Excerpt:

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Sen. Grassley appeared on MSNBC today to discuss economic regulation where he said greed is human nature.

And when asked if the banks are in any position to protest if they’re not going to make as much money, Grassley comes back with this:

Greed is human nature. We shouldn’t blame greed any more than you’d blame gravity when a plane has an accident and goes down.

I’m sorry Senator, but I think we can blame greed for the mess we’re in. Greed and the unwillingness of the government to put a check on it.

You can watch the comment here at about the 3:05 mark.

Sen. Grassley says greed isn’t the problem. Yet, in 1980 on average CEOs earned 42 times the salary of the average workes and now they earn about 476 times that salary.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

MoveOn is running this ad in Iowa, Montana, and Washington DC to target Sen. Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Sen. Max Baucus, Chair of the Senate Finance Committee.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Marc Ambinder has a fascinating article on why the Republicans should back universal health care coverage.

The time for universal health insurance coverage has come. Everybody seems to know that — except for the Republicans, all too many of whom cling to traditional denunciations of universal coverage as socialism. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has been holding talks with Republican lawmakers over the past week, and all signs point to opposition from the GOP.

But for the welfare of the country and their political party, Republicans should, instead, seize the lesson of Nixon’s trip to China. With one brilliant foray, Nixon converted the massive threat posed by the isolated China into an asset, secured a favorable mention in history, and stripped the Democrats of a key issue. By embracing their own brand of universal health coverage, Republicans can do the same. There’s a massive constituency behind the policy. Buffeted by the recession and the threat of losing their employer-provided health insurance, the American people want universal coverage. Much of the US business community wants it too. CEOs rarely say “Know what I love about my job? Buying health care.” The chore is so unrewarding — corporate buyers have failed to create effective cost or quality improvements — that many small business CEOs simply skip it. As a result, millions distort the efficient allocation of labor in our economy by opting for jobs in dying, big companies that offer health insurance, rather than productive ones in small companies that do not. Furthermore, our employer-based health insurance system forces American businesses to pack our massive health care costs — about 70 percent greater as a share of GDP than other countries’ — into the cost of their exports, a huge albatross in a globally competitive economy.[…]

The Republicans could instead offer a consumer-controlled universal coverage system, like that in Switzerland, in which the people, not the government, control how much they spend on health. There are no government health insurance programs. Instead, the Swiss choose from about 85 private heath insurers. Rather than being stuffed into the degrading Medicaid program, the Swiss poor shop for health insurance like everyone else, using funds transferred to them by the government. The sick are not discriminated against either — they pay the same prices as everyone else in their demographic category. Like the US, Switzerland is a confederation of states that, as in the US, oversee the insurance system. Enforcement by the tax authorities has produced 99 percent enrollment.

This consumer-driven, universal coverage system provides excellent health care for the sick, tops the world in consumer satisfaction, and costs 40 percent less, as a percentage of GDP, than the system in the US. The Swiss could spend even less by choosing cheaper, high deductible health insurance policies, but they have opted against doing so. Swiss consumers reward insurers that offer the best value for the money. These competitive pressures cause Swiss insurers to spend only about 5 percent on general and administrative expenses, as compared to 12-15 percent in the US. And unlike Medicare, the private Swiss firms must function without incurring massive unfunded liabilities. Competition has also pushed Swiss providers to be more efficient than those in the US. Yet they remain well-compensated. […]

The Republican choice is clear. They can whine while the Democratic Congress enacts a government-controlled system, or they can embrace a Republican approach to Universal Coverage.

It would be a big move for the Republican Party to move away from being the party of no and working towards developing quality policy on an issue. Iowa has one Republican that could be a leader on this issue in Sen. Grassley. If a Senator like Grassley would show bipartisanship on a key issue such as health care, more Republican Senators would follow his lead and the nation would be much better off.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

New ad from the DSCC…

It would be nice if it ran in Iowa against Grassley.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Sen. Grassley is at it again.

This time at a budget hearing, Grassley is joking back and forth with Sen. Kent Conrad (D-SD).

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND): Oh, you are good.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA): Your wife said the same thing.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

A Democrat is preparing to challenge Sen. Grassley in the 2010 election. Bob Krause of Fairfield is set to form an exploratoy committee about a possible run against Grassley. Krause is currently chair of the Iowa Democratic Veterans’ Caucus and used to be an ISU professor and employee at the Iowa DOT.

From Radio Iowa…

Krause was elected to the Iowa legislature when he was 22 years old and served six years representing his hometown area before running unsuccessfully for state treasurer in 1978. Krause has worked behind the scenes on campaigns dating back to 1970 and he worked in the Carter Administration as a regional official for the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Krause admits he’s “bounced around” the country, trying his hand at a small business, before signing on as an Iowa State University professor. “Ultimately, I wound up with the Iowa D.O.T. and I was there for a number of years until I retired in 2008,” Krause says.

