Getting in Bed with Bundlers

June 26, 2008, 7:30 a.m., 9:20 a.m. (addition of George Carlin routine)

The Bundling Business
The online Dictionary.com includes the following definition for "bundling":

(esp. of sweethearts during courtship in early New England) to lie in the same bed while fully clothed, as for privacy and warmth in a house where an entire family shared one room with a fireplace.

Indeed, when I was growing up that's the only definition I knew for the word, aside from "a bundle of sticks." There were even "bundle boards" that could be put in beds to further separate the couple.

In today's politics the word means pretty much the same thing -- except the couples are naked and there's no bundle board.

In order to prevent the appearance that PACs, corporations, CEOs, and their lawyers and lobbyists are obtaining untoward influence with elected officials by way of exorbitant campaign contributions, "bundlers" have taken their place. (As the Times editorializes this morning, see below, whether the headline writer chose the words deliberately or not, the candidates are "Snuggling Up to the Bundlers.")

For example, the board of directors of a corporation wishing to influence a president, or senator with the power to affect the corporation's bottom line, might vote to give all of the company's top executives big raises. Thereafter, an individual known to be the designated bundler pays a call on each of them with the request they write out a check for the maximum legal amount ($2300) payable to the candidate's campaign. With 100 executives, that means that (in effect) the corporation is able to send its bundler to a meeting with the candidate, offer him or her $230,000, and remind them where it is coming from. (The same process works with contributions from an industry as distinguished from an individual company -- or for any influence-seeking individual with enough wealthy friends to put him or herself on the team of $100,000 to $1,000,000 bundlers.)

The candidate can honestly say that he or she is not accepting money from PACs, corporations, or lobbyists; their only contributors are individual supporters. But the assertion is a little deceiving, as the Times editorializes this morning:

In his self-serving retreat from the spending restraints of public financing, Senator Barack Obama hailed his formidable Internet army of small donors as “a new kind of politics.” Maybe so. But just in case, the senator is not about to neglect the old politics of special-interest money bundlers in his presidential campaign.

Senator Obama is scheduled to meet Thursday with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her platinum card money raisers. One group specialized in amassing $250,000 packages for the campaign, while another excelled at hitting $1 million jackpots.

Now that Mr. Obama has forsworn the public spending limits that he initially pledged to defend, campaign aides have great expectations for Mrs. Clinton’s bundlers. If Mr. Obama woos and wows them, his aides hope they can generate an extra $75 million in private donations for the Obama campaign in coming weeks.

In Vegas, that’s called covering the board — continuing to work the 1.5 million small-bet donors who helped Mr. Obama set grass-roots records, while attending to the political high rollers, too.

Senator Clinton has her own practical interests for this meeting. Mr. Obama is offering to help her with the $22 million she owes after her campaign went bust.

In real-world politics, none of this is a surprise. But in ideal politics — the realm Mr. Obama often purports to speak for — the meeting could mean another coffin nail for public financing. Senator Obama should at least pledge to make the updating of the public subsidy system a top priority of his first year in the White House.

Senator John McCain — who is also vying for the mantle of reformer in chief — is opting for the public subsidies that begin after the conventions. In the meantime, he is relying on his own flock of special-interest bundlers to raise all the private funds he can.

The voters should not be fooled. They must demand that both candidates explain how they will reform the campaign-finance system so no future candidate has any excuse for going into hock to the bundlers and their special-interest donors.

Editorial, "Snuggling Up to the Bundlers," New York Times, June 26, 2008.

Senator Obama's spin team argue that his flip-flop on public financing of campaigns is of little consequence. After all, they say, he's created an alternative system of public finance: his 1.6 million contributors have removed the special interests' big money, and influence, from campaigns. So what's the big deal?

But the New York Times' concern is shared by Fred Wertheimer, once President of the campaign finance reform group Common Cause who now heads Democracy 21. His Web site carried an article on the subject last September. And here is an excerpt from the NPR story quoting him last Friday:

Obama will be the first candidate of either party ever to turn down public money for the fall campaign. He's counting on his new, Internet-driven strategies for raising cash.

"We've won the Democratic nomination by relying on ordinary people coming together to achieve extraordinary things," he told supporters in a video Thursday.

That's true of Obama's 1.5 million donors today. But Fred Wertheimer, head of the watchdog group Democracy 21, says it didn't start out that way.

In 2007, when Sen. Obama was raising the money that was essential for him to become a serious candidate, "54 percent of his contributions came in contributions of a thousand dollars or more, and much of that money was raised by bundlers," he says

Bundlers are people who solicit friends and colleagues for checks that they bundle for delivery to the campaign. Wertheimer says Obama wouldn't be where he is without them.

"He has not created a parallel system of public financing," he says.

Peter Overby, "Obama Puts Faith in Army of Individual Donors," NPR Morning Edition, June 20, 2008; and see, "Effectiveness of Key 'Bundling' Disclosure Provision in New Lobbying Disclosure Law Depends on FEC Implementation," Democracy 21, September 20, 2007.

Ironically, the article notes that not only did Obama support public financing before he decided not to, he and Senator Russ Feingold actually sponsored legislation to prevent what he subsequently decided to go ahead and do.

For balance, let me make clear that what Senator John McCain did (accept public financing for purposes of getting a bank loan, and then, once the bank loan was obtained, reject public financing) is even worse, and as the Times notes he's as deeply indebted to the bundlers and those for whom they speak as Obama -- and probably much more so.

Hillary's Debt. There's a lot at least bizarre, and even troubling, about Senator Obama's efforts to help Senator Clinton pay off her debt.

(1) It makes it look like her support is being bought. Coupled with President Bill Clinton's (a) 17-day-delayed, (b) very limp, (c) "support" of Obama, (d) not even spoken by him, but offered only through a "spokesperson, I don't think it reflects favorably on any of them.

(2) It's kind of like people who repeatedly rebuild on floodplains asking the taxpayers to either buy their houses or help them rebuild. (a) Virtually all independent political observers acknowledge that Clinton's campaign was very poorly managed when it came to expenditures -- among other things. (b) Much of her debt was a result of continuing her campaign way beyond the time when it made any real sense to do so. That's something she had a perfect right to do; that's not the issue; the issue is whether it is now anyone's responsibility but hers to pay for the added costs, and now debt, that those decisions created. (c) Why is she more entitled to this "bailout" from donors than a mis-managed corporation is entitled to a bailout from taxpayers?

