Iowa Governor Chet Culver's campaign started running its second television commercial yesterday:

Like the commercial Culver ran last month, this ad emphasizes that the governor cut spending and his own salary in order to balance the state budget during this recession without raising taxes. I think the ad is well-crafted in terms of script and visuals, but like Bleeding Heartland users IowaVoter and dricey, I am concerned when Democrats rely heavily on Republican anti-tax messaging. Culver may be reinforcing conservative frames and limiting his future policy options if he does win re-election.

Des Moines Register political columnist Kathie Obradovich highlighted another potential problem not long ago:

Gov. Chet Culver vowed to balance the state budget without raising taxes. And yet a third or more of Iowa school districts might end up raising property taxes as a direct result of the cut to state school aid ordered by Culver.

Is the governor breaking his promise? Well, no. And yes.

When Culver talks about avoiding a tax increase, he really means income and sales taxes - the two major revenue streams for the state. He's referring to tax increases that he would have to sign into law. In that sense, he hasn't raised taxes.

But he acknowledges that property taxes are a concern. Culver says he'll ask the Legislature next year to require school districts to use their cash reserves before raising taxes.

Republicans are already blaming Democrats for the property tax increases many Iowans will experience next year. Their outrage is hypocritical, because the state cuts affecting education and local governments would have been far more severe if not for the federal stimulus bill, which included aid to state governments. Of course, Republicans denounced the stimulus package and bashed Culver for using these federal funds for their intended purpose: to help backfill the 2009 budget.

In any event, Democrats should be wary about staking next year's campaign on "we didn't raise your taxes during this recession." That won't be a comforting message to Iowans who have to pay a larger property tax bill in September 2010.

2006 Senate candidate Ned Lamont announced today that he's filing papers this afternoon for a possible run for governor in 2010. Excerpt from his e-mail blast and website announcement:

Since the 2006 campaign for Senate, I have continued to meet with citizens across our state -- as co-chairman of the Obama campaign in Connecticut, founder of a state policy institute at Central Connecticut State University, and as an oustpoken advocate for health care reform. I have been constantly reminded during these conversations that Connecticut is not living up to its potential and that too many of our families are still being left behind.

Whether it has been health care and the economy, losing jobs, young people leaving the state, or the never-ending budget crisis, we have all seen our state head in the wrong direction.

Simply put, Connecticut's current Chief Executive is not getting the job done.

Governor Jodi Rell's approval rating has come down quite a bit this year, but she's still at 57 percent approve/38 percent disapprove in the Pollster.com average. Then again, Lamont didn't shy away from a longshot campaign in 2006, so he may be ready for another challenge.

I'd like to hear from MyDD readers who are familiar with Connecticut politics. Could Lamont make a race of this? Would he be the strongest potential challenger against Rell? How would having him in the governor's race affect Senator Chris Dodd's re-election campaign?

Senate HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin told reporters yesterday that he does not expect Senator Joe Lieberman to join a Republican filibuster to block the health care reform bill:

"As I said before, when it comes down to getting the 60 votes necessary to pass this bill, I do not believe that Joe Lieberman would want to be the one person who caucuses with the Democrats ... to bring this bill down. I don't think he wants to go down in history like that," Harkin said.

"He still wants to be a part of the Democratic Party although he is a registered independent. He wants to caucus with us and, of course, he enjoys his chairmanship of the [Homeland Security] committee because of the indulgence of the Democratic Caucus. So, I'm sure all of those things will cross his mind before the final vote."

In July, Harkin suggested a new rule for the Senate Democratic caucus:

"Every two years the caucus could have a secret ballot on whether a chairman should continue, yes or no [...] If the 'no's win, [the chairman's] out.

"I've heard it talked about before," he added.

At the time, Harkin's comments were widely viewed as a threat against Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. But Lieberman is a more likely target for demotion if he follows through with his threats. His alleged fears about health care reform adding to the deficit don't hold water, and his plans to campaign for some Republicans in 2010 won't help his cause with fellow Democrats.

Incidentally, The Hill noted this week,

Connecticut has the highest U.S. concentration of insurance jobs, with the industry accounting for about 64,000 jobs as of June 2009, according to the state's labor department. That's down 23 percent from the 83,000 jobs in 1990, although the state projects a slow growth of 4 percent through 2014. The state is home to 72 insurance headquarters, with three times the U.S. average of insurance jobs as a percent of total state employment.

