Nussle Watch

Students Against Jim Nussle press release

2006-02-14T13:03:00.000-06:00

From the press office (yeah, right!) of the Drake Democrats:

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

College Students Launch Campaign Against Student Loan Cuts

(Drake University, Des Moines, IA – Feb. 14th, 2006) – There’s no love loss this Valentine’s Day between students at Drake University and Congressman Jim Nussle over Congress’ recent cuts to the federal student loan program. Students at Drake University will now pay, on average, $1,540 more for 4 years of tuition thanks to the cuts, and are directing their outrage at House Budget Chairman, Jim Nussle.

Nussle, also the front-runner for the Republican nomination for governor of Iowa, led the effort to cut $12.7 billion from higher education, including the largest cut to the federal student loan program in its history. The main change will come in the interest rates on Stafford loans, which will rise from the current 5.3% to 6.8%, causing students to pay thousands more on their loans for college. In response the Drake Democrats are launching their “Students Can’t Afford Jim Nussle” campaign this week to spread awareness about the cuts and hold Jim Nussle accountable for his actions.

Drake Democrats President Patrick Rynard criticized the massive cuts saying, “Jim Nussle is making college less affordable for middle-class families and forcing students to go into even deeper debt. What’s especially reprehensible is that the day after passing those cuts, House Republicans then called for another $60 million in tax cuts, mostly for the rich. This really shows the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, considering not a single Democrat voted for the student loan cuts.”

The Drake Democrats have started collecting signatures for a petition to send to Jim Nussle, and already gathered nearly a hundred in just one hour. They will also hold a press conference tomorrow to explain more details of the campaign.

Also, students won’t be the only ones facing harder times, as the cuts also raised rates on PLUS loans, loans that parents take out for their children’s tuition. Sophomore Chris Woods is upset because “My parents are going to be paying more than they ever imagined thanks to Jim Nussle's bad budget. All they have ever done, like most parents, is support my efforts to pay for a quality education—but Jim Nussle doesn’t seem to care about that.” Students and parents can figure out exactly how much more they’ll spend by visiting the Drake Democrats’ website, www.drakedems.com."

More to come later. I'll let you know how much, if any, press coverage there is and how the press conference goes. Pictures possible as well, if I can borrow someone's digital camera.

Drake Democrats launch "Students Can't Afford Jim Nussle" campaign

2006-02-13T18:25:00.000-06:00

From an advisory sent out by the Drake Democrats:

"MEDIA ADVISORY

Drake Democrats Hold Press Conference to Announce "Students Can't Afford Jim Nussle" Campaign
Drake Students Outraged by $12.7 Billion in Higher Education Cuts

Students at Drake University and colleges around Iowa will pay thousands of dollars more on their federal student loans thanks to higher education cuts imposed by Jim Nussle last week in Congress.

The Drake Democrats plan to show that college students are paying attention to Nussle's efforts to make college less affordable, and are launching a "Students Can't Afford Jim Nussle" campaign. The campaign will inform students, parents, and the general public about the cuts, and work to hold Jim Nussle accountable for his actions.

Students will be very active in the next several weeks in this campaign, and the Drake Democrats will announce the specifics of it at a press conference this Tuesday.

WHO: Members of the Drake Democrats

WHEN: Tuesday, February 14th, at 10:00 AM

WHERE: Drake University, Olmsted Center, Pomerantz Stage (2507 University Ave)

CONTACT: For overall statements, Drake Democrats President Patrick Rynard (ptr003@drake.edu). For press details, Drake Democrats Press Secretary Kailyn Heston (kmh034@drake.edu). For further information, visit the Drake Democrats website: www.drakedems.com"

As Legislative Liaison, I'm part of this campaign, and will keep you, my loyal readers, informed of our developments. Stay tuned early tomorrow morning for a press release we'll be putting out coinciding with our press conference at 10 AM. More details should also becoming about the extent of Budget Chairman Jim Nussle's cuts and how they'll impact average students and parents with federal loans. Looking at the FY 2007 budget, things appear even worse.

Who's Not Helping Nussle in Iowa?

2006-01-08T14:54:00.000-06:00

Who's Not Helping Nussle in Iowa?

Via Political Wire, some of the GOP wannabees aren't $haring the love:

When Nussle asked the political action committees of some possible 2008 candidates for donations, not everybody ponied up. Those who did, according to soon-to-be-released financial reports: Virginia Sen. George Allen $10,000; Arizona Sen. John McCain $5,000; Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback $2,000; and Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum $1,000. Who didn't: Tennessee Sen. Bill Frist, New York Gov. George Pataki, and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. But, we're assured, Pataki and Romney showed their love by offering to help raise money...

More on Nussle and the Minimum Wage

2005-12-27T20:08:00.000-06:00

To add onto the previous post, it turns out that Nussle has indeed voted against the minimum wage since expressing support for it in 2000.

The vote itself is wrapped up in layers of procedural mumbo jumbo, but here's how things shook out as near as I can tell (and I could be wrong on some details):

House Democrats introduced a bill to raise the minimum wage. (H.R. 2429)

House Republican leadership refused to allow a vote.

House Democrats proposed/tried to propose the bill as an amendment to another bill.

House Republican leadership proposed legislation denying them the ability to propose that amendment. (HR 351)

Jim Nussle voted to deny them that ability. (House Vote 365)

I wonder how Nussle squares this with his claims that "It is important to have a livable minimum wage." Does he think that $10,300 a year (a yearly salary at minimum wage) is livable?

Nussle & the Minimum Wage - first against, for it, against it?