(3) The distinctions between the "debt" to herself (and her husband) and the debt to third parties is bogus (though legally significant). Money is fungible; money is money. It's like someone asking you to borrow $2000 for an "emergency" transmission repair because, after all, they "have to get to work," when they've just spent $3000 on an ocean cruise. Your $2000 loan goes into a pot and can as well be thought of as paying for two-thirds of the cruise as for the entirety of the transmission repair. She has an ability to raise on her own some fixed amount of money; to the extent others pay off the third-party debt they have enabled her to keep more of what she can raise on her own as a "repayment" of the debt she owes herself.

Why I'm Supporting Obama My interest in Michelle and Senator Barack Obama goes well beyond his simply winning the election in November. It is mostly focused on what he does with the presidency thereafter. I point up problems that I see at this time because after the election it's really too late.

We know what he's asking of us: money, and enthusiastic political activist support.

And the bundlers have made clear to him what it is they are asking for in return for their support.

[After writing this morning I was looking through State29's tribute to George Carlin, who he says provided some inspiration for State29's standard of "insightfully vulgar" commentary, and came upon this video of one of Carlin's routines. If you find Carlin's version of "insightfully vulgar" to be offensive I'd urge you to skip it. Otherwise, I find it a much more effective, sharp and to the point, way of putting what I'm trying to say. Start at 1:30 into the routine and run to the end. Enjoy.]



If Senator Obama's 1.6 million non-bundling supporters are simply taken for granted, if we follow him like lemmings to the sea -- only then to discover that he cannot walk on water after all -- if we let him take our votes for granted, it is only the bundlers whose wishes will be granted.

I believe his supporters need to make clear to him, now, what it is we are asking of him: Why it is we care about FISA, letting phone companies off the hook when they spy on us illegally, the inequities of NAFTA, public financing of campaigns, restrictions on bundling, universal single-payer health care, getting our troops out of Iraq -- whatever is important to you. I want his political courage, his leadership, in pushing the politically difficult causes that require him to take, and hold, a stand -- including when he needs to take a stand against the interests of his bundlers.

I am perfectly capable of performing a cheerleader's role with regard to Obama. But I don't think he needs that; he's demonstrated a very, very impressive ability to produce plenty of that.

What I think the campaign needs is to be reminded of the price it pays as it veers towards the center, and the right, and abandons those changes "we can believe in," and with them the enthusiasm of those who were attracted to what they thought really was something different in American politics.

Some 80% of Americans think our country is on the wrong track. Scarcely more than 20% identify themselves as Republicans. President Bush's approval ratings are below 30%.

And yet, in most recent polls, Obama leads McCain by no more than 3-6%. (The Newsweek poll is an outlier at 15%.) This election is Obama's to lose. And he could lose it. It will not be a slam dunk. The points I, and others, are raising should be taken seriously, not dismissed as "opposition" when they are, in fact, the strongest form of support.

Do I Criticize McCain?

So why don't I criticize McCain? I have and I do.

But for the same reason parents take more interest in optimizing the behavior of their own children than that of the neighbors' children, I have little interest at this point in time in helping McCain win his election.

I was criticized recently for not "beating up on McSame." Nicholas Johnson, "Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat," June 24. Here's what I replied:

I am certainly not a McCain supporter, and while I would not consider the things I've written about him as "beating up on" him I rather imagine he might.

At one point both Clinton and Obama supporters were saying that if their candidate did not receive the nomination they were going to vote for McCain. Among my responses was Nicholas Johnson, "Before You Actually Vote for McCain," April 30, 2008. In it I noted how the media were holding Obama and McCain to different standards. I discussed, and linked to, stories regarding his "anger problem." I included excerpts from MoveOn.org's well documented "10 Things You Should Know About John McCain but Probably Don't." And I had excerpts from Harold Meyerson's hilarious but scary "McCain on the Red Phone."

I can't know if the author of the comment would find that an adequate response to "Why not beat up on McSame? That would serve the country better." But it comes about as close as anything I'm likely to write.

What Happened to "Promises We Can Believe In"? The blog entry that brought forth the critical comment was Nicholas Johnson, "Change We Can No Longer Believe In," June 22, 2008. Now I would never suggest that any blog entry of mine would even be read by an Obama campaign worker, let alone influence a change in the campaign's direction. In fact, the change I'm about to note may well have been in place before that entry was written.

But I did notice in a televised news item yesterday that the sign on the front of Senator Obama's podium no longer offered "change we can believe in." It now merely represents that the change he promises is "change that works for you." Here's the video. "Barack 'Confident,'" ABC World News, June 25, 2008.

The candidate and his campaign are to be commended for the candor represented by the retirement of "change we can believe in." But its replacement is still, at this point in time, in need of the same verification as its predecessor.

# # #

Iowa's Everglades

June 25, 2008

Hold the Raindrop Where it Falls
Des Moines Register joined the chorus of thoughtful Iowans who are calling for Greenbelts, Greenways, and other water and soil conservation approaches to flood control. Yesterday Florida Governor Charlie Crist announced a $1.7 billion purchase of 187,000 acres of sugar fields. We have a lot to learn from the Florida Everglades preservation efforts -- and the Register.

The Register notes that today's emphasis on turning floodplains into parks that can withstand flooding, rather than condo and business developments that cannot, is . . .

a reminder of the simple advice shared many years ago by former Register cartoonist Ding Darling, a renowned conservationist: "Hold the raindrop where it falls."

Beyond battling Mother Nature with man-made structures to control her rivers and streams, Iowa must work with Mother Nature to help her keep the raindrops where they fall.

That will require a change in how Iowans collectively view our water, not as a hindrance - to be drained off fields and parking lots as quickly as possible, often carrying animal waste, fertilizer and street runoff downstream - but as a natural resource to soak up and savor.

It also will require a collective commitment from everyone in a watershed, everywhere the raindrop falls.

Commit to conservation

That means stepping up farm conservation efforts. If Iowa's rolling hills include more trees and swamps, excess water is more likely to be sponged up and slowed.

Curbing flooding downstream means working upstream to restore wetlands, prairies and natural barriers to control water.

Editorial, "Embrace a New Water Ethic for Iowa," Des Moines Register, June 22, 2008.

Imagine Iowa 1000 years ago, with its prairies and river systems. Look at a map of Iowa that highlights our vast network of rivers. And then look at, and learn about, the Florida Everglades -- the so-called "River of Grass."

No, I'm not suggesting what Iowa tourism needs is more alligators.

What I am suggesting is that we have some problems, and opportunities, in common with Florida.

