Politicians in both parties have complained that proposed federal climate change bills are "unfair" to Midwestern states, which rely largely on coal to generate electricity. Utility companies and corporate groups have tried to reinvent themselves as defenders of the public interest against those who would unjustly "punish" consumers living in coal-dependent states.

Physicians for Social Responsibility released a report this week on "Coal's Assault on Human Health." This report should be required reading for all members of Congress, especially Democrats who have demanded more subsidies for coal-burning utilities in the climate-change bill. From the executive summary (pdf file):

Coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic lower respiratory diseases. [...] Each step of the coal lifecycle--mining, transportation, washing, combustion, and disposing of post-combustion wastes--impacts human health. Coal combustion in particular contributes to diseases affecting large portions of the U.S. population, including asthma, lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke, compounding the major public health challenges of our time. It interferes with lung development, increases the risk of heart attacks, and compromises intellectual capacity.

In yesterday's Des Moines Register, Lee Rood highlighted some of the extra burdens Iowans bear because of coal-fired power plants. Several other Midwestern states, such as Missouri and Indiana, rely even more heavily on coal for electricity.

Over the past year, Iowa Independent has published many outstanding reports on coal ash disposal. I recommend reading the latest piece by Jason Hancock: "Effects of coal ash contamination go beyond health risks."

It's clear that coal-fired power plants extract a huge toll on public health. Creating financial incentives to move away from coal as a source of electricity isn't "unfair," especially since low-income Americans could receive increased subsidies for utility bills.

What's unfair is for corporations and politicians to fight for the status quo, without regard for Americans who die prematurely or suffer from preventable health problems because of coal.

In one blog post I can't do justice to the extensively documented report by Physicians for Social Responsibility, but here's one more excerpt from the executive summary (pdf file):

A nationwide study of blood samples in 1999-2000 showed that 15.7% of women of childbearing age have blood mercury levels that would cause them to give birth to children with mercury levels exceeding the EPA's maximum acceptable dose for mercury. This dose was established to limit the number of children with mercury-related neurological and developmental impairments. Researchers have estimated that between 317,000 and 631,000 children are born in the U.S. each year with blood mercury levels high enough to impair performance on neurodevelopmental tests and cause lifelong loss of intelligence.

When conservatives who supposedly want to protect unborn children stop clamoring for more coal-fired power plants, I'll take them more seriously.

You don't have to believe in global warming to recognize the dangers of relying on coal and the benefits of moving toward cleaner ways to generate electricity.

Few problems require federal action more urgently than global warming. I admire the members of Congress who have been trying to address this issue. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman tried to get the best deal he could. Senator John Kerry has tried to keep things moving in the upper chamber. Senator Lindsey Graham is getting tons of grief from fellow Republicans because he admits that climate change is a problem.

I want to support these people and their efforts to get a bill on the president's desk. Unfortunately, the time has come to accept that Congress is too influenced by corporate interests to deal with climate change in any serious way. Pretending to fight global warming won't solve the problem and may even be counter-productive.

This depressing post continues after the jump.

The Des Moines Register released more results from its latest Iowa poll by Selzer and Co., and Senator Chuck Grassley's approval rating was 57 percent, the same as in the Register's September poll. Only 32 percent of respondents said they disapproved of Grassley's work.

Grassley's 57 percent approval figure remains well short of the 75 percent he began the year with. [...]

Political independents and Democrats have been responsible for much of Grassley's slide since January. He made up little ground with them this fall. [...]

More than half of Republicans say he did an excellent or good job on health care, while only about a quarter of Democrats and 39 percent of independents rate his work positively.

In a head to head matchup against Roxanne Conlin, Grassley led 57 percent to 30 percent. Last month's Research 2000 poll of Iowans found Grassley leading Conlin by a much narrower margin, 51 percent to 39 percent. I'd like to see more polling of this race, but given Selzer's track record in Iowa, I'm going to assume that the Register poll is close to the mark.

Since the media won't be as focused on health care reform in the autumn of 2010, Democrats will need to build a case against Grassley that goes beyond his double-dealing on that issue. Even if Democrats run a near-perfect campaign against Grassley, he is very likely to be re-elected unless he makes some unforced errors.