2005-12-27T11:47:00.000-06:00

{Cross posted from No Nussle blog}

This just in, Democrats & union supporters are planning to place minimum wage increase ballot initiatives up for a vote in 2006 races in key states where incumbent Republicans are showing signs of weakness. There’s a great post from SusanG over at Daily Kos detailing the initiatives. In particular, I think (and SusanG concurs) that these sort of initiatives could serve as a strong counter to Republican attempts to use ballot initiatives on marriage to drive GOP turnout efforts. According to her post (from the Boston Globe):

Last year, both minimum wage increases on state ballots won overwhelmingly. Voters in Florida and Nevada -- two states that went narrowly for Bush -- overwhelmingly supported a higher minimum wage, giving ballot measures 71 percent support in Florida and 68 percent in Nevada. (The Nevada initiative must be approved again in 2006 before it can take effect.)
Democrats say they hope to replicate Republicans' success in 2004, when ballot initiatives banning gay marriage passed in all 11 states they were offered. The initiatives were credited with boosting GOP turnout in those states.

Now, the interesting question (for me, the No Nussle “guy”, at least) is where exactly Jim Nussle stands on the minimum wage. Back in 2000 when Nussle was running for reelection against Democrat Donna Smith in Iowa’s 2nd District he had this to say in a public debate (Telegraph Herald, Oct. 27, 2000):

Nussle and Smith took turns being the first to answer questions from a panel of reporters, with an opportunity to answer once the other candidate gave their rebuttal. Given the chance to ask Nussle a question directly, Smith said Nussle played the role of a fiscal conservative when he first went to Congress but voted to give himself $ 47,000 in raises over the 10 years. "Why are you part of the problem?" she asked. "You're not taking care of the most vulnerable in the nation." Nussle answered that just before the debate he voted in favor of a minimum wage bill that passed, and said, "It is important to have a livable minimum wage."

This is kind of confusing. The way I’m reading this statement, and it seems the way Nussle spoke it, is that Nussle would support a “livable minimum wage”. It’s further muddled by a Nussle vote back in back in 1996 that increased the minimum wage to the current $5.15/hour (Telegraph Herald, May 26, 1996):

MINIMUM WAGE: The House approved, 266 for and 162 against, an amendment to raise the minimum wage from $4.25 to $4.75 an hour on July 1 and to $5.15 a year later. The 90-cent increase was added to a bill (HR 1227) that, as later sent to the Senate, continues the requirement that businesses of all sizes pay the federally required minimum wage (next issue).

A yes vote was to raise the minimum wage.
Manzullo voted no.
IOWA - Nussle voted no.
Gunderson voted yes. Klug voted no.

EXEMPTION ISSUE: The House refused, 196 for and 229 against, to exempt the nation's smallest businesses - those with gross annual sales of less than $500,000 - from having to pay the minimum wage or overtime to future hires. The amendment was offered to a bill (HR 1227) that raises the minimum wage by 90 cents to $5.15 an hour (see previous vote).

A yes vote was to exempt small businesses from having to pay the minimum wage.
Manzullo voted yes.
IOWA - Nussle voted yes.

Back in 1996 it seems that Nussle believed that a “livable minimum wage” was somewhere BELOW $5.15/hour and also believed that small businesses should be EXEMPT from paying the minimum wage to future hires. I think this could be an EXCELLENT issue for Democrats to push Nussle on during the general campaign (if he beats Vander Plaats) as well as a great issue for them to focus on during the primary. One way to keep young people in-state is to pay them well. Higher minimum wages can attract better talent to the area as well as drive consumer spending. These are factors that can help attract better paying companies to the state as well as making the state an engine of regional economic development. This is besides the fact that a living wage is a SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUE.

Nussle Holding Heating Hostage

2005-12-23T19:25:00.000-06:00

LIHEAP is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It's used to help provide home heating to those who otherwise couldn't afford it. With natural gas prices rising so dramatically this year, more money is needed to provide even the same level of heating as last year, nevermind population growth and a falling median family income.

Everyone in Congress recognizes this fact. But Republicans, with Nussle in the lead, have tried to use the needed funding increase to blackmail lawmakers into voting for other programs, including drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and cuts to child support enforcement.

With Democrats and a few renegade Republicans standing strong and forcing some of the worst (though by no means all) of these terrible ideas out of legislation, Nussle and friends have dropped LIHEAP support too. Consequently, no additional funds have been allocated for the program.

I don't know about you, but I would rather not have a governor willing to play politics with something so essential to Iowans as heat in the winter.

Nussle, Martial Law, & The GOP Budget [how the Grinch stole Xmas edition...]

2005-12-20T12:57:00.000-06:00

Cross posted at the No Nussle Blog...
Sorry, but this post is going to come entirely from the Center on the Budget and Policy Priorities:

Under this procedure, longstanding House rules that require at least one day between the unveiling of significant legislation and the House floor vote on that legislation are swept away. Instead, under “martial law,” the Leadership can file legislation with hundreds of pages of fine print and move immediately to debate and votes on it, before Members of Congress, the media, or the public have an opportunity to understand fully what provisions have been altered or inserted in the legislation behind closed doors. This is the procedure the Leadership hopes to use today to muscle through these bills.

Basically, what this means is that Jim Nussle and the House Republican Leadership didn't want to have a truly open and honest debate about budget priorities. Nussle didn't want to actually have to DEFEND the proposals that he was pushing through congress. More below:

The budget reconciliation conference agreement reportedly cuts a variety of programs by about $41 billion over five years. It apparently contains provisions affecting millions of Americans, including changes in Medicaid, Medicare, student loans, child support enforcement, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the foster care program, and others. Republican leaders have been meeting behind closed doors on this far-reaching legislation. At this time, few details are available on what the legislation actually does.

One of the most controversial provisions in the Senate version of this legislation — the provision that would open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling — evidently will be moved to the defense appropriation bill. The defense appropriation bill reportedly will also include a variety of other provisions unrelated to defense that were not in either the House- or Senate-passed versions of that bill.