Here's a brief excerpt from Wikipedia's detailed entry on the Everglades:

The Everglades are a subtropical wetland located in the southern portion of the U.S. state of Florida, comprising the southern half of a large watershed. The entire system begins in the vicinity of Orlando with the Kissimmee River. The Everglades includes the region that spans from Lake Okeechobee south to Florida Bay, as well as the interconnected ecosystems within the boundary. The Kissimmee River discharges into Lake Okeechobee, a vast shallow fresh water lake. Water leaving Lake Okeechobee in the wet season forms the Everglades, a slow-moving river 60 miles (97 km) wide and over 100 miles (160 km) long, flowing southward across a slightly angled limestone shelf to Florida Bay at the southern end of the state. It is such a unique convergence of land, water, and climate that the use of singular and plural to refer to the Everglades is appropriate.[1] Characteristics of the climate of South Florida include annual wet and dry seasons, and the region has a history of recurring flooding and drought that has shaped the natural environment.

"Everglades," Wikipedia. The piece goes on to provide details about the variety and extent of water plans and projects from the past and for the future.

The Everglades is one very wide River of Grass, covering much of the state. The Iowa rivers system is one vast river system covering all of the "State of Grass" -- or what once was a prairie state.

The Everglades has become polluted from, among other things, fertilizer. Development is encroaching. That creates rapid runoff and flooding.

Sound familiar?

Iowa ranks near the bottom of all states in terms of public lands, park and forest lands, wetlands and prairies. Some of our rivers are the most polluted in the country.

What is Florida doing about its problems? Read on.

Two sides that rarely agree on anything celebrated Tuesday a "monumental" but still tentative $1.7 billion buyout that would put the nation's largest sugar grower out of business in six years but fill a gaping hole in Florida's long-stalled Everglades restoration.

The deal, expected to be final by Nov. 30, is good for the environment -- the nearly 300 square miles of sugar land is "the holy grail," one Everglades advocate said. And it's good for U.S. Sugar Corp., which will get $1.7 billion and six years of rent-free operations with the state as its landlord.

In return, Florida gets a chance to reinvigorate the stalled restoration of the Everglades, end years of bickering over pollution by "Big Sugar" and -- years from now -- get more much-needed clean water flowing into the River of Grass.

"I can envision no better gift to the Everglades, or the people of Florida, than to place in public ownership this missing link that represents the key to true restoration," Gov. Charlie Crist said Tuesday, likening the announcement to the creation of America's first national park, Yellowstone. . . .

No one has drawn up specific plans yet, but a likely scenario involves massively expanding reservoirs and the 44,000 acres of treatment marshes that the state is building, at a cost of more than $1.2 billion.

The marshes scrub farm runoff to the pristine water quality level needed to protect the sensitive Everglades system. . . .

Michael Sole, the secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, . . . said the deal would have the added benefit of easing pressure to pump polluted water out of Lake Okeechobee to protect its deteriorating dike, discharges that have choked estuaries on both coasts in the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers with repeated, damaging algae blooms.

Curtis Morgan and Scott Hiaasen, "Sugar buyout hailed as Glades `gift,'" Miami Herald, June 25, 2008.

There is no shortage of ideas that simultaneously eliminate or reduce flooding, purify our rivers and streams, encourage wildlife, reduce greenhouse gases, minimize the pollution from runoff, increase recreational opportunities, promote tourism, and stimulate economic growth.

Florida has just invested $1.7 billion in one such effort. Johnson County residents will be given the opportunity to provide roughly 1% of that amount to produce similar benefits here.

If we continue to re-build in floodplains, if we refuse to change our water runoff practices where we can, and fail to build Greenbelts and Greenways where we can't, if we fail to demonstrate the political courage to put in place the solutions that have already been worked out by others, we will deserve what we get in future flood losses -- and don't get in future benefits.

Its our grandchildren and great grandchildren who don't deserve the former, and do deserve the latter.

# # #

Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat

June 24, 2008, 7:45 a.m.

More on Believing in Change
Yesterday I commented about some problems I thought Senator Barack Obama was creating for himself. Nicholas Johnson, "Change We Can No Longer Believe In," June 22, 2008 (a play on his campaign slogan, "Change We Can Believe In").

It produced a number of comments. [And you might also want to take a look at State29, "What Are Headed Towards 'Divorce, Default, and Defeat?'" June 22, 2008 (pointing out -- with videos in Obama's own words -- his shifts with regard to the Iraq War); and State29, "Why I Hate Barack Obama," June 21, 2008 (charging Obama -- unfairly I believe -- with "race bating").]

Today I'm going to respond to one of the comments following yesterday's blog entry as a way of trying to clarify what I thought I was, and was not, saying.

Yes, I know, this is very unusual for me. I run an open blog. I receive, and leave posted, critical comments -- as a practical application of my theoretical beliefs about the First Amendment, the Fairness Doctrine, and what I have called "the separation of content and conduit." The only ones I remove are those that attempt an inappropriate use of this blog as a billboard to advertise a product or service. Nor do I normally carry on the discussion, or otherwise respond to comments, in the comments section. I figure I've had my say, and the comments deserve to speak for themselves.

So my response this morning is not an effort to engage in a she-said-he-said, 'tis-'t'aint ongoing exchange to prove that I'm "right" and someone else is "wrong." It's simply an introductory way into a little more commentary by me about yesterday's blog entry.

The comment reads as follows:

These are the right-wing talking points. I can't believe you're falling for them! Obama is going to do everything he can to make sure we do not have a third Bush administration. This is worth a few necessary sacrifices. Personally, I am thrilled to finally have a candidate who is committed to winning, knows how to do it, and who doesn't foolishly hand the country over to the evil Republicans at his first opportunity. Please don't do the Republicans' work for them. Why not beat up on McSame? That would serve the country better.

Supportive-Constructive vs. Partisan-Mean-Spirited Criticism. During Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign I pointed out that she was not doing her campaign a favor by emphasizing her superior "35 years of experience," and having passed the "commander-in-chief test," including "traveling to 80 countries" and risking her life to sniper fire.

Why? Well, because there was no meaningful distinction between the amount of presidentially-qualifying life experience she'd had since law school and that of Senators Obama and McCain (all of whom were devoid of the range of experience one would hope for in a president -- such as that of Governor Bill Richardson or the first President Bush), when both of whom had more years of legislative experience than she did, there was nothing in 11,000 pages of White House records to indicate her significant involvement in decisions, and there was videotape documenting the absence of sniper fire.

I believe there is some evidence that my judgment was right, and that what was perceived by voters to be "politics as usual," her attempting to claim something that could not withstand analysis, did in fact do her much more harm than good during the primary elections and caucuses.

It was in a similar spirit -- I thought -- that I was pointing out what I believed to be a self-defeating move by the Obama campaign. I noted that when a candidate chooses to raise the electorate's expectations to incredible heights with promises of "change" in Washington, and getting rid of "the old politics" of corporate control, resulting in Independents and young people flocking to his or her side by the millions, they have created a much higher platform from which to fall from grace.

