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.
Later in the video Grassley says that the problem is that banks didn't have enough money. He probably has a point. The banks were giving all of their money to their greedy CEOs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
* 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.
**Update** Here's Barney Frank talking on Meet the Press...
“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.
''I think you certainly wait until after this session to see where things go,'' said Northey, a Republican. ''I think it's six months or so out for me to be able to make a decision by the end of summer.''
Northey conceded that winning election against an incumbent governor would be difficult, but he said a sour economy and the state's budget snarls could create an opening.
Now, Northey might be consulting his family about a run, talking with big fundraisers, etc.
However, I think Northey is waiting to see what Sen. Grassley decides to do. If Grassley retires, running for an open senate seat would be much more appealing than challenging an incumbant Governor considering that Iowans haven't voted to cut out an incumbant governor in decades.
Both history and political reality would make a challenge to Culver an uphill struggle, Northey conceded, with Iowans typically showing a willingness to return governors to office.
Former Gov. Robert Ray served for 14 years, former Gov. Terry Branstad topped that with a 16-year tenure and former Gov. Tom Vilsack was in office for eight years and probably could have stayed there if he hadn't chosen to launch a brief bid for the presidency. None of the three faced serious challenges, despite serving during troubled economic times.
Yesterday, Senate Guru posted an article at Bleeding Heartland about the possibility of Sen. Grassley deciding to retire instead of run for reelection in 2010.
On Election Day 2010, Chuck Grassley will be 77 years old. If Grassley ran for and won another term, he would be 83 years old at the conclusion of that term. Grassley has a wife (his marriage to whom will celebrate its 55th anniversary in September) and five children, so who knows how many grandchildren. Grassley has been an elected official for fifty years (Iowa state House 1959-1974; U.S. House 1975-1981; U.S. Senate 1981-present). After having spent more than half a century as both an elected official and a family man, I don't think anyone would be surprised if he opted to give all of his time and energy to the latter designation after giving so much to the former.
I would imagine that spending your day playing with your grandchildren is a lot more enjoyable than spending your day waking up at 5am to catch a shuttle from Des Moines to Washington in order to take votes you know your caucus will lose, unable to make any progress on your desired agenda, and then staying up until midnight with policy meetings, political fundraisers, and personal fundraising calls that will all be in vain anyway given the relative weakness of your caucus' minority.
Well, today Senate Guru posted a follow up after he received an email from Grassley's communications director.
My column yesterday on the prospect of Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley retiring must have touched a nerve because I received an e-mail from none other than Chuck Grassley's Communications Director noting:
Senator Grassley has held eight fundraisers since election day, and another 10 are scheduled. Like he's always said when asked by Iowa reporters and others, Senator Grassley is running for re-election in 2010.
First, I'd like to thank Senator Grassley's staff for reading the Guru. Second, while this is indeed a retirement denial, it is worth noting that, for instance, in the 2008 cycle, former Senator Pete Domenici conducted fundraising as though he would run for re-election, including a fundraiser with George W. Bush on the books as late as August 2007, before announcing his impending retirement in October 2007. The point: you're always running for re-election until you're not. Grassley has plenty of time to decide. In the meantime, though, he's fundraising and preparing as though he will run again because, well, that's the appropriate thing to do to scare off potential challengers and keep his options open.
John Deeth disagrees that family will keep Grassley from running again. Deeth thinks, just the opposite, Grassley will run again because of his family.
What Senate Guru misses is that one of those grandchildren is exactly why Grassley will NOT retire in 2010.
As the Legislature convenes today, Rep. Pat Grassley starts his second term at age 25. He's too young to take over for Grandpa next year... but in 2016, assuming all goes according to plan, Pat's got a decade of legislative experience under his belt at age 33.
I think this will be the political campaign story of 2008 in the state of Iowa. Yes, there's a race for Governor in 2010, but a Grassley retirement would shake everything up.
Research 2000 released a poll commissioned by Daily Kos yesterday that showed Sen. Charles Grassley leading former Gov. Tom Vilsack 48% to 44%.
Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 12/8-10. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)
Grassley (R) 48 Vilsack (D) 44
Woah, what? Sen. Chuck Grassley is vulnerable? Granted, it's against the state's top Democrat -- former Gov. Tom Vilsack, and there's currently no indication that Vilsack is planning on running. But the CW is that Grassley serves at will, and can hold the seat for life if he so desires. That belief is challenged by these numbers. Against the right Democrat, Grassley would face a tough fight.
Grassley Approve 57 Disapprove 36
Vilsack Approve 55 Disapprove 36
Their approval numbers are essentially even, and in the crosstabs, they both enjoy equal approval from independents. This would certainly be a battle of titans, pitting two popular politicians against each other. Expect incoming DSCC chief Bob Menendez to put Vilsack in his speed dial.