Although the Leadership’s schedule calls for Members of the House to have to vote on these conference reports today, the Leadership has not revealed exactly what changes have been made in the reconciliation bill or exactly what matters
are being added to the defense appropriation bill. The plan appears to be to wait until the last moment this afternoon or evening and then have the House Rules Committee report rules that will allow the conference reports to go directly to the House floor — before the public, the media, or even Members of the House themselves have an opportunity to examine the revised legislation carefully.

This arouses suspicion that some of the changes that have been made to the reconciliation bill could be presented as a major easing of certain harsh and controversial provisions of the House bill even if the reality is different. It also creates concern that some special interest provisions may have been inserted into the bill, or some special interests may otherwise have been protected, in order to secure votes.

Indeed, preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimates of the budget conference agreement that are now circulating indicate that the conferees shielded the pharmaceutical companies and eliminated the principal Senate provision that was designed to curb overpayments to managed care companies (despite a call for that provision to be enacted by Congress’ own expert advisory panel on Medicare payments), while adopting substantial increases in the co-payments and premiums that low-income Medicaid beneficiaries may be charged. The CBO cost estimates indicate that the cuts resulting from the increases in co-payments and premiums are 90 percent as large over ten years (80 percent as large over five years) as the cuts in this area in the House bill. (The Senate bill contained no Medicaid cuts aimed at low-income beneficiaries.)

Use of the martial law procedure would enable the Leadership to seek to round up the votes needed to pass the budget reconciliation bill before a full picture is available of what the bill does. House Members also may be asked to vote on the defense appropriation bill before they have the opportunity to understand fully what has been inserted into it.

What is “Martial Law”?

The House leadership is using a parliamentary gambit to evade a longstanding House rule that is supposed to ensure that this kind of obfuscation does not occur. That House rule (Rule XIII(6)(a)) provides that a resolution (called a rule) reported by the Rules Committee cannot be considered by the House on the same legislative day that the rule is reported (except by a two-thirds vote of the House). This is supposed to ensure that Members of the House and the public have at least one day to examine and analyze what is in the legislation to be considered before they have to debate and vote on it.

To maneuver around this House rule and rush the revised reconciliation bill and defense appropriation bill to a vote before they have been fully examined, the Rules Committee reported a rule (H.Res. 632) on the legislative day of Saturday, December 17, that would waive the application of Rule XIII(6)(a). Instead, it would allow the Rules Committee to wait until the last minute — and not to report the rules governing consideration of the reconciliation and defense appropriations conference reports, or to release the conference reports themselves, until immediately before debate and votes on the rules and the legislation commences. This despite the fact that the budget legislation is expected to be hundreds of pages long.

This extraordinary procedure is known as a “martial law” rule because it suspends the normal procedures and safeguards and allows the House Leadership to operate in a more authoritarian fashion. It enables the Leadership to seek to ram a bill or conference report through before the Members have the opportunity to fully understand what they are voting on. Legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Americans deserves to be considered under a more democratic process. Waiting until the last minute to reveal what is in these two bills, and then “spinning” or potentially mischaracterizing changes to the reconciliation bill without Members of the House or the public having an opportunity to obtain a more objective review of what the legislation does, would be unfair to Members of the House. It also would be unfair to the millions of Americans whose lives could be altered by this legislation. It would represent a step toward reducing the degree of transparency and democracy in how this country is governed and how decisions are made.

So, what does this mean about Iowa politics? First, it shows how Nussle's calls for an "independent review" of the security of Iowa's prisons is bullshit. Nussle is not a fan of "open" and "honest" government, why would he want to allow real debate on the effects of budget legislation. Well, it might just open him up to criticism from other Iowa politicians (Grassley, Harkin, & Leach) that aren't necessarily kowtowing to the fringe elements of the Republican party that push legislation that's not in Iowa's best interests. Secondly, even Nussle's opponent - Bob Vander Plaats - has been attacking the approach:

Vander Plaats called that approach reckless, saying Nussle's budget cuts spending across the board, saves pork and pet projects and puts vital programs and the most vulnerable citizens at risk. Vander Plaats also says it take no intellectual firepower to create such a budget.

MORE: Nussle & the Budget - Hawk or Chicken?

2005-12-19T11:05:00.000-06:00

I am continually amazed at the ability of House Republicans to proclaim themselves “champions or reform” or “deficit hawks”. Really, who do they think they are fooling. The new budget passed by the House is still a bucket of pork and handouts to Big Oil and other corporate sponsors of the GOP majority. Nussle goes around touting “reform & savings” after narrowly passing the budget proposal at his desk:

The U.S. House of Representatives on Monday narrowly voted to cut $39.7 billion from federal spending over five years, including health care and other social welfare, as part of a conservative push to contain these growing programs. By a vote of 212-206, the House, at the end of a rare overnight session, approved the spending cuts, which were opposed by Democrats. "We have a plan to reform the government and achieve savings," said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican. (12/19/05)

Now, like I always say, I’m for “reform” and “responsible” government, but that’s not what Nussle is really proposing. Cuts in Medicare/Medicaid, food stamps, and child support recovery are the programs that Nussle is targeting for “reform”…But, as an excellent post over at “Nussle Watch notes:

But no matter how draconian these measures are in a time of growing poverty and need, Jim Nussle is lying about the nature of the cuts. NONE of the provisions would reduce the virtually non-existent problem of "trafficking" or "fraud." Recent changes in the program have made it very hard to do that, namely putting benefits on an ATM-type card, called the EBT. Fraud & waste in food stamps is about a low as a governmental program can get. It's error rate is at the lowest point ever, and has declined for 6 straight years.