What he has created is a very precious and fragile asset that can very quickly disappear when and if supporters get a sense that the "change" he has promised is no longer a change they can "believe in."

These are not "yellow dog Democrats" (voters who are so loyal to the Democratic Party they would vote for an old yellow dog if it was in the Democrats' column on the ballot). Many of his supporters are Independents in fact as well as name, and young, first-time voters who have no "party loyalty" whatsoever at this stage of their political life.

On the one hand it is unfair to hold Senator Obama to a higher standard than other candidates; on the other hand, it is a standard he has created and chosen to run on -- like Senator Clinton claiming that we should vote for her because of her "superior experience."

So why, you might fairly ask, do I choose to offer the Obama campaign this advice by way of a blog entry rather than a private communication? Because this is the most effective means available to me, however feeble it may be, to get a message to the campaign. (So far as I know, the Obama Web site, http://www.barackobama.com/index.php offers no way for supporters to interact with the campaign staff -- unless they want to send money.)

Was I Right? Last evening alone -- just based on what I read and saw in the media -- I was far from the only person expressing these concerns. Senator Obama's flips on public financing of campaigns and other issues was a topic, or the subject of comments, from a number of sources one would assume lean in favor of Obama: Keith Olbermann, KOS, MoveOn.org, and Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" (which led with ridicule of him in this "Indecision 2008 - Finance Reform" video). (See from minute 1:43-2:57 in the video below.)



These are just what I happened upon; I haven't researched to see how much more there is.

So I scarcely think that, had I refrained from yesterday's blog entry, Senator Obama would have been spared this criticism -- not to mention what he got for his, now withdrawn, premature presidential seal.

John Nichols gives Obama the following advice in the current (July 7, 2008) issue of The Nation regarding one of the "change we can no longer believe in" topics I mentioned yesterday: his moves toward a more favorable view of NAFTA.

Obama also told Fortune that he no longer believes in unilaterally reopening NAFTA and earned praise from the magazine for "toning down his populist rhetoric." If he keeps this up, Obama will also receive a thank-you note from John McCain, a militant supporter of free trade, a position that ought to hurt him in states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where surveys show widespread anti-free trade sentiments. Only if Obama goes soft on trade issues will McCain have a serious chance to win over these disgruntled working-class voters. Unfortunately, Obama seems to be doing just that. It's a mistake Democrats like Al Gore and John Kerry have made in the past.

Note that neither Nichols nor I are talking about the merits of free trade or NAFTA. We are talking about both how to win elections and how and why Democrats continue to lose them -- by promising to represent the interests of the working class, and then switching positions to please the interests of corporations and the richest 1/10th of 1% of campaign donors.

"Right Wing Talking Points." I don't really believe these are "right wing talking points" -- "not that there's anything wrong with that" (to quote a Seinfeld line). If the right wing is attacking Obama in ways that are cutting into his support it would seem to me that pointing that out to the Obama campaign is doing the campaign a favor, rather than doing it a harm for which the messenger should be shot.

But who is it, truly, John Nichols and I or Senator Obama who "do the Republicans' work for them"?

It is Obama who is moving toward the Republicans' position on NAFTA. It is Obama who says he supports the Bush Administration's position on FISA and immunity for the telephone companies that illegally spied on Americans. Isn't that doing "the Republicans work for them"?

And how do our comments echo "right wing talking points"? Are Republicans complaining about Obama's shifts to more right wing positions on free trade and civil rights violations? I don't think so.

"Why not beat up on McSame" and "the evil Reublicans"? In fact, while I try to keep this blog relatively balanced (I've done a very favorable piece about Governor Mike Huckabee), as a result of doing so probably more of the entries would be said to "favor Obama" than any of the other candidates -- simply because he has, so far, offered less of which I was critical and much I found inspirational.

Governor Huckabee, asked if he really considered himself a "conservative," replied something along these lines: "Of course I'm a conservative; I'm just not angry about it." (That attitude is a part of what I find attractive about him -- notwithstanding the fact we probably disagree on every issue he's spoken to, including evolution.)

Well, I'm not "angry about it" either. I've never (so far as I now recall) referred to the Republicans as "evil." I have friends I enjoy talking politics with who are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party members, Naderites, and the old Kucinich gang -- and lots of Independents who are disgusted with both the national Democratic and Republican Parties -- all of whom have something to offer to the national dialog (and my own thinking). During the 2007-2008 Iowa primary I had some personal interaction with, and tried to be helpful in one way or another to, virtually all of the Democratic candidates.

So I'm not really very interested in "beating up on" much of anybody -- including those "evil Republicans."

On the other hand, I am certainly not a McCain supporter, and while I would not consider the things I've written about him as "beating up on" him I rather imagine he might.

At one point both Clinton and Obama supporters were saying that if their candidate did not receive the nomination they were going to vote for McCain. Among my responses was Nicholas Johnson, "Before You Actually Vote for McCain," April 30, 2008. In it I noted how the media were holding Obama and McCain to different standards. I discussed, and linked to, stories regarding his "anger problem." I included excerpts from MoveOn.org's well documented "10 Things You Should Know About John McCain but Probably Don't." And I had excerpts from Harold Meyerson's hilarious but scary "McCain on the Red Phone."

I can't know if the author of the comment would find that an adequate response to "Why not beat up on McSame? That would serve the country better." But it comes about as close as anything I'm likely to write.

"A few necessary sacrifices." Notwithstanding Senator Obama being labeled "one of" -- if not "the" -- most "liberal" U.S. senators, the fact is that his positions are far indeed from those of a Senator Russ Feingold, Congressman Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader. He has failed to vote on some potentially presidential-campaign-impeding issues. He has shown a willingness to switch positions from "liberal" to "Republican."

All presidents respond to pressure. The most public spirited actually seek out and encourage the public and media pressure that will make it possible for them to get Congress to do the right thing.

In my forthcoming book, Are We There Yet?, I relate the following:

The anecdote is told of President Franklin Roosevelt telling advocates of progressive ideas, in effect, “I agree with you. Now you go out there and make me do it” – at least with Frances Perkins (Social Security) and A. Philip Randolph (civil rights legislation), and probably many more. His point, of course, was a variant of the old adage, “When the people will lead their leaders will follow.” It’s very difficult to pass legislation over the opposition of the special interests without overwhelming popular awareness, involvement and support.

I have been, and remain, hopeful that Senator Obama, as president, will follow President Roosevelt's example. I base this on a conversation I had with Obama, his experience as a community organizer, his 50-state-strategy in the primary and now the general election campaign, his rejection of PAC and corporate money, and creation of roughly 1.5 million small contributors (and presumably the email addresses of even more supporters).

