outburst, the panel played like an episode of CNN’s Crossfire. The witnesses represented a broad spectrum of possibilities, and often clashed with each other in a manner unfitting the decorum of the Senate. Witnesses Pozen and Tanner put forward plans that would shift, either in-part or in-whole, to price-indexing of benefits rather than wage-indexing. Tanner’s plan is incorporated in to a bill introduced by Rep. Johnson of Texas (H.R. 530). Witness Ferrara outlined a plan that would allow workers to put 10% of their payroll taxes into private accounts, which is incorporated in the Ryan-Sununu bill (H.R. 1176.IH & S. 857.IS). Witnesses Orszag and Entmacher argued against private accounts, and suggested other ways to keep social security solvent, such as increasing the cap on payroll taxes.

Grassley needs to settle down and seriously consider the positions put forward, because doing the wrong thing could also mean a cut in benefits. The facts are that diverting money out of the social security trust fund and into private accounts will not help the system’s solvency, and changing from wage-indexing to price-indexing is a cut in benefits. Demagoguery from either side will not solve the problem. So to Senator Grassley: hold your horses old-timer, and look before you leap.

Learn to Love the Bomb

Senator Inhofe, of Oklahoma, said on the floor today that is its time for senators to stop being afraid, and “learn to love the bomb.” He was referring to the Nuclear or Constitutional Option, which would seek a ruling from the president of the senate on a point of order declaring that judicial nominations cannot not be filibustered. Senate rules currently require a 3/5 vote to invoke cloture, thereby stopping a filibuster, and a 2/3 vote to change the rules on the filibuster. Sustain a ruling of the president on a point of order would only require a majority. There are several variants on the Nuclear Option (see article from The Hill ), but the end result would be the same: no more judicial filibusters.

I oppose changing the Senate rules in this manner. It would drastically alter the traditions of the Senate, which have historically protected the rights of its members to unlimited debate.

The first organized filibustered was in 1841. It was not until 1917, when the Senate created cloture, that a filibuster could be stopped. Further, it was not until 1949 that the Senate could invoke cloture on executive nominations. Between 1949-2002, and prior to the recent judicial filibusters, cloture was sought on 35 nominations, it was invoked on 21, and rejected on 7. Out of those 7, 3 nominations failed to be confirmed by the Senate, one being the filibuster of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas in 1968. (CRS report)

Filibustering judicial nominations is not unprecedented, and it is not contrary to Senate rules. It is an extreme tactic, and seldom used with the effectiveness of late. But these extreme measures are justified in order for the Senate and the Minority to retain an essential check on executive power.

That being said, the stage is set, and Vice President Cheney is ready to drop the bomb. I can’t help but salivate at the prospect of watching the fallout. The Democrats declare that in response to the Nuclear Option they will radically alter the way the Senate does business. No more comity, no more unanimous consent request, no more dispensing with the readings of bills. As a student of government I’m intrigued by this prospect, and can only say to Senator Inhofe, “Make my day.”

Yepsen Demeans the Debate on the Death Penalty

Has David Yepsen turned into a partisan hack? In his April 26th column “Stop ducking death penalty vote,” Yepsen calls Democrats “chicken”, “gutless”, and “weaselly.” He even manages to squeeze in cheap shots at Sen. Grassley’s former opponents, the judicial filibuster in the US Senate, and the voters in Iowa City. This type of juvenile name calling hurts the real debate over this important issue.

If the death penalty is such a good idea, why didn’t the Republicans bring it up when they controlled both houses of the state legislature? Only now, after the tragic murder of a child, when the passions of the populace are bent on retribution, do we hear the call to reinstate state sanctioned killing. As in the Schiavo case, partisans see the opportunity to exploit a personal tragedy by turning it into a divisive political wedge.

Yepsen’s column is emblematic of the current state of political discourse. His shrill cries drown out discussion on the merits of the death penalty. They serve only to deride and divide, rather than inform and persuade. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, when he was confronted with similar outrageous rhetoric on CNN’s Crossfire: Stop, stop, stop hurting Iowa.

Keep University Foundation Records Private

I commend the Register, and the Press Citizen on their efforts to open up access to Iowa’s public records. Transparency is an essential element of a well functioning democracy. But these papers threaten to eclipse the value of those achievements by doing violence to the privacy of the non-profit organizations that support some of our most cherished institutions, our state universities.

Iowans should be proud of our excellence in education. Our state universities provide top notch education at affordable prices. But maintaining these institutions is not cheap. Out of the over 3 billion dollars the Board of Regents will spend next year, only 616 million will come from taxpayers. Less than 50 percent of the universities’ budgets are covered by state funds. The rest comes from tuition, and the generosity of private individuals.

The privacy of the various non-profit organizations that facilitate these charitable gifts is under attack. Why does the public need to know the names of the people who, out of the goodness of their hearts, take up the burden that the legislature is unable, or unwilling to carry?

The Iowa Supreme Court decision that the Register, and Press Citizen believe authorizes this unprecedented intrusion tortures the plain meaning of the Iowa Freedom of Information Act. The solicitation and receipt of donations to our state universities is not a government function. Rather, it is evidence of a government that fails to function, and of the generous spirit of ordinary Iowans. Please, allow these folks their privacy.

Leach Flip-Flops on Social Security

I’m loath to use such a well worn cliché, but is Jim Leach flip-flopping on the Social Security debate? I first became concerned about our supposedly moderate congressman’s position on the issue after his February 4th appearance on Iowa Press. Leach said “going to individual accounts, is probably long-term more rational for the system.” Worried by this “nuanced” position I sent him a letter asking for clarification. Leach graciously responded in a letter of his own, stating categorically “I do not favor privatization of the system.” You can imagine my confusion when I saw Leach standing behind the President in his recent trip to Cedar Rapids stumping for his scheme to privatize Social Security.

Being a centrist doesn’t mean straddling both sides the issue. When it comes to the single greatest program our government has ever created I expect our leaders in Congress to take a firm stand.

You can play word games all you want by calling them private, individual, or personal accounts. A rose by any other name still does nothing to solve the long term fiscal problems facing social security. If Leach can’t fight for Social Security, I know another foreign policy wonk, Prof. David Loebsack, who will.