Lieberman of course denies that he is running interference for the insurance industry based in his state. Des Moines, Iowa is also a major center for insurance companies, but that hasn't stopped Harkin from supporting a public health insurance option to compete with the private sector.

Speaking of party discipline, some House Democrats are threatening to use procedural maneuvers to block consideration of the health care reform bill unless leaders allow a vote on key amendments. Over at Congress Matters, David Waldman reminds us that it was Rahm Emanuel who set the precedent of releasing House Democrats to vote against leadership on procedure.

Next Tuesday important votes on LGBT equality will take place in Maine, Washington state and Kalamazoo, Michigan. I'm cross-posting (with permission) information from the Courage Campaign on how people can get involved in the final days of the campaign.

Washington:

Who we are: Approve Referendum 71 is the campaign to preserve domestic partnerships in Washington State. By voting to approve, voters retain the domestic partnership laws that were passed during this year's legislative session, including using sick leave to care for a partner, adoption rights, insurance rights, and more.

What we need: We need phone bankers to get our supporters out to vote. Washington is an all mail-in ballot state, and we need to ensure our supporters put their ballots in the mail. Also, youth turnout is a critical component of our campaign, and youth turnout historically drops in off-year elections. So we need a lot of help to turn them out.

How you do it: Sign up here to make remote calls for Approve 71. We'll then contact you for a training, and you can make GOTV calls.

Maine:

Who we are: The No On 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign is working to protect Maine's recently-passed law legalizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. Our opponents have put the issue on the ballot for Nov 3, 2009. Because of Maine's early voting election laws, people are already voting at the polls, so we need help immediately to turn out our side at the polls.

What we need: We need you to devote a few hours to Call for Equality. Call for Equality is a virtual phonebank set up so that you can call Maine voters wherever you are. Much of Maine is rural, where canvassing isn't effective, so we need to reach these voters- along with other supporters- by phone. All you need is a phone and internet connection. No experience required! We'll provide the training, and all you need is a a few hours to help get a win in Maine.

How you do it: Click here to sign up for a training and your shift. There are lots of times available for your convenience.

Kalamazoo, MI:

Who We Are: The Yes on Ordinance 1856 / One Kalamazoo campaign is working in Michigan to support the City Commission of Kalamazoo's twice approved ordinance for housing, employment, and public accommodation protections for gay and transgender residents. Opponents forced a public referendum on the ordinance so dedicated local volunteers, led by former Stonewall Democrats Executive Director Jon Hoadley, are working to ensure voters say YES to fairness and equality and keep Ordinance 1856.  

Why The Urgency: In the final weeks, the opposition has gone all out with aggressive disinformation and misleading red herrings to try to defeat the ordinance. This includes signs that say "No to Discrimination" (even though voting No actually supports continued discrimination of GLBT residents), transphobic door hangers and fliers, and now radio ads that falsely suggest that criminal behavior will become legal when this simply isn't true. The Yes on Ordinance 1856 supporters are better organized but many voters who want to vote for gay and transgender people are getting confused by the opposition.

How To Help:

1) Help the One Kalamazoo campaign raise a final $10,000 specifically dedicated to fight back against the lies on the local TV and radio airwaves and fully fund the campaign's final field and GOTV efforts.

Give here: http://www.actblue.com/page/3-2-1-countd own

2) If you live nearby and can physically volunteer in Kalamazoo sign up here. If you know anyone that lives in Kalamazoo, use the One Kalamazoo campaign's online canvass tool to remind those voters that they need to vote on November 3rd and vote YES on Ordinance 1856 to support equality for gay and transgender people.

Contact voters: http://www.onekalamazoo.com/tellfriends2

Former First Lady Christie Vilsack released a statement today confirming that she will not challenge Senator Chuck Grassley next year. Excerpt:

Commiting to a campaign for the US Senate next year requires more than the confidence that I have the right experience, the necessary support and the resources to be successful. It must come with an understanding that it is the best way for me serve our State and my fellow Iowans in the most effective way possible at this time. I have decided not to run for the United States Senate in 2010. I will continue my work with the Iowa Initiative to Prevent Unintended Pregnancy and will be active in our Party and across the state in issues that affect the quality of life for all Iowans. [...]

While I will not be a candidate for office in 2010, never doubt I am committed to a life of service and to Iowa.