But that strategy, his strategy (if such it be), requires much from us. And so I say, "Ask not what a President Obama can do for you; ask what you can do for a President Obama."

And we best start now.

After he's elected it's too late. It is not enough, to quote from the comment, that he "is committed to winning [and] knows how to do it." Winning is not, to respectfully disagree with football coach Vince Lombardi and yesterday's author of the comment, "the only thing." "There are," as Senator Joe Biden said on one occasion in Iowa City, "some things worth losing an election for."

If a President Obama is to truly follow President Roosevelt's example it is not enough that we support his policies when he asks; he must also support our positions and policies when we ask. And the earlier we get about it the better -- for us, for him, and for our country.

Aside from giving him some advice yesterday on how to best win this election, that was all I was about.

# # #

Change We Can No Longer Believe In

June 22, 2008, 6:30 a.m.

And see further comment on the topic in Nicholas Johnson, "Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat," June 24, 2008.

Obama: No Longer "Change We Can Believe In"?
I really doubt that there will be many of Senator Barack Obama's supporters who will stay home, let alone vote for Senator John McCain, because of Obama's recent flip-flops on major issues. And apparently he's counting on that as well since he's just left $85 million of public money on the table.

But can he now continue to count on his supporters' continued financial support, and enthusiastic campaigning, between now and November? That has become more problematical.

As anecdotal evidence, a friend has shared with me an email she received from an Obama supporter in California that reported,

"Barack Obama owes me $600.43. I sent him my [federal government economic] stimulus rebate with the proviso that if he opted out of public finance he should return my contribution. I enclosed a self-addressed envelope with a 43 cent stamp attached."

Another friend who has been a nearly monthly contributor to Obama tells me she swears she's not sending him another dime -- as much because of Obama's switch on FISA as because of his switch on public finance.

At least a part of what brought out Obama's crowds of thousands, the new voters and contributors, and the enthusiasm of the young, was the Robert Kennedy-esque suggestion (some would say "promise") of a new kind of politics, "change we can believe in," the practical implementation of a bottom-up-community-organizing approach to national politics, a small-d democratic replacement for the "to-get-along-go-along" expediency, campaign-contributor-lobbyist-sub-government control, compromise-anything-and-everything-to-win, special privilege, and corporate welfare of which we've all grown cynical and disgusted.

The story is told of Louisiana Governor Earl K. Long that when asked by a staffer what he could tell some Baton Rouge constituents who had come to the governor's office to claim some of his campaign promises, he replied, "Tell them I lied."

Had Senator Obama presented himself as "just another conventional politician" he, too, could try telling his supporters that he lied, knowing that while they might be disappointed they could certainly not claim to be surprised.

After all, with Congress' approval ratings at an historic 18% low who could fairly claim to be surprised by anything a senator might have done?

But he has marketed himself as something more than that, something better than a conventional politician or manipulative "Pied Piper." So his every change in position, his every abandoned campaign promise, further alienates the supporters who are both disappointed and understandably surprised -- and when his behavior is repeated, ultimately discouraged, disaffected, distant and depressed.

After all, they were promised "Change We Can Believe In." In fact, you can still buy a fan with that message on it from the Obama "store" for $3.00. But the number of "fans" "buying" that slogan may be declining.

Because now, in the course of two or three days, Senator Obama's enthusiastic supporters are discovering that what he has been talking about is not "change we can believe in." We needn't characterize it with the "L" word; let's just say he "misspoke" when he pledged to use public financing to fund his campaign; when he said he opposed spying on Americans and granting immunity to the telephone companies which did so illegally; when he said he would eliminate taxes for the working poor and seniors earning under $50,000; when he said he opposed NAFTA.

If you hadn't noticed, there are a lot of other days between now and November 4. So stay tuned. Remain attentive.

And if you have been, or are still, an Obama supporter you might want to let him know how you feel about changes in the positions you thought you and he were supporting, positions that were important to you. Don't let him take your vote for granted. You know he's going to hear from the lobbyists and major campaign contributors -- regardless of what he says -- and he also needs to hear from you to keep it all in balance and remember who got him to where he is. You can email him here.

Meanwhile, here are brief excerpts from the media's reports regarding these four changes in which his supporters can no longer believe, plus excerpts from a David Brooks column, and my concluding thoughts along with a video of President Bush.

Public Financing of Campaigns

Sen. Barack Obama reversed his pledge to seek public financing in the general election yesterday, a move that drew criticism from adversaries and allies alike but could provide him with a significant spending advantage over Republican rival John McCain. . . .

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama said in a video message to supporters, circulated yesterday morning by his campaign. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." . . .

In the hours after the announcement, McCain indicated he would consider forgoing public financing as well, but he later indicated that he will opt into the system. "We will take public financing," he said on the Straight Talk Express bus. Asked why, he said simply, "Because we decided to take public financing."

But earlier in the day the senator from Arizona lashed out at Obama. "This is a big, big deal," McCain told reporters . . .. "He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people." . . .

Yesterday, government watchdog groups expressed disappointment with Obama's move. Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook called $85 million "plenty of money" and warned that private funding -- even in the mostly small sums that Obama relies on -- "comes with the expectations of special access or favors." . . .

"Senator Obama knew the circumstances surrounding the presidential general election when he made his public pledge to use the system," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a co-sponsor of the [campaign finance reform] bill, called Obama's decision "a mistake" but added: "I look forward to working on this and a wide range of other reform issues with him when he becomes president." . . .

Although campaign finance issues rank low on lists of voter concerns, the McCain team pounced on Obama's move, along with his rejection of the 10 town hall meetings that McCain has proposed, as evidence that his claim to represent a "new politics" is empty rhetoric. The campaign circulated Obama quotes praising public financing and accused him of breaking his pledge to negotiate the issue with the GOP nominee. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers dismissed an account by Obama aides of recent talks between the two camps on the issue, saying it was "flat-out false."

"He's broken his word," said Charles R. Black Jr., a top McCain adviser. "He said he believes in the new politics; to me it sounds like the old politics. If you're going to change politics in America, that's a step backward." . . .

Shailagh Murray and Perry Bacon Jr., "Obama to Reject Public Funds for Election," Washington Post, June 20, 2008, p. A1.

Spying on Americans: FISA

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.

In his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee, Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists.

In so doing, Obama sought to walk the fine political line between GOP accusations that he is weak on foreign policy -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called passing the legislation a "vital national security matter" -- and alienating his base.

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.