Instead, I think there are other areas that fraud & abuse can be squeezed out of. In particular, the Comptroller General of The United States and the General Accounting Office have a number of things they think are problems:

Comptroller General of the United States David Walker said there were three major obstacles to evaluating the latest financial statements. First, he said, there were "serious financial management problems" at the Department of Defense. Second, the federal government could not adequately account for balances between federal agencies. Lastly he criticized the government's "ineffective process" for preparing its consolidated financial statements. Walker's letter was contained in the Financial Report of the United States Government for 2005. (12/15/05)

The problem for House Republicans, though, is that if there were truly better accounting methods and a more effective process for preparing consolidated financial statements there would be no easy way to scapegoat the programs that they most favor cuts for. Plus, better accounting puts the Department of Defense and Homeland Security on the political hot seat. These are the agencies most often cited for fraud and abuse. Witness the Cunningham scandal. Maybe if we didn’t have politicians out there taking handouts from large corporate donors against the interests of their citizens…

BIG OIL UPDATE:
I found an interesting little tool over at Open Secrets. Remember those votes on drilling in Alaska? Well, back in 1995 there was also debate about the importation of oil from Alaska’s North Slope as well as some discussion about the royalties that companies drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico were to pay to the federal government in exchange for drilling rights. Both of these involved big handouts to the oil industry. Additionally, you can clearly connect $7500 in Oil PAC contributions to Congressman Nussle in relation to these votes. Now, I’m not claiming that he was bought off or bribed or purchased, here. The thing is, the more we subsidize the “traditional” oil industry the more we discourage the move towards E-85 and E-10 Ethanol production in Iowa. If you want to see the results of the search – see them HERE

Nussle - Fundraising Watch

2005-12-16T10:08:00.000-06:00

Cross posted from the No Nussle Blog
I thought it would be interesting to start a series on some of the donors to Nussle’s past political campaigns. The public needs to realize..it’s not just votes that determine if you are a constituent…money makes you a constituent. Those with more dollars get their interests represented. Now, I was under the impression that Nussle was running with Iowa’s interests in mind. Yet, there are some major donors to his congressional campaigns that are noticeably absent from living in the state of Iowa.

This week, I thought I’d talk about the Fieldstead Institute. Now, the Fieldstead Institute is a non-profit, charitable organization, that was founded by Howard Ahmanson Jr. to advance his philanthropic causes. He has funded some good things, such as music education programs in the O.C., but he has a tendency to fund causes that are notably on the “right” side of the Christian Fundamentalist wing of the Republican Party. For example [from wikipedia]:

- He funded the magazine Chalcedon Report, which carried an article calling for homosexuals to be stoned
- He is a major funder of the Discovery Institute, whose Center for Science and Culture opposes the theory of evolution and manages a public relations campaign promoting "intelligent design".
- He funds the Claremont Institute, a think-tank which promoted a video in which Charlton Heston praises "the God-fearing Caucasian middle class".

Now, I understand…Nussle has to appeal to his base of voting support. Makes sense politically…but the Fieldstead Institute…where is it based? Irvine, California. That’s right. California. Not western Iowa, not the suburbs of Davenport, not West Des Moines or Council Bluffs. California. Between 2001-2004 the Ahamson’s (Howard & his wife Roberta) have donated $5000 to the Nussle for Congress Committee. This is a lot of scratch for some folks from California to be investing in a congress member from Iowa. Wonder what Mr. Ahmanson has to say about the governor’s race? In 1985, Ahmanson told the Orange County Register, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives." Now there's an education policy for you. Really, don't you get it? We need new textbooks for the state. Why not purchase a bunch of Calvinist bibles? That's what Ahamson would support. He's what is called a "Calvinist Reconstructionist". He wants a biblical state. That's right - and end to the separation of church & state. What I think Nussle needs to do is take the advice of a number of other Republicans around the country - RETURN THE MONEY. Here's a list of GOP faithful who have initially received funds from Fieldstream, only later to return them:

- Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)
- Linda Lingle (Hawaii)

One other last bit of information - that might be of interest to the Culver campaign in particular...Seems that Ahmanson has a stake in ES&S one of the large companies that is developing electronic voting systems. In particular, they are responsible for electronic voting systems in Iowa:

The Omaha, Nebraska-based company's computer systems will be responsible for counting 61 million votes this election, nearly half the total ballots cast.1 ES&S also has major contracts to provide paperless electronic voting machines in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virgnia. The company is privately held, and its owners are uniformly conservative.

Food Stamp "trafficking" not a problem

2005-12-14T10:21:00.000-06:00

Hi there, it's my first post here at Nussle Watch. Just a little background on myself - I work for a local hunger relief non-profit that serves 42 counties in Iowa and I spend a good deal of my time on anti-hunger advocacy. I've been at this job a little over 2 1/2 years, but if there is one thing I've learned, it's that Jim Nussle is no friend to people in poverty. Take this recent (within the last week) quote by Jim Nussle:

"In addition, the House Agriculture Committee recommended reforms to the Food Stamp program. These reforms are designed to help states reduce the practice of trafficking food stamps and other fraudulent activity. H.R. 4241 addresses this issue because every dollar we lose to food stamp trafficking is a dollar of benefits that do not reach the hungry."

Now, I've explained this before in previous posts on my blog, but I'll explain it here again. The President came out with his budget in spring of 2005, and recommended $564 million in cuts to food stamps. This would happen by cutting off 300,000 recipients (mostly children) from the program in 11 states, by removing "categorical eligibility." What that means, is that certain states have taken the option of simplifying their application process to reduce paperwork and bureaucracy, and if you automatically qualify for TANF, you automatically qualify for food stamps. The US Senate, thanks to efforts of Tom Harkin AND Chuck Grassley have voted in this year's budget to recommend $0 in cuts to food stamps. The House, on the other hand, voted to cut almost $800 million from the program. So in addition to the categorical eligibility cut, the House added some anti-immigrant provisions that were removed in 2002. No LEGAL immigrants can collect any food assistance until they have lived here for 7 years. This includes people who have been collecting, but haven't been here for 7 years.