So, the mystery challenger Iowa Democratic Party chair Michael Kiernan promised for Grassley is almost certainly Roxanne Conlin, who has said she's leaning toward running.

I wouldn't be surprised to see former Governor Tom Vilsack run for the U.S. Senate in the future. I expect Christie Vilsack to run for Congress when Leonard Boswell's seat (IA-03) becomes open.

Speaking of Boswell's district, I saw at Iowa Independent that CQ Politics is calling it a "safe Democratic" seat in the House.

According to Bleeding Heartland user mirage, State Senator Brad Zaun is planning to run against Boswell next year. (I am trying to confirm that rumor.) Zaun was mayor of Urbandale, a heavily Republican suburb of Des Moines, before getting elected to represent Iowa Senate district 32 in 2004. He was re-elected to a four-year term in 2008, so he wouldn't risk losing his seat in the upper chamber by running against Boswell.

Prominent attorney Roxanne Conlin spoke to the Des Moines Register on Thursday about a possible Senate bid next year:

"I never thought I'd run again," Conlin said at her home in Des Moines. "But in my lifetime, I don't ever want to say, 'If only I had followed my dream or followed my heart.'"

"What has changed for me is Grassley."

Conlin said she is "more likely than not" running, but first needs to iron out how she would staff a campaign and handle her law practice before making a final decision, which she expects to announce by next month.

She said she talked about running at length with state party chairman Michael Kiernan, who said last month a well-known Democrat was planning to enter the race. "I don't know how this is going to come together, but I have reached the point where I would like to do it," she said. [...]

Conlin said Grassley's tone on health care reform at public appearances in Iowa last summer pushed her toward running. [...]

Conlin accused Grassley of being disingenuous, noting that he circulated a fundraising brochure stating he was working to defeat "Obama-care," while continuing to participate in bipartisan negotiations.

"That's not the Chuck Grassley I thought this state elected, and it really was a watershed moment for me," Conlin said.

Conlin was the Democratic nominee for governor in 1982, the first year Terry Branstad was elected. Before that, she ran the civil rights division of the Iowa Attorney General's Office and was the U.S. attorney for the southern district of Iowa.

She's been a highly successful plaintiff's attorney since 1983 and was the first woman president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. In addition,

She founded and was the first chair of the Iowa Women's Political caucus, and was president and general counsel of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. Most recently, she has been named by the National Law Journal as one of the fifty most influential women lawyers in America, one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America and one of the top 10 litigators.

If Conlin runs, she will be a lightning rod for attacks from Republicans and corporate-funded political organizations. On the plus side, she is a powerful public speaker and may be able to drive up turnout, especially among women voters. She will also be able to raise more than enough money to run a serious campaign against Grassley. Earlier this month, Research 2000 found Grassley leading Conlin by 51 percent to 39 percent among Iowa voters.

As Shaun Appelby discussed in his diary yesterday, the House of Representatives will soon bring a health care reform bill up for a floor vote. All three relevant committees have approved bills containing a public health insurance option. In August, Jacob Hacker explained one of the key differences between those bills (pdf file):

The versions of the House bill approved by the House Ways and Means Committee and  House Education and Labor Committee contain a Medicare tie-in that has two crucial  characteristics:
     1.  Providers participating in Medicare would automatically be considered participating  providers in the new public plan, although they would have the right to opt out.
     2.  Initial payments to providers would be set at Medicare rates plus 5 percent. After  three years, the Secretary of Health and Human Services could adjust rates. But  during the crucial start-up period, the public plan would be able to piggyback on  Medicare's payment methodology. 17    

     These are good provisions. They would be even better if they included an explicit  protection of providers' rights to join the public plan. Private plans (at least those that  participate in the exchange) should be prohibited from setting as a condition of participation  in their networks that providers not join the public plan.
      By contrast, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the House bill  with amendments that preserve only the first of these two elements. 18 Providers participating  in Medicare would be presumed to participate in the new public plan (but, again, allowed to  opt out). 19 However, rather than setting the rates the public plan would pay providers on the  basis of Medicare rates, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would have to  "negotiate" rates directly with providers. 20 These rates in the aggregate would have to be  between Medicare rates and private rates, but no other details are given. 21 This is a not-so-good provision that could drive up individual premiums and federal costs, burdening  Americans as health care consumers and taxpayers alike. It threatens the viability of the  public plan because it may require the government to pay providers higher rates than they would otherwise accept if the rates were set.