This marks something of a reversal of Obama's position from an earlier version of the bill, which was approved by the Senate Feb. 12, when Obama was locked in a fight for the Democratic nomination with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Obama missed the February vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the "Potomac Primaries," but issued a statement that day declaring "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."

Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) continue to oppose the new legislation, as does Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). All Obama backers in the primary, those senior lawmakers contend that the new version of the FISA law -- crafted after four months of intense negotiations between White House aides and congressional leaders -- provides insufficient court review of the pending 40 lawsuits against the telecommunications companies alleging privacy invasion for their participation in a warrantless wiretapping program after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. . . .

Paul Kane, "Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left," The Trail/Washington Post, June 20, 2008.

Tax Cuts

On the presidential campaign trail, Democrat Barack Obama promises to "completely eliminate" income taxes for millions of Americans, from low-income working families to senior citizens who earn less than $50,000 a year. . . .

To which the folks who monitor the nation's financial situation can only say: Good luck. Because, back in Washington, tax collections are slowing, the budget deficit is rising, and the national debt is approaching $10 trillion. Whoever wins the White House this fall, fiscal experts say, is likely to have a tough time enacting expensive new initiatives, be they tax cuts or health care reform. . . .

Meanwhile, the first baby boomers started receiving Social Security checks in January. Without major policy changes, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to devour half of all federal spending by 2050. But the more immediate problem is the depletion of excess cash in the Social Security trust fund, which has been used for years to cover a portion of the annual budget deficit. Government economists predict that the Social Security surplus will start shrinking in 2011 and dry up completely by the end of the next decade, exposing government-wide budget deficits of a magnitude not seen since Bush's first term.

In a new paper titled "Facing the Music: The Fiscal Outlook at the End of the Bush Administration," University of California at Berkeley economist Alan Auerbach and two co-authors from the Brookings Institution conclude that, if spending grows at historic rates, simply keeping the Bush tax cuts and halting the spread of the AMT [alternative minimum tax] would drive the budget deficit to $481 billion by the end of the next president's first term, or 2.7 percent of the economy. Subtract the cash borrowed from Social Security and other retirement funds, and it would be $796 billion, or 4.4 percent of GDP.

"It's a train wreck," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), a member of the House Budget Committee. "The government is making promises to people right now it knows it can't keep. And you have some candidates piling more promises on top, which are clearly unfulfillable."

Former House Budget Committee chairman Leon Panetta, who served as President Bill Clinton's first budget director, said the financial situation is "much worse" than it was in 1993, when Clinton was forced to abandon promises of a middle-class tax cut before he took office. Instead, Clinton wound up devoting his first State of the Union address to a plan that aimed to tame rising deficits with one of the largest tax hikes in history.

"It's worse because there are a huge number of crises out there that are going to confront the new president," Panetta said, . . .. The likelihood is that it's going to get worse. And the fundamental problem has been that there's very little willpower by Republicans or Democrats to confront the issue." . . .

Obama has not made balanced budgets a priority. Instead, he promises numerous tax cuts likely to make the situation worse, including subsidies for education, child care, homeownership, "savers" and people who work. Obama also vows to extend the Bush tax cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 a year. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of Brookings and the Urban Institute, his tax plans would deprive the Treasury of nearly $900 billion in his first term, and increase the national debt by $3.3 trillion by 2018. . . .

The analysis also excludes a possible reduction in corporate tax rates, which Obama first mentioned in an interview this week with the Wall Street Journal. . . .

"They're promising the world with ways to pay for it that are really suspect," Bob Williams, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study, said . . ..

Lori Montgomery, "Big Promises Bump Into Budget Realities; New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say," Washington Post, June 21, 2008, p. A1.

NAFTA

OTTAWA — American presidential hopeful Barack Obama appears to have moderated his opposition to NAFTA just ahead of Republican rival John McCain’s extraordinary visit to Canada to praise the trade pact.

Obama, who said in March he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement if he’s elected, said he might have gone too far.

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," the Democratic nominee told Fortune magazine in an interview.

Were his attacks on NAFTA a product of that brand of campaign posturing?

"Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself," he answered.

The admission was published shortly before McCain was expected to pour unvarnished praise on NAFTA, drawing a clear distinction between America’s two combatants for the White House. . . .

North American free trade and Canada played a pivotal role in at least one state — Ohio — during the U.S. primaries.

A Canadian government memo written after a meeting with an Obama adviser suggested the Democrat’s biting opposition to the pact was rooted in politics that would not blossom into policy if Obama becomes president.

That memo was leak to The Associated Press and many of Obama’s own supporters believe it cost him the Ohio primary, which was won by Hillary Clinton.

The Canadian Press, "Obama Softens Stance on NAFTA," The ChronicleHerald [Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada], June 20, 2008.

David Brooks

Although you may find it hard to believe, it really is the case that it was only after I had written and assembled the material above that I came upon David Brooks column of June 20. You should read the entirety of it. It makes what I wrote look like the chants of an Obama cheerleader by contrast. Brooks may be a conservative, but he's my kind of conservative: normally much more both "fair" and "balanced," as well as reasonable, informed and soft spoken, than the network that markets itself with that claim. Here are some excerpts:

Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside. . . .

[O]n Thursday [June 19], Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now. . . .

If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? . . .

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades.

David Brooks, "The Two Obamas," New York Times, June 20, 2008.

Concluding Thoughts

Senator Obama and his staff should reflect on these reactions -- and the fact that Senator Clinton has only "suspended" her campaign. He's not yet the nominee, and super delegates can change their votes at any time.

Nor is the only rational response for Obama supporters to suddenly drop him like last week's moldy pizza as a result of these recent flip-flops. He may not be all they thought -- and he promised -- and still be head and shoulders above the mediocre, far better than merely the "least-worst" alternative.

But meanwhile, what are voters in general, and Senator Obama supporters in particular, to make of this behavior? Should they assume that these will be the only four shifts in position, that he is really, deep down inside, the same person he represented himself to be, the same person they believed in? Or should they ask, with David Brooks, "If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out?"

Or is the lesson a much more serious and depressing one? Should they listen much more closely to the lyrics from the 1951 film, Royal Wedding (starring Fred Astaire and Jane Powell), "How Could You Believe Me When I Told You that I Loved You When You Know I've Been a Liar All My Life." Not because of Senator Obama, but because of politics and life in general. Will it always (or virtually always) be the case that offerings of "hope" and promises of "change" -- regardless of context -- are, like the enticement of winning the lottery, as ephemeral and short-lived as the morning fog on a hot summer's day?

There are many contexts and stories leading to the punch line, or "lesson," "Don't ever trust anyone, not even your own father." Is that the great lesson of the Obama campaign? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"? Or, as President George Bush puts it, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."