But no matter how draconian these measures are in a time of growing poverty and need, Jim Nussle is lying about the nature of the cuts. NONE of the provisions would reduce the virtually non-existent problem of "trafficking" or "fraud." Recent changes in the program have made it very hard to do that, namely putting benefits on an ATM-type card, called the EBT. Fraud & waste in food stamps is about a low as a governmental program can get. It's error rate is at the lowest point ever, and has declined for 6 straight years.

Jim Nussle constantly sings the "fraud, waste, and abuse" tune to us advocates and the press. That's because the house proposals to cut people from food stamps for no good reason are not politically popular.

I'll let FRAC (Food Research & Action Center, one of the foremost anti-hunger advocacy organizations) answer him, because they do it well:

There is nothing in the CBO estimate that would indicate that House passed food stamp changes would help states reduce the practice of "trafficking" food stamps and other fraudulent activity. The totally independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate explains that once fully implemented 255,000 would lose eligibility for the food stamp program.

Click here for CBO estimate

"CBO estimates that about 185,000 people who would lose categorical eligibility would not be able to meet the income and asset tests for the program. On average, those individuals would lose about $45 a month in Food Stamp benefits in 2007."

"CBO estimates that an average of about 50,000 people would no longer be eligible for benefits in fiscal years in 2006 and 2007. That estimate is based on fiscal year 1996 QC data adjusted for changes in Food Stamp rules and recent immigration statistics. That number would rise to 70,000 in 2008,"

Nussle is on the side of dead beats...

2005-12-06T20:44:00.000-06:00

Cross-posted from No Nussle Blog

Harsh title, I know...But how else can you frame it? Jim Nussle favors tax cuts. Tax cuts deplete government revenue. Government revenue is used to pay for social programs that help the people most in need. What did Jim Nussle push through as a cut? Child support recovery. Interestingly, Bill Gluba (Democrat-Quad Cities) has finally gotten a backbone and had some fine things to say about Nussle's ideas - at a Head Start classroom nonetheless:

House Republicans have proposed $50 billion in spending cuts over five years, which Democrats say fall too heavily on the poor.

Gluba zeroed in on proposed cuts in funding for the child-support recovery program, which serves nearly 177,000 Iowa children. The changes would reduce collections in 2007 by $91 million, according to the Iowa Department of Human Services, or nearly a third of the $312 million it expects to collect that year. The state runs the program.

He said the cuts would “emasculate” the recovery unit and called the reductions immoral, particularly because Republicans are proposing $70 billion in tax cuts over five years, most of it to go to wealthier families.

People supporting the cuts, including Nussle, argue that the cuts are necessary to prevent states from "double dipping" into federal coffers for additional money. For example, the federal government provides a certain amount of funds for states to allocate for child support recovery. For every dollar the state government captures back in child support, the federal government matches a certain percentage. These are the programs that Nussle wants to cut in order to help pay for tax cuts for the most wealthy. An excellent piece over at the Center for Law and Social Policy argues that the cuts would have a TERRIBLE impact on the ability of state governments (like Iowa Rep. Nussle!) to collect on child support:

On October 26, the Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives
approved a budget reconciliation package that would impose deep cuts in federal funds
used to help pay for state child support services provided to single parent families. The child support program enforces the responsibility of non-custodial parents to support their children, reducing the need for families to receive public assistance. These cuts, if implemented, would cut federal child support program funding by 40 percent, severely reducing states’ ability to collect child support for low- and moderate-income families. Congress projects that child support collections would drop by $24.1 billion over the next ten years.

According to the Center's report, the State of Iowa would stand to lose $157 Million dollars in federal support for child support recovery between 2006-2015. This doesn't even include the DECREASE in the resulting amount of child support COLLECTIONS over the same period of time. From 2006-2015 child support payments to families would be decreased by $239 Million!! Where do you think families will come up with these funds in an economy besieged by high fuel costs, rising health care costs, low paying jobs, and an economy with a stagnant minimum wage? Also, remember these programs affect CHILDREN - the innocent. Who's a compassionate conservative now?

Ames Trib on Nussle

2005-12-01T16:24:00.000-06:00

Fantastic editorial, mostly about Nussle's call for an independent investigation. My favorite part:

Vilsack, in the end, was not without his own sting. His advice to Nussle, chairman of the House Budget Committee: Go back to trying to balance the federal budget. There's a couple billion over the wall there.

Read the whole thing.

Guest post: Catching Nussle Lying Again

2005-12-01T10:41:00.000-06:00

Ed. note: This post originally appeared on Patriot Skull Face.

From the QCTimes.com - The Quad-City Times Newspaper:

"As an example, the food stamp program has an error rate of 7 percent, down from a previous error rate of 19 percent a couple of years ago," he said. "That was almost 20 cents on the dollar that was being wasted in food stamps," Nussle said.

A Government Accountability Office study issued in May said the combined error rate for the program - which includes underpayment and overpayment of benefits - was actually 9.9 percent in 1999 and had shrunk to 6.6 percent in 2004. Erin Seidler, a spokeswoman for the Iowa Democratic Party, said the proposed budget cuts are doing nothing to cut the deficit, noting Congress also is considering $70 billion in tax cuts."

So, Jim Nussle is claiming that food stamps should be cut this year because the program has increased its efficency. Actually, the FSP has become more efficent every year for the past six years, and now is at its best in the history of the program. This has a lot to do with the EBT cards that are used instead of the funny colored monopoly money that they used to use. But this improvement signals to Nussle that the program needs cuts. Uh, er...huh?

Nussle is lying. The cuts in the program have nothing to do with "fraud, waste, and abuse" as he wants you to think. You see, he wants you to think that no one's losing food assistance for any other reason than that they or DHS were frauds who wasted and abused taxpayer dollars. That's simply not true.

Food Stamps is an entitlement program. That means that to cut it, you either have to a) make large numbers of people inelligible, or b) reduce benefits. Since benefits are on average between 70-80 cents a meal, there isn't much room for cutting there, and that would just look too mean spirited. Nussle chose option A, but says he's cutting waste because that makes him sound like he's fiscally responsible.

Nussle is lying about the nature of the cuts so he doesn't have to face the public on the fact that he's cutting people off of a program like food stamps while giving wealthy folks $70 billion in new tax cuts.

Nussle should give back tainted and corrupt cash

2005-11-29T17:03:00.000-06:00

The Iowa Democratic Party issued a good demand today to Congressman Jim Nussle today:

"The Iowa Democratic Party calls on Congressman Jim Nussle today to return a $1,000 donation from the Friends of Duke Cunningham congressional campaign committee. Congressman Randall “Duke” Cunningham resigned yesterday after pleading guilty to charges of bribery and tax evasion.

“Once again, Congressman Nussle is connected to the culture of corruption in Washington that has become the trademark of the Republican Party. Will Jim Nussle once again refuse to return the campaign donation and separate himself from unethical behavior by his Republican colleagues?” said Iowa Democratic Party Chair Sally Pederson. “Iowans won’t stand for elected officials that put special interests and personal gain over high ethical standards.”

Cunningham pled guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion after accepting $2.4 million in bribes in return for political favors on behalf of a defense contractor. The Washington Post calls Cunningham’s case “the most brazen bribery conspiracy in modern congressional history.” [11/29/05]

The Iowa Democratic Party also called on Nussle to return campaign donations from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is currently facing an indictment on money laundering charges. The Nussle campaign has refused."

How long will it take for Iowa's presumptive Republican candidate to finally face the facts and become an ethical man, unlike the rest of his corrupt GOP pals in Washington?

Does Iowa need a governor who's taking money from Congressmen pleading guilty to or under indictment for federal offesnses? Of course not.

Jim Nussle: Quit being a corrupt Washington Republican. We don't want your culture of crime and misdeeds in our state. Give back Cunningham's money AND DeLay's money. It's what a true Iowan would do.

Nussle and Independent Investigations

2005-11-21T17:48:00.000-06:00

Jim Nussle wants an independent investigation into the recent prison breakout.

That's fine, Jim. You can have that, just as soon as you call for an independent investigation into the Bush administration's attempts to mislead Congress and the American people in the runup to the Iraq war. I mean, that's something that actually relates to your job, not to your political ambitions.

Maybe you could ask Chuck Grassley to recuse himself in the Abramoff investigation, since he probably ought to be charged in it.

Nussle's Family Values Budget

2005-11-19T17:49:00.000-06:00

Now, there are at least half a dozen big problems with the budget bill that recently passed the house, which a Nussle press release emailed to me calls the "Nussle Plan."

But the one that I think is, if not the worst, at least the most ridiculous, is the cut in funding to state child-support collection services by almost $5 billion. I realize Nussle had a messy divorce, but does he really need to take that out on parents with a deadbeat ex? Talk about family values. At least we're probably going to get $70 billion in tax cuts, so that the "Deficit Reduction Act" actually increases the deficit by $20 billion or so.

Oh well, it's not like Nussle needs to support family values or fiscal responsibility to win. He's always got the Republican reputation for good governance, right?

Iowa college students can't afford Jim Nussle

2005-11-17T16:05:00.000-06:00

First, Jim Nussle helps to throw the United States into trillions of dollars of debt as Budget Committee Chairman in the US House of Representatives. Now he wants to cut federal financial aid spending so college students will be able to be massively in debt just like our country (except not as badly).

From the Iowa State Daily:

"U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, chairman of the House Budget Committee, is pushing to get a vote from the House of Representatives by the end of the week on a bill that would cut several billion dollars from federal student loan programs.

The Budget Reallocation bill, which would also cut funds from other programs to help pay for hurricane-induced emergency spending, was scheduled for a vote last Thursday, but the action was postponed."

Go read the rest of the story for more information, particularly what impact it might have on students at Iowa State.

Remember: This man wants to be the next governor of Iowa. It is up to us as responsible citizens to let Jim Nussle know that we CANNOT afford him as leader.

Guest Post: Nussle, subsidies, food stamps, and insolvent government

2005-11-15T18:29:00.000-06:00

With permission from Patriot Skull Face, a progressive Iowa blog you should be reading:

DesMoinesRegister.com:

"Overall, the package of spending cuts would total $50 billion over five years and includes reductions in spending for Medicaid, the health program for the poor; student loans; and food stamps.

The biggest impact in Iowa is likely to be in the increase in the cost of student loans and the reduction in state aid for child-support enforcement.

The effect on Nussle's gubernatorial campaign is likely to be marginal, said Dennis Goldford, a political analyst at Drake University.

'What he wants to do is sell some sense of leadership and vision for Iowa. I'm not sure that this speaks to that,' Goldford said."

So what role did Nussle play in these cuts? Well, as someone who is particularly concerned about cuts to food stamps, I paid close attention. I work for a local non-profit hunger relief organization that serves 42 Iowa counties. Here's how this all went down:

In March or so, Chairman Nussle set out the various levels of cuts that each committee was going to have to make. For the committees in question, the Agriculture Committees, he set the levels to be cut at about 3 billion dollars. After that, the House and Senate Ag then looked at policy reccomendations all summer to formulate their budgets.

For example, the Farm Bureau wanted food stamps to take $2 billion in cuts. Food and nutrition advocates like myself pushed hard for no cuts, and if any cuts were to happen they shouldn't exceed the President's proposal of cutting $574 million. This cut would remove 300,000 people from food stamps across 11 states, as well at 40,000 kids from school lunch.