I still think Grassley will retire. He will be 77 on election day in 2010 and being part of the minority party isn't as fun as being a committee chair. A tough reelection battle might encourage Grassley to retire as well.
If Grassley retires, I see either Rep. Tom Latham, Rep. Steve King, or Chuck Larson run on the Republican side and either Vilsack or Rep. Bruce Braley running on the Democratic side.
So how long until Grassley is writing a check to charity for the amount of $10,000? And I don't mean making a donation to Christopher Reed's token opposition to Sen. Harkin.
This morning I wrote about the Democrat's chances in the US Senate in 2010. That got me thinking about Sen. Grassley, who is up for reelection in 2010. However, he will be 77 at that time and there's a good chance he migh retire.
Iowa Democrats have some very good options to run for his seat in Tom Vilsack and Bruce Braley. Depending on how the State legislature fares over the next 2 years, Mike Gronstal and Pat Murphy could emerge as good candidates for Senate as well.
Iowa Republicans gave Harkin a pass in 2008. With Culver running for reelection in 2010, as well, Iowa Republicans would need to find 2 solid candidates. Steve King, Christopher Rants, Bill Northey, and Chuck Larson are the leading names today.
It is looking like if Grassley retires in 2010 the seat would a great opportunity for Democrats to pick up.
Republicans always say that you can't trust Democrats with your money. However, just the opposite is true.
In Iowa, Sen. Charles Grassley had more than $323,000,000 in pork barrel spending. Rep. Tom Latham was tops among Iowa Congressman with more than $69,000,000 in pork barrel spending. Latham had 63 earmarks while Iowa's Democratic Representatives had between 25 and 27 earmarks each.
When you add this to the federal budget deficits that Reagen, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush have accumalated it becomes clear that you can't trust Republicans with your money.
Back in 2003, Tim Russert asked "Senator McCain, realistically, how long will American troops be in Iraq, and how much is it going to cost us?"
McCain's answer...
I don't know the answer to that, but I'm telling you what the question is, and the critical aspect of this is: What happens in the next few months? Time is not on our side. People in 125-degree heat with no electricity and no fuel are going to become angry in a big hurry. The sophistication of the attacks on U.S. and allied troops have increased. And what we do in the next several months will determine whether we're in a very difficult situation or not, and there's still time, but we've got to act quickly.
Now 4 and half years later and McCain and the Republicans like Grassley and Latham are still giving the same answers.
I got this email yesterday from ICAN about the importance of passing a reauthorization of SCHIP and expanding healthcare to millions of uninsured kids. Please give Grassley a call and tell to vote to override Bush's threatened veto.
Don’t you think the needs of America’s children should come first? If so, call 1-866-544-7573 and tell your member of Congress to support legislation to ensure that more 3 million more kids have the health insurance coverage they need-- and demand that they oppose President Bush’s threatened veto.
SCHIP EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 30TH
If congress doesn’t act this week, we’re going to have a big problem here in Iowa.
Though ICAN believes that one uninsured child is one too many, here in Iowa we have a very low rate of uninsured children. Only about 3% of children in this state aren’t covered by some kind of health insurance. The main reason for this is because of the HAWK-I program, which is funded by the federal State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP.)
This program expires on September 30th, and Congress still hasn’t taken action to reauthorize it. And even though leaders in Congress are working RIGHT NOW to pass legislation to renew SCHIP and cover millions more uninsured kids whose parents can't afford private premiums, President Bush has threatened to veto the bill.
This is not a partisan matter. Both of Iowa’s US Senators, Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin not only support the bill, but have been champions of SCHIP and have been leaders in finding a way to pass this measure before the deadline.
CALL NOW!
Sadly, President Bush’s threatened veto would mean that either 6 million children in America would lose their coverage, or states would be into a difficult fiscal position by struggling to replace those federal dollars from already stretched state budgets.
It is vitally important that you call right now and tell your Congressperson:
It is important to pass the SCHIP reauthorization, and it is important to Iowa’s kids that you vote yes.
The difference between the House and Senate bills is the equivalent of the cost of 53 days of war in Iraq. What is more important to you?
The President is planning to veto the SCHIP reauthorization bill. Do you plan to stand with the President and his veto, or will you vote to override this planned veto?
Please use the following TOLL FREE number to call, and you will be connected to your Congressman:
A White House Front Group led by former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer is airing TV ads going after Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Tom Latham in a desperate attempt to shore up support for Bush's failed Iraq policies.
Grassley and Latham have been feeling pressure from their constituents and from the Iraq Summer campaign.
“These ads, being run by a White House supported front group, are swift boating Republicans - squeezing from the right the same Republicans who are feeling the heat from voters back home for their support for Bush's failed war policy ,” said Brad Woodhouse, President of Americans United for Change. “The White House is eating its own in a desperate move to preserve the President’s failed policy in Iraq .”
From a July 2002 memo from the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency...
The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel.
Posts