Click here to download Hacker's full report, which includes analysis of the Senate HELP Committee's bill.

When the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a watered-down bill to placate Blue Dog Democrats, most people assumed that this compromise would be the health care reform bill sent to the House floor. However, House Progressives have been rounding up votes for the stronger public option provisions, and yesterday Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva claimed to have 210 votes supporting or leaning toward supporting the stronger bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi won't bring that bill to the floor unless she is sure she has the 218 votes needed to pass, however. As many as 19 House Democrats have not decided whether they would support the "Medicare plus 5 percent" public option.

Chris Bowers published a pdf file listing 36 House Democrats who are either undecided, "lean yes" or "lean no" on the stronger public option. It's not clear who falls into what category. For instance, my own Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) is on the list, but his office has not yet clarified whether he is undecided or leaning one way or the other on the Medicare plus 5 percent public option.

You know the drill. If you live in one of these 36 House districts, your representative needs to hear from you. The "Medicare plus 5 percent" version of the public option is better policy, and if the House approves it, our negotiating position in the Senate will be stronger. I would call rather than e-mail, because phone calls are harder for staffers to ignore.

In related news, Boswell joined Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) today in announcing final legislative language to change "the way Medicare pays healthcare providers for services, from its current fee-for-service system into a quality and value-based system." After the jump I've posted a joint press release explaining how this deal will affect Medicare reimbursement rates.

Uninsured homo sapiens, not so much.

Meteor Blades brought to my attention a surreal editorial from the Colorado Springs Gazette about a silverback lowland gorilla who needed medical care. The U.S. health care system came through in a big way for that ape:

A Gazette news story reports that employees of Denver-based Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers -- a capitalist free-market business -- heard Rafiki wasn't feeling well. Not wanting Rafiki to suffer, the business sent a mobile CT unit to the zoo. The scan revealed an infection of the mastoid bone, located behind his right ear. It also found a severe middle and inner ear infection.

The CT scan was reviewed by radiologists and, get this, a neurologist. In some parts of the world, most humans never meet a neurologist. In the United States, even a gorilla has access to one. The team of specialists decided that in order to relieve pressure on Rafiki's brain, the big gorilla would need surgery to clean out the infection. They called upon Dr. Joseph Hegarty, an ear, nose and throat specialist from Colorado Springs Ear Associates -- another capitalist, free-market business. Hegarty not only made a house call for Rafiki, he performed surgery in the zoo's Primate World Exhibit. Rafiki is recovering nicely.

Fortunately for Rafiki, he's an uninsured ape living in the United States. Had Rafiki been an insured human being living in a country with government-run health care, he might still be waiting for that CT scan. After the scan, he would wait an eternity to be seen by a neurologist, a radiologist or an ear, nose and throat specialist. He would have two choices: 1. Wait in pain and hope to survive the long wait; or 2. Travel to the United States, pay a specialist, and receive immediate care.

This editorial implies that an uninsured American with an ear infection would be better off than a similar patient living in a country with government-run health care.

How many uninsured Americans with ear pain get a home visit from a mobile CT unit, followed by expert care from a neurologist, radiologist and ear, nose and throat specialist?

It so happens that I had an ear infection turn bad a year and a half ago. A few days into the illness, my primary care physician ordered two sets of x-rays, a doppler scan, and an MRI in one afternoon to figure out what was causing unexplained pain and swelling in my leg.

If I had been uninsured, those diagnostics would have been prohibitively expensive (thousands of dollars out of pocket). In fact, the radiology unit would have declined to do the MRI if I hadn't presented an insurance card.

An uninsured American in my situation would typically delay seeing a doctor, then go to the emergency room once the pain became intolerable. If I had waited another day or so before seeking medical attention, the strep infection in my bloodstream could have become life-threatening.

Unlike Rafiki the gorilla, nearly 45,000 uninsured Americans die prematurely every year, lacking a timely diagnosis or access to appropriate medical treatment.

Unlike Rafiki the gorilla, thousands of Americans are left with huge debts after a medical crisis, even if they have health insurance.

Most people wouldn't pretend that a heartwarming story about an ape proves the virtue of the current U.S. health care system. But then, conservatives often ignore facts staring them in the face.