On the other hand, it's worth remembering that Grassley's never been re-elected with less than 66 percent of the vote before. Holding him below 60 percent, or better yet below 55 percent, would greatly help down-ticket Democratic candidates next November.

Incidentally, Selzer's poll for the Register found Senator Tom Harkin's approve/disapprove numbers at 54/33, which is fairly strong but down from the 70 percent approval rating Harkin had in the Register's January poll.

Governor Chet Culver (D) has gone through a couple of very tough months, with a film tax credit scandal breaking in September and low revenue projections prompting a 10 percent across-the-board budget cut in October. Selzer and Co. polled Iowans for the Des Moines Register last week, and Culver's numbers are at an all-time low.

Culver is at 40 percent approve/49 percent disapprove (Selzer's last poll in September pegged his approval at 50 percent). The right direction/wrong track numbers are 34/57, the worst they've been in ten years.

Culver loses a hypothetical matchup with former Governor Terry Branstad 57 percent to 33 percent, and he loses to Bob Vander Plaats 45 percent to 37 percent. Against Chris Rants and Christian Fong, Culver can't break 50 percent. He's ahead of Rants 42-35 and ahead of Fong 42-34.

The last governor to score as low was Branstad. In February 1992, as he grappled with that year's recession and budget crisis, only 37 percent of Iowans approved of his performance.

The economy was in much better shape by the time Branstad had to face voters in 1994. Culver's only got a year to turn things around. There's no guarantee unemployment will be falling by then, especially if President Obama decides to act like Herbert Hoover during the next year. Iowa's unemployment rate, though low by nationwide standards, is the highest it's been since the mid-1980s.

The only good thing I can say about this poll is that it may convince conservative Republicans that Vander Plaats can win the general election. During the summer, Branstad looked like a hail-mary pass for the GOP.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos found much better numbers for Culver a month ago. Either the budget situation has caused his approval to nosedive in the past month, or one of these polls is an outlier. Unfortunately, I wouldn't bet on a Selzer poll being an outlier in Iowa.

Rasmussen's Iowa poll from September found numbers similar to what Selzer found last week.

UPDATE: I agree with Tom Beaumont of the Des Moines Register:

Culver has kept up an optimistic tone, predicting Iowa will emerge from the recession in better economic health than most states. Several key statistics show Iowa's overall economy and its state government have weathered the tough times better than other states. A report issued last week by the Pew Center on the States ranked Iowa as tied for second among states in terms of fiscal health.

But that message isn't registering with Iowans.

That Pew report gave Iowa good marks for money-management practices, and put Iowa in the group of states "least like California" in terms of budget problems, but I don't know how Culver can get that message across. Republicans have simple talking points: budget problems = Culver incompetence.

Roxanne Conlin made her candidacy for U.S. Senate official today, releasing this two-minute video:

Conlin narrates the video herself, and it's mostly a biographical piece. Her parents lived paycheck to paycheck. She worked her way through college and law school.

Conlin was U.S. Attorney for Iowa's southern district from 1977 to 1981. In this video, she says that as a prosecutor, she "took on drug dealers, corrupt politicians, and corporations who violated the public trust." She then started a small law firm "to give a voice to everyday people who had none, like taking on the big banks to help family farms at risk of foreclosure."

Conlin tells viewers, "Taking on the special interests has been the cause of my life," and she is running for U.S. Senate "to take this fight to Washington." She promises to help small business and promote renewable energy and other strategies for creating jobs in Iowa.

She doesn't mention Senator Chuck Grassley directly, but she hints at the case she will make against him. Career politicians in Washington have lost their independence. Iowans were left behind when banks got bailed out and their top executives got huge bonuses. Grassley voted for the Wall Street bailout, which Conlin mentions twice in this video. No doubt we'll hear more in the coming months about Grassley's ties to various special interests and his votes for tax breaks companies use when they ship jobs overseas.

Conlin looks at the camera as she delivers her closing line: "Join me in taking on this fight, because the special interests have had their turn. Now, it's our turn."

Her campaign logo reads, "Roxanne for Iowa." I would like to hear from campaign professionals on the merits of branding women candidates with their first names, like the Hillary for president signs and bumper stickers.