He’s written a few books and worked as a consultant in this country and overseas for a wide array of clients, including defense contractors. “I tried to go out and do the things that other people in the world do,” Krause says. “I went out, tried to make a living, tried to be creative with my life, tried to give service in different areas.”

Krause, who retired after 28 years in the U.S. Army Reserve, is a member of the Iowa Democratic Party’s State Central Committee and he’s chairman of the Iowa Democratic Veterans’ Caucus. Krause has scheduled an event at the Fort Des Moines Historical Museum on Saturday at 12:15 to announce he’s formed an “exploratory committee” for a U.S. Senate campaign.

I don’t know Mr. Krause, but will be in Des Moines on Saturday and will try to stop by his announcement.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Last week I wrote about my Twitter page and since then I have gained 11 followers.

Yesterday, Politico made a list of Washington DC’s top Twitterers. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley made the list at #7.

Whereas McCaskill’s (Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)) tweets are personal in a spunky sort of way, Grassley’s are personal in an Iowan way: friendly but dry.

This 75-year-old sometime farmhand Republican has developed quite a following (2,000-plus) with his plain-spoken, Midwest Twittering style: “On way bk to frigid waterloo. Will my car start at airport.” “I didn’t stay up to see Ball drop. I will watch Hawkeyw ftball. Otherwise read. Not a very exciting new year celebration but tradition forme.” “6 inches snow in New hartford last night. I missed it bc of senate session. Lucky we finished corn harvest last wkend.”

Salon’s Mike Madden, a regular reader and big fan of Grassley’s tweets, says the senator “sounds just like the elderly pig farmer he is.”

Grassley doesn’t seem to be the type of Senator that would be on the social media bandwagon and not as the #2 ranked Senator on Politico’s list.

Come join the fun at Twitter and see what all the talk is about.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Yesterday, I wrote about the compromise made on the Stimulus bill by Centrists in the US Senate that helped win the vote from 3 Republicans needed for the bill to pass.

John Nichols summed up the cuts that were made…

The bottom line is that, under the Senate plan:

* States will get less aid.

* Schools will get less help.

* Job creation programs will be less well funded.

* Preparations to combat potential public health disasters — which could put the final nail in the economy’s coffin — will not be made.

In every sense, the Senate plan moves in the wrong direction.

At a time when smart economists are saying that a bigger, bolder stimulus plan is needed, Senate Democrats and a few moderate Republicans have agreed to a smaller, weaker initiative.

Paul Krugman wrote this morning that the cuts made as part of the compromise will be cutting approximately 600,000 jobs.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.

The cuts made by the Senate include $40 billion in State Fiscal Stabilization, $16 billion for School Construction, $7.5 billion of State Incentive Grants, and $5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity.

The most troubling cut is the $40 billion in state fiscal stabilization. Iowa is looking at a very tight budget and we are hardly in the worst shape out there compared to other states.

This report by the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities was written BEFORE the cuts were made by the Senate and says the money is the Stimulus will help, but is not enough. Now that a chunk of that money has been cut.

The state fiscal situation is dire. Revenues are declining, and demand and need for services such as Medicaid is rising, as people lose income and jobs. State deficits are projected to equal $350 billion over the next 30 months. Because nearly all states are required to balance their budgets, states have begun to cut expenditures and raise taxes — both of which create a drag on the economy and threaten to counteract part of the intended federal economic stimulus.

The Senate economic recovery package recognizes this fact and includes substantial assistance for states. The amount of funding that would go to states to help them maintain current activities is approximately $160 billion to $165 billion — or roughly 45 percent of projected state deficits. Most of this money is in the form of increased Medicaid funding plus most of a “Fiscal Stabilization Fund.” This funding would likely be sufficient to deter many states from making the most severe spending cuts and to moderate state tax and fee increases. But states would still have very large gaps to close on their own.

On Meet the Press this morning, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, said that these cuts will essentially lay off police officers and firefighters because States will have to cut their State budgets.

Give Sen. Grassley a call at 202-224-3744 and tell him to support more money for States and for schools in the Stimulus bill.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

I was surprised to see Sen. Tom Harkin voted against Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary today. Geithner was confirmed by a 60-34 vote.

Sen. Harkin released this statement about the vote…

“I strongly believe that, save in extraordinary circumstances, the President should have the right to select his own team. President Obama believes that Mr. Geithner is the best person for this job, and it pains me to go against the President’s wishes on this matter.

“I believe that Mr. Geithner is a person of obvious talent and experience, and I bear no ill will toward him whatsoever. However, after careful deliberation, I simply could not overcome my very serious reservations about this nominee for two reasons. Mr. Geithner made serious errors of judgment in failing to pay his taxes, and he made serious errors in his job as chief regulator of the financial institutions at the heart of the current financial crisis.

Sen. Charles Grassley also voted against Geithner, but that wasn’t much of a surprise since Grassley voted against sending Geithner’s nomination out of the Senate Finance Committee.

Related Posts: