iowa underground blog

From the transcript:

BILL MOYERS: But if reform has to come from the people who are benefiting from the system, are we going to get reform?

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: We’re going to get reform if and when they believe that the public will have the tar cooking and the feathers waiting if they don’t do reform. We’re not there yet, Bill.

THOMAS FRANK: Can I say two things about this question? First of all, the people who are in charge now have a vested interest in increasing our cynicism. They are the party of cynicism against government. And when they do these things, that’s just an added benefit that they’ve managed to get the cynicism numbers up where they have. That’s good for the Republican Party, the party that tells you that what? Remember what President Reagan used to say about government, you know? It was a joke, the idea that they were here to help you, all that stuff.

The second point I want to make is go back to the 19th century, the sort of parallel experience to what we’re going through now. You had a series of reformers come up in the 19th century. And every single one of them from, you know, Horace Greeley all up to the 1890s failed miserably, you know, were rejected in huge sweep. I mean, the corruptionists just whipped these guys. It was a piece of cake. It was easy. The only thing that—what really changed it is when reform became a broader thing, when it became Progressivism. And when it became, you know, look at society as a whole. We’re going to change the entire direction that we’re moving in. When—I’m talking about here people like Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. That’s when this stuff started to abate. Not before that.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: You know, one problem we have here is what we really need is politicians. Politicians understand the nature of politics and the importance of the institutions. How to do give and take and compromises in an effective fashion. What’s happening now is where this flame of cynicism in the public, somebody pops up and says, “I’m not a politician.” And we say, “Okay, great. We’ll elect you.” And what we get are people who are on an ideological crusade, people who have a contempt for politics and believe that it is all sleaze, everybody does it. So bribery is a way of life.

BILL MOYERS: Is there hope when money trumps everything else today?

THOMAS FRANK: You don’t want to ask me that. I’m, you know, I’m a very pessimistic guy. And I don’t think there is because, you know, earlier we were talking about the Democrats and their reaction to all this, and I think their reaction has been lukewarm to feeble. No, they want that money, too. You know, they want to turn this around—-

BILL MOYERS: I saw the other day a very powerful House member, Democrat, saying, you know, “We’re going after some uncharted sources of money in the financial community. And we’re telling them that the next majority leader might be a Democrat.”

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: Yeah. You know, we’ve had a telecommunications bill that’s been up and pending in Congress for a long time, and they’re going to keep it pending for a long time. And every once in a while they say, “It’s going to pass, going to pass.” So then each side keeps throwing more money into it. Some of this stuff is difficult to deal with. It’s an ages-old problem. We have to constantly be at it to keep the money system from careening out of control.

In the short run, we’ve got a big problem here. We have a sharply polarized political system. We called the book The Broken Branch because Congress is thoroughly dysfunctional. It isn’t going to change overnight. We need new leadership, including a presidential campaign that may bring it. But we’ve got a process that’s going to take us years to reconstruct. I have long-term hope. We’ve always done it before. But short term, I’m very pessimistic.

BILL MOYERS: Does history, Mr. Historian, give us any reason for hope?

THOMAS FRANK: Sure. Absolutely. But in the very long term, I’m sorry to say.

BILL MOYERS: George Bush came to office in 2000, vowing to clean up Washington. And I just looked at one of his speeches this morning. “We’re going to clean up Washington,” he said. What happened?

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: They cleaned up in Washington.

More discussion on the forums.

• sousy

Thanks, Drew, and State 29.

Lamberti, a republican from Ankeny and co-president of the Iowa Senate [Ed: and 3rd District GOP Congressional Candidate), says almost every other alternative beyond the sale to Whirlpool is worse for the community and workers.

Drew also points out that Whirlpool has been greasing the GOP palms in Iowa as of late, as well.

• Sousy

One of Iowa’s own has done us proud.

She begins thusly…

Bruce Bartlett, The Cato Institute, Andrew Sullivan, George Packer, William F. Buckley, Sandra Day O’Connor, Republican voters in Indiana and all the rest of you newly-minted dissenters from Bush’s faith-based reality seem, right now, to be glorying in your outrage, which is always a pleasure and feels, at the time, as if it is having an effect, but those of us who have been anti-Bush from day 1 (defined as the day after the stolen 2000 election) have a few pointers for you that should make your transition more realistic.

and continues her evisceration of the conservative culture of corruption and hypocrisy in her blog entry at The Huffington Post here.