I like that we hear her own voice, instead of an actor's voice-over, and her life experiences that many Iowans can relate to. (Republicans are already referring to Conlin as a "liberal, millionaire trial attorney" from Des Moines.)

What do you think?

UPDATE: I posted the transcript of the ad and more biographical information at Bleeding Heartland.

Bumped.

The House of Representatives is debating HR 2962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act today. In a nice touch, Representative John Dingell (MI-15) is presiding over the chamber. He was one of the architects of the original Medicare bill. President Barack Obama went to the Capitol this morning to urge House Democrats to pass the bill. The final vote is expected this evening, and most observers believe 218 votes will be found.

I'm not watching the House proceedings, but from what I read on Twitter and the blogs, House Republicans are heckling Democrats and making their usual outlandish claims about the bill. Representative Steve King (IA-05) organized another rally at the Capitol today to "kill the bill." Side note: King and other wingnuts blew off a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday to attend the "House call" wingnut rally against health care reform. Their absence doomed some Republican amendments to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill.

This thread is for any comments about the health care reform debate. I am upset that Representative Anthony Weiner (NY-09) was asked to withdraw his single-payer amendment from consideration, but Bart Stupak (MI-01) will be able to further restrict women's access to abortion services. That amendment would be a very bad deal for women. Now it's not just progressives, but half the population who will "take one for the team" so House leaders can pass a bill. I'm with Angry Mouse: this is not okay.

Meanwhile, a new poll from Virginia suggests opposing the public health insurance option was disastrous for Creigh Deeds.

According to Jane Hamsher, the AFL-CIO may cut off contributions to Democrats who vote against health care reform. A lot of Blue Dogs rely on organized labor to fund their campaigns.

What's on your mind?

Update [2009-11-7 16:27:3 by desmoinesdem]: The future of the State Children's Health Insurance Program is uncertain. As fairleft2 notes in this diary, the House bill moves children either to Medicaid or into private plans. It's not clear whether this provision could pass the Senate.

Update [2009-11-7 17:13:32 by Charles Lemos]:

Via the New York Times:

The House approved the rule governing debate of the big health care legislation by a vote of 242 to 192, suggesting but not guaranteeing that Democrats would have the votes to pass the bill itself later on Saturday.

Fifteen Democrats joined all 177 Republicans in opposition. One Democrat did not vote.

As a result the Democrats seemed to have a comfortable margin, with 24 more yes votes than they need for final passage of the bill.

The speaker pro tempore, Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, announced the tally.

The Democrats currently control 258 of 435 seats in the House, and with 218 votes needed to approve the bill, they can afford to lose 40 of their own caucus members and still win passage.

A final vote is expected on Saturday evening, but the process could take longer.

Update [2009-11-7 20:14:26 by Charles Lemos]: Via Politico:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took to the House floor about 6:30 p.m. to say, “Today we will pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act.. . .We will make history. We will also make progress for America's working families."

In response to a question about whether the bill would pass when she brought it up, Pelosi told reporters Saturday night, "That is our expectation."

Thirty-two Democrats have publicly declared their opposition to the bill, giving party leaders the narrowest possible margin to push the bill across the finish line. But numerous sources said Democrats believe they do have the votes after a day of intense lobbying of wavering Democrats.

The vote is expected to take place around midnight eastern standard time.

Update [2009-11-7 22:31:5 by desmoinesdem]: Stupak amendment passed 240-194, gaining 64 Democratic votes. That's almost a quarter of the House Democratic caucus. Disappointing. Supposedly Obama told progressives this morning he will try to have the provision removed in conference. I would not bet money on that happening.

Update [2009-11-7 23:0:3 by desmoinesdem]: Click here for all roll call votes, including the Stupak amendment. An embarrassing number of Democrats who aren't even in the Blue Dog caucus voted for it. (I was proud to see that my own Blue Dog Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) voted against the Stupak amendment, though.) As Natasha Chart tweeted tonight, the Stupak amendment is exactly the kind of thing a Democratic majority was supposed to stop from coming to the floor. The DCCC won't get a dime from me this cycle.

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?