Sadly, we can get fooled again -- and again, and again, and again.

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli's famous works, The Prince and The Discourses, were published in 1531, four years after his death, and have been read -- and to some extent followed -- by most politicians since. Is it perhaps the case that politics can't be changed? That it has always been thus? Do we have nearly 500 years of history to warn us that the "change we can believe in" was inherently unbelievable?

No, there have been changes, some improvements, and there can be more. But we must work for them -- with or without a President Obama. The changes will only, can only, have only, come from the peoples' sustained efforts.

"When the people lead, their leaders will follow." It's up to us to lead, not to look to the rear of our marching ranks in search of our "leader."

# # #

Gazette's Flood Plan, Floodplains & Greenbelts

June 21, 2008, 7:45 a.m., 12:40 p.m.

Gazette Increases Volume of Chorus
This morning, June 21, The Gazette adds its powerful editorial voice to the growing chorus of support for flood prevention methods that work with, rather than against, Mother Nature. See blog entries, comments, quotes and links in, Nicholas Johnson, "Greenbelts, Greenways and Flood Prevention," June 16, 2008; Nicholas Johnson, "Floods and Football," June 17, 2008; Nicholas Johnson, "Flooding, Greenbelts & Catching Up With State29," June 18, 2008; Nicholas Johnson, "Greenbelts and Floodplains," June 20, 2008.

While Iowa’s catastrophic flooding has been widely blamed on the deluge that fell from the sky, hydrologists, conservationists and government officials told the Washington Post this week they believe man is to blame, too, possibly even more than Mother Nature.

From farm drainage tiling, to parking lots that smother once permeable pasture or wetlands, no one denies that man’s development activities have changed the pace of storm water runoff, sending it shooting toward waterways instead of slowly meandering as nature intended it to, into the ground.

The bottom line: Mother Nature’s wet wrath is something largely out of our control. But our landscape is ours to shape.

Our lessons should have been learned in 1993. But we’re wiser now, a nation that is getting more comfortable with living “green.” So from this flood forward, we can and should be better stewards of our land, doing everything within our control to mitigate the chance of future catastrophic flooding. In the coming months, officials from the national level to the local need to take objective looks at just how much humans played a role in intensifying the floods so that we can know best where to make changes in policies and educate the public about ways to they can help. . . .

Within urban areas, the storm water runoff practices of both residential and commercial development should be looked at from the perspective of a flood-devastated community . . ..

With flood-recovery estimates now in the multi-billions, ponder the financial burden of such shortsightedness. Our river has no more patience for it.

Editorial, "Our Role in Lessening Nature's Wrath," The Gazette, June 21, 2008, p. A6.

The Press-Citizen, which has run a number of op ed columns endorsing Mother Nature's Flood Control Plan (see links at the top of this entry), has yet to clearly editorialize in support of such an approach. Although its editorial this morning was at least consistent with it:

Other residents now recognize how the [Normandy Drive] neighborhood has been in a state of danger for decades -- ever since it was built within the floodplain.

That's one of the reasons why some of the Normandy Drive residents themselves may be asking the city to buy out such endangered residential areas. And that's why the city -- especially if FEMA funds are made available -- should give that offer serious consideration.

Editorial, "Residents Had Enough Warning for Evacuation," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 21, 2008, p. A18.

It also ran an additional op ed supporting a much more direct analysis and proposal regarding such things as Greenbelts and wetlands:

Iowa is experiencing flooding yet again and Iowans will be taking actions to reduce and mitigate flooding in the future. Among those options should be the reconstruction of wetlands and -- when cellulosic biofuel production becomes feasible -- the conversion of croplands to certain energy crops that help reduce flooding. . . .

Farmers have lined up to enter land into voluntary wetland creation programs but most are turned away because of a lack of funding. These wetlands benefit society by providing wildlife habitat, cleaning the water and helping to control floods. One acre of wetland can prevent between 1 million and 1.5 million gallons of water from entering a flooded waterway by acting like a sponge. . . .

[O]ne acre of wetland can also filter out most of the nitrogen and sediment from up to 100 acres of adjacent cropland. When the water is slowly released it is far cleaner. . . .

[F]undamental changes in cropping patterns enabled by cellulosic biofuel production, if carefully implemented, could dramatically reduce Iowa's flooding. . . .

Growing prairie would dramatically reduce Iowa's flooding and soil erosion problem. Prairies, like wetlands, reduce flooding because they soak up tremendous amounts of water and release it slowly. Under matching soil types, slopes, saturation and weather conditions, a prairie will retain a far greater portion of rain than a corn or bean field. Prairie protects the land and water far better than conventional corn or soybeans.

Cleaner, more stable streams benefit society in other ways as well. With prairie, streams that dry up and die in the dry season are more likely to continue flowing. More desirable game fish would repopulate Iowa's steams and migratory waterfowl could head north out of Iowa healthy rather than malnourished, and our waterways would be more pleasant and safer for recreation.

Flooding is a problem of small impacts spread over many acres. Solutions therefore can come in the form of many small changes spread over many acres. Shifting a significant number of acres of corn and beans to prairie energy crops would dramatically reduce the amount of floodwater flowing off our fields. . . .

Andrew Hug, "Reducing Iowa's Recurrent Floods," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 21, 2008, p. A18.

State29 has a couple more blog entries well worth reading, State29, "Rebuilding It As Greenspace," June 20, 2008, and State29, "The 500 Year Flood Plain Myth + Stupid Spending," June 21, 2008 (with a sensible and serious proposal for where the new federal building in Cedar Rapids should be located).

John Barleykorn commented on yesterday's blog entry, "I think that many of us are looking at issues like storm water runoff and conservation design. We have to re-think conventional curb and gutter urban design standards." He goes on to mention and link to an intriguing commercial firm that I intend to check out.

And for those who consider themselves friends of or stakeholders in the University -- or would just like to help out -- here's a word from UI President Sally Mason that speaks for itself and requires no commentary from me:

To University of Iowa Alumni, Friends, Contributors, and Hawkeye Fans across the world:

Your University is facing what may be the greatest challenge in its 160-year history.

Many people have contacted us asking us how they can help, and in response we're offering a way to do so from wherever you may be.

Unprecedented flooding throughout Eastern Iowa has already impacted our entire arts campus and much more -- including beloved landmarks such as the Iowa Memorial Union, the UI Museum of Art, our music and theatre buildings, and Hancher Auditorium.

Although it appears the flooding on campus has crested, the high water will still inflict significant damage to the more than 16 UI buildings that took on water. The Iowa River is slowly receding, but it will take months and years for the campus to fully recover.