As for farm subsidies, Senator Grassley was the champion for cutting payments to farmers collecting making over $250,000. Seems pretty reasonable, right? These subsides go mostly to farmers in the South for sugar and cotton supports. Thanks to Senator Harkin's leadership on the Democratic side, and with support from various Republicans in the Senate, the budget called for $0 in cuts to food stamps. Because the Senate Ag chairman is Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), don't expect payment limitations happening anytime from the Senate Ag Committee. Perhaps if Grassley can get it attached to something else, there is a chance, but his attempts this year haven't worked out.

Now the House Ag, starring such Iowa members Steve King and Leonard Boswell, voted to cut above the President's reccomendation, and set the level at about $844 million. This would affect the previously mentioned 300,000 recipients as well as any immigrant that hasn't been in the U.S. seven years. This was a food stamp provision that was repealed in 2002, yet has returned thanks to anti-immigrant rhetoric from fools like Tom Tancredo and Steve King.

The House and Senate Ag committees will then have to have a conference committee to decide what cuts will be included in the final budget. There is much speculation that because the congressional Republicans and Bush are in such bad trouble, they will forgo reconcilliation and just extend last year's budget. That would be the best thing for our nation right now, unless repealing the tax cuts for the top 1% suddenly become a possibility.

SO - bottom line - Jim Nussle crafted a stupid budget a long time ago not thinking that things like food stamp, school lunch, medicaid, college loan and other cuts would hurt him. Essentially, as the hurricaine Katrina debacle has pointed out: Democrats are in favor of a large solvent government, and Republicans are for a large insolvent government. That is a debate we should be willing to have.

DeLay's Web of Scandal in Iowa

2005-10-14T11:35:00.000-05:00

I absolutely heart the Iowa Democratic Party for this press release:

"Six Iowa Republicans are tied to Tom DeLay’s indictments with no sign of untangling themselves from his "Web of Scandal". Three Iowa Republican Congressman have taken money from DeLay, two candidates keep a consultant who is at the center of the DeLay indictment, and now, one of their own is outspoken in his unwavering support of DeLay.

Congressman Tom DeLay has been indicted twice by two Texas grand juries on charges of conspiring to violate political fundraising laws, money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Congressmen Jim Nussle, Steve King and Tom Latham have received a total of $56,105 from DeLay’s tainted political action committee.

After each indictment, the Iowa Democratic Party has called on each Congressman to return the dirty DeLay money. All three Congressmen have refused. Congressmen Steve King went as far as to publicly declare his support for DeLay saying, "From a philosophical perspective, (DeLay) and I are on the same page... We think down the same path. He is one of rare individuals that I just click with." [Sioux City Journal 10/11/05]

Iowa native and campaign consultant Terry Nelson is front and center in the DeLay indictment. According to the Quad City Times, Nelson accepted the allegedly illegal $190,000 check from DeLay's corporate political action committee Texans for a Republican Majority and funneled the money through the Republican National Committee back to Texas state legislature candidates.

Nelson is a consultant for Jeff Lamberti and Bill Dix's congressional races. After hiring Nelson, Dix called Nelson one of the "top strategists in the country." Despite Nelson's involvement in the DeLay indictment, Lamberti and Dix continue to stand by their man.

The people of Iowa deserve to know why the six Iowa Republicans refuse to untangle themselves from DeLay's "Web of Scandal" and the culture of corruption that has become the norm in Washington."

How long will it take for Latham, King, and Nussle (the man who wants to be governor!) to give their tainted DeLay money back? And is Nussle the same type of corrupt that DeLay is?

I'd say yes.

2005-10-06T19:18:00.000-05:00

It makes me nervous that it takes a national disaster to light a fire under Nussle to actually think about reality-based budgeting. Even now, it's kind of ridiculous - he wants to cut $19.5 billion to fund hurricane relief, but doesn't seem to care about the $300+ billion deficit. I can't wait to see what kind of fiscal nonsense he's gonna try to pull in his campaign for Governor.

Will Jim Nussle stop taking money from Tom DeLay now that he's been indicted?

2005-09-28T12:20:00.000-05:00

Today, I think it is time for all Iowans to ask Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle a very important question: Now that House Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX-22) has been indicted and stepped down from his leadership position, will you promise to no longer accept contributions from him or his PAC, Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC)?

According to FEC disclosure reports, in his 2004 re-election bid to Congress, Nussle accepted $10,000 from ARMPAC, the most closely aligned national PAC to Tom DeLay. In 202, Nussle received $5,000 from ARMPAC.

In the last three years, thats $15,000 from Tom DeLay, quite possibly the most crooked Republican serving in the United States House of Representatives.

Nussle has also served DeLay's ethical lapses over the past decade in Congress and never publicly challenged him to clean up his act.

Iowan's don't need a surplus-wasting, budget-mismanaging politician for Governor. Iowans deserve a Democrat who will be honest and straightforward, a leader who isn't shrouded in ethical and criminal investigations.

So, Congressman Nussle, will you face our challenge and clear yourself from any connections to Tom DeLay?

Or will you just continue to be another Washington Republican?

Nussle: Flood flip-flopper

2005-09-16T13:33:00.000-05:00

Jim Nussle just can't make up his poor little mind. The man wants to be governor of the state of Iowa, but how can he run on something like this:
"Iowa Democrats on Wednesday sloshed into the watery past to deliver some criticism of House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle's record on deficits and disasters.

Nussle, a Republican candidate for governor, voted for a $51.8 billion package of aid for victims of Hurricane Katrina on Sept. 8 and said that Congress should focus first on assisting victims."

Don't worry about the money in this initial phase" of recovery, Nussle said. When reconstruction and rebuilding begins, "then there will be fiscal issues that are appropriate to discuss, but not at this initial stage when we are still rescuing and relocating people."