Another quickie excerpt:

President Bush is your creation. When the US Supreme Court humiliated itself in 2000 by handing the presidency to Bush even though two of the justices (Scalia and Thomas) had open conflicts of interest, you did not object. When the Bush administration adopted an “Anything but Clinton” policy that resulted in ignoring and dismissing all warnings of possible terrorist attacks on US soil, you went along with and made excuses for Bush. When the Bush administration allowed the corrupt Enron corporation to swindle California ratepayers and taxpayers in a last ditch effort to balance their books in 2001, you laughed at the Californians and ignored the links between Enron and the administration. When it was evident that the evidence for the war in Iraq was cooked and that State Department experts on the Middle East were not behind the war and so it was going to be run as an exercise in incompetence, you continued to attack those who were against the war in vicious terms and to defend policies that simply could not work. On intelligent design, global warming, doctoring of scientific results to reflect ideology, corporate tax giveaways, the K Street project, the illegal redistricting of Texas, torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the Terry Schiavo fiasco, and the cronyism that led to the destruction of New Orleans you have failed to speak out with integrity or honesty, preferring power to truth at every turn. Bush does what he wants because you have let him.

• tristero

A post this morning at TPM Cafe points out something interesting in the dustup over port operations – why is it that we trust the operation and security of our nations seaports to private interests in the first place?

Suddenly it’s as if Dubai Ports World had peppered a guy with birdshot.

I reserve judgment on whether the deal to turn American port terminals over to a UAE company is the stupidest move in history or not. But am I the only one who finds it mighty peculiar that this week we’re fervently debating an item that nobody noticed last week? Did the proposed sale really pop up out of the blue?

Evidently vast portions of American infrastructure are routinely farmed out to companies scurrying around this (as Tom Friedman reminded us with his trademarked adjective again this morning) flat world. Without rising to the level of front-page news.

Americcan infrastructure is being “globalized” without anyone really noticing – shouldn’t we be a bit concerned? We sell our airwaves, our military operations and daily services to the lowest bidder – why does in matter who buys them if we’re willing to put them up on the market in the first place?

Addendum: More discussion on the forums.

Addendum II: This is another case of “It’s not the people – it’s the ideology.” We’ve seen a lot of that over the past year.

• Sousy

Alan Guebert writes about the FY 2007 USDA budget.

The agricultural programs are hit especially hard – evidently for political expediency. (i.e. the total budget doesn’t really “cut” much – but it does eliminate some programs that don’t fit with the ideology.) Guebert notes:

Now the White House wants a second, bigger helping. The 2007 proposed USDA cuts add up to 8 percent of Bush’s total cuts although farm program spending next year will be less than 0.5 percent of the federal budget.

The biggest cut, weighing in at $1.1 billion, uniformly slices farm program payments, including the Milk Income Loss Contract program, 5 percent across the board.

Another, however, is long overdue: a hard, $250,000 cap on farm payments any individual can receive. Today’s soft cap of $360,000 is a complete sham.

The needed cap, however, faces a short shelf–life. Last year, the Senate knocked an identical idea in the head by a 53 to 46 count. GOP Southern reps and senators (who, incidentally, chair both ag committees) shot it down to protect their market–fried rice and cotton producers.

The notion of capping market assistance programs is obviously DOA. So… where to cut?

... the Conservation Security Program faces another $30 million cut; 2007 funding, at $342 million, now stands at less than half of what Congress approved in the 2002 Farm Bill. The Value–Added Producer Grant Program to spur farm–related businesses takes a 49 percent pop, down to $20.3 million from $40 million.

Also, sustainable ag research and education is pared 21 percent, the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program 48 percent; the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 35 percent.

Guebert then discusses how popular the programs on the chopping block are with producers (and those of us that might be concerned about land use) are:

Last year’s nationwide USDA dog–and–pony show on 2007 Farm Bill priorities again proved that conservation was the No. 1 issue for producers in the upcoming Farm Bill debate; 739 of 1,846 witnesses at the 41 meetings named it their top priority.

The second item most requested (by 514 witnesses) was, naturally, rural development. Energy was the mentioned by 110 witnesses.

And yet the White House, with Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns’ blessing, is again aiming to cut conservation, rural development and energy programs in its 2007 budget plan. Why?

The short answer is evident: Your agency, the USDA, doesn’t represent you.

A bigger lesson to learn here: Republican administrations and Congressmen will continue to pursue cuts to popular programs that assist all producers for a very simple reason. Quite frankly, there are no consequences to slashing them. How long has it been since anyone in Iowa actually voted on agricultural issues, or held politicans that did not stand with producers accountable for the bills they sponsored, lobbyist money they collected, or votes they cast?

Anyone who knows an answer to this can post in the comments section, but I’m guessing that the answers will be pretty sparse.

• Sousy