But Lt. Gov. Sally Pederson, who also is the head of the Iowa Democratic Party, said that when all 99 of Iowa's counties were declared a disaster because of widespread flooding in 1993, Nussle delayed a vote on aid.

"The tens of thousands of people affected by Hurricane Katrina deserve immediate relief, but 12 years ago, so did the citizens of Iowa," she said. "Where was Jim Nussle then?"
So, it's ok to vote against helping your own constituents and their families to bring them aid when the debt is bad? But when your President massively mismanages the largest natural disaster in American history you've got to save his ass by making sure to help right away?

It is really all great and good that Congressman Nussle is worried about the people of the Gulf Coast. Everyone in America should be worried about them and making sure they get the help they need.

But what happens if Jim Nussle is elected governor of Iowa and, God help us, we have to face another massive disaster like the Floods of 1993? Will he show leadership then? I doubt it.

I see him showing up at a press conference with a paper bag on his head telling Iowans to tough it out.

Getting your priorities alligned

2005-08-09T09:50:00.000-05:00

This morning's Des Moines Register tries to stir up a bit of controversy that doesn't really exist, I believe.

"Gov. Tom Vilsack suggested Monday that Republican U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle needs to get out of Washington, D.C., and travel the state to discover how much economic progress is occurring throughout Iowa.

Vilsack, a Democrat, said he was surprised at comments made last week by Nussle, who claimed Vilsack's economic development agenda is "all based on photo ops," with few benefits for most business owners. Nussle, who along with Bob Vander Plaats is seeking the Republican nomination for governor next year, made the remarks in an interview with Lee Enterprises newspapers."

The criticism of Gov. Vilsack seems quite pointless by Nussle. Attacking a guy you're not going to be running against just doesn't make a lot of sense--politically or otherwise--to me. But remember, we're talking about the guy who showed up on the floor of the House of Representatives with a paper bag over his head.

In all seriousness, though, Jim Nussle should be spending all of August going through the state campaigning and seeing good economic results thanks to Governor Vilsack, as well as the bipartisan Iowa Values Fund.

The end of the article is where I had some significant problems:

"Maria Comella, Nussle's campaign spokeswoman, said Monday the congressman has spent 40 days traveling throughout Iowa, visiting more than 120 towns and cities, since announcing he will run for governor. Nussle has spoken with thousands of Iowans, she added.

It's difficult to take Vilsack's criticism seriously, considering that he recently became chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, has established a political action committee, and plans to spend Labor Day weekend in New Hampshire, Comella said. "That is a second-term agenda that has nothing to do with serving the people of Iowa," she said."

Comella is just an absolute moron, ok?

That so-called "second-term agenda" is nothing more than what Vilsack has done the last two months. He also negotiated a budget, even after a long period of debate that brought about a special session, got the speed limit raised, and lots of other things this last legislative session. Not to mention the restoration of basic American privileges like voting to reformed criminals who've dealt with their punishment.

You can't criticize a man for being politically active either. I mean, for God's sakes, what else is a governor of Iowa to do in June, July, and August besides visit the Iowa State Fair and maybe a Cubs game? The legislative season ends in May, or mid-June if there is a need for a special session. Keeping himself occupied in positive, Democratic ways is essential.

Jim Nussle's campaign needs to get their priorites straight. They're running for governor--and not against Tom Vilsack. Why don't they actually worry about issues that affect Iowans and not some kind of petty political bickering?

Nussle on Medicare/Medicaid

2005-08-09T09:09:00.000-05:00

Our goal here at Nussle Watch is to explain why Iowa needs someone other than Jim Nussle for governor, preferably a Democrat with strong leadership qualities. While we take no position on candidates until after the primary, it is important to remember why we are against Jim Nussle.

August of 2005 marks the 40th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid. To find out more about them, please visit their Wikipedia entries here and here, respectively.

In September, when Congress reconvenes, the House Budget Committee and their chairman, Jim Nussle, better get their act together. This summer, the Congress passed a resolution outlining the budget as it will be debated this fall. Jim Nussle was the author of that resolution and he's proposing big cuts supposedly to reign in the deficit--but according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the planned budget will actually increase deficits by as much as $167.5 billion.

When it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, Jim Nussle appears ready to slash a chunk of their necessary funding. Nussle's budget resolution will cut funding for Medicaid and other low-income programs by $30 to $35 billion. According to the IDP, "For Iowa alone, this would mean a $129 to $173 million in cuts to Medicaid, and leave many low-income Iowans without health coverage."

Nussle also made sure to include $106 billion in tax cuts over the next five years in the budget resolution. Forty-six percent of those tax cuts will benefit people with household incomes exceeding $1 million per year (a pretty tiny group). I'm sure that'll help a few Iowans--but not the majority.

It's time for Iowans across the board to ask Jim Nussle a question. Which is more important: providing adequate support for the programs that Iowas desperately need or cutting taxes for the folks who contribute huge sums of money to your campaign?

Nussle not good for Iowa Hispanic voters

2005-08-03T16:32:00.000-05:00

If you're a Hispanic and an Iowa, Jim Nussle isn't your man for the next governor of Iowa.

According to the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA), Jim Nussle received a 22% score for the 108th Congress that ended in 2004. The scores are based on votes applying to basic civil rights and quality of life issues for Hispanics and all Americans.

I looked up the results for the 107th Congress, ending in 2002, and found that during that session Nussle only received a 9% score. The scorecard can be found here (warning, PDF). In the 106th Congress, ending in 2000, Nussle only received a 20% score. Again, the report can be found here (warning, PDF).

The NHLA is a nonpartisan coalition of major Hispanic national organizations and distinguished Hispanic leaders from across the country, so I'm sure their judgments are not purely partisan in ways that opponents may claim. For more on the NHLA, click here.

Information compiled from sources linked above and the Iowa Democratic Party.