You can help by making a gift online today to the UI Flood Relief Fund. Please go online to http://www.givetoiowa.org/floodfund to lend your support. Gifts of all sizes are needed and appreciated, and our first priority is to assist UI students and employees who have been displaced from their homes by the flooding. After addressing these most immediate human concerns, we will use contributions to the fund (as available) at my discretion to address other areas of flood-related need throughout the campus.

I encourage the UI community and Iowans generally to help –- whether through volunteering or other sharing of resources –- as they can with the relief efforts for those parts of the state most affected by the flooding. A good place to start in assisting our friends in Johnson and Linn Counties is by visiting www.corridorrecovery.org.

The University of Iowa community has always been far larger than our physical campus, and the Hawkeye spirit has overcome many challenges in the past. I am confident this University will emerge stronger than ever before. UI students, faculty, staff, and community members showed tremendous teamwork and resolve in last week's massive sandbagging efforts. If you'd like to join them in helping us rise above this crisis, please visit http://www.givetoiowa.org/floodfund.

Our heartfelt thanks for all of your encouragement, and for your ongoing generosity.
ON IOWA!

Sally Mason
President
The University of Iowa

P.S. For the most up-to-date information on the UI and the Flood of 2008, and for a large gallery of photos, visit the University's flood information web site at http://uiflood.blogspot.com/.

# # #

Greenbelts and Floodplains

June 20, 2008, 8:15 a.m.

Attitudes Are Shifting
On June 16 I wrote of "Greenbelts, Greenways and Flood Prevention." While I suffer no illusion about the impact of that little blog entry, the fact is that since then there has been a growing chorus of new attitudes about Greenbelts, conservation, and smart use of floodplains.

When I was clerking for a Fifth Circuit judge in Houston and complained about the air quality I was informed, "You smell that, Boy? That's the smell of money." It's still the smell of money in Houston. But Houstonians' attitudes are changing -- even about oil.

Houston, Texas, is one of the largest, most spread out and sprawling, unplanned and unzoned cities in America. But this morning NPR had a feature on how $4.00 gas is causing even Houstonians to rethink the desirability of exchanging a little planning for their "Texas freedom." "Houston Mayor Gauges Impact of Traffic," Morning Edition/National Public Radio, June 20, 2008.

And so it is that the flooding that's caused the State to declare over 80 of Iowa's 99 counties to be disaster areas has finally captured our attention, and got us thinking that maybe some of the environmentalists' ideas about Greenbelts, Greenways, planting "filters" along rivers -- and devoting floodplains to parks, forests and wetlands (rather than regularly flooded homes and businesses) -- may have been pretty smart ideas after all.

How else can you explain this morning's Press-Citizen's op ed page with columns by Bob Elliott and Karen Kubby both singing in harmony?

Karen Kubby writes:

I've heard some conversation in the community about changing our floodplain ordinances to prevent residential rebuilding or new construction, even if built one foot above the 100-year flood plain. Some communities across the nation have taken this step and turned their floodplains into recreation areas. This allows the floodplain to maintain its function of absorbing and holding water during flood events, creates public spaces around waterways and provides recreation and transportation paths.

Tragedy was turned into an economic boon in these cases.

When Idyllwild was built in the 1990s, Susan Horowitz and I voted "no" because of this issue. We wanted to discuss the cost and benefits of revising the floodplain ordinance. The majority ruled. Idyllwild was built, and the floodplain ordinance was not reviewed.

Karen Kubby, "Affordable Housing and Floodplain Management," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 20, 2008, p. 15A.

Bob Elliott confesses:

In addition to being a disaster, this devastating flood is a learning experience. So I hope our battle with the Iowa River is teaching us a lesson.

In recent years, I paid attention to environmental activists about the importance of such things as floodplains. But I was listening with something of a jaundiced ear.

Well, I'm not yet a born-again environmentalist, and probably not eligible to wear an official tree hugger badge. But my eyes and ears are being opened.

For one thing, I'm more aware of problems with building on a floodplain or doing anything with it other than leaving it as nature intended. . . .

After the painfully disturbing reality of the past few weeks, clearly we need to be really careful when messing with Mother Nature. . . . [W]e get the short end of the stick when we attempt to do battle with tornadoes and floodwaters.

So given the benefit of hindsight, it appears Iowa City shouldn't have allowed development of homes and churches in the northside Idyllwild and Normandy Drive areas.

Bob Elliott, "Learn Lessons From the Flood," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 20, 2008, p. A15.

Gregory Johnson commented in an email:

I'm encouraged to see that others are thinking about widening the green areas around the Iowa River.

When I was in Chicago, we had wonderfully pleasant weather on Monday and walked in the water on the beach. The next day it was cold and dangerous to even be near the lake. Waves were crashing against the shore furiously. The beach was closed. Fortunately no property was damaged. No businesses were closed down. No residents were displaced. Why? Because Chicago has established beautiful parks, beaches, and trails along the lake shore.

I think Iowa City and other communities should do the same. Putting parks and trails in an area subject to flooding doesn't mean that parks and trails aren't as important as businesses. The point is that they are easier to clean up after flooding. Parks aren't "mission critical." It wasn't until this flood that I realized how many of this city's critical resources are in flood areas:

* The entire office complex for the Johnson County Administration Building
* The pure water processing plant
* The waste water processing plant
* The central University of Iowa Computing Center
* The Power Plant
* The Hydraulics Lab
* The entire source for steam (heating and cooling system) for the entire campus

If the above resources are knocked out, the entire city would need to be evacuated. . . .

Some sports require large amounts of open space (and open green space) such as tennis, golf, soccer, baseball, football practice, and other such things. Why not have these in the low lying areas. Instead, the football practice field was high and dry while the critical infrastructure of Iowa City and the University of Iowa was under water.

(And see his "Proactive Flood Containment and Disaster Planning - Responding to the Iowa Flood of 2008.") Nor are the advantages of Greenbelts and Greenways limited to their ability to reduce or eliminate flood damage through wiser use of floodplains.

They also contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gases and the size of our "carbon footprint." Here are excerpts from the latest science on the relationship between the flood damage we've just suffered and "global warming":

If you think the weather is getting more extreme, you're right — and global warming caused by human activity probably is the reason, according to a report released Thursday by a panel of government scientists.

The report comes as the Midwest copes with record rainfall and catastrophic flooding.

There is strong evidence the increasing frequency of extreme rain, heat, drought and tropical storms is caused by global climate change, according to the report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

Larry Wheeler, "Scientists: Weather extremes consistent with global warming," USA Today, June 19, 2008. The hard copy Press-Citizen had a brief version this morning as "We May Be Cause of Weather Woes," p. 7A. A full, early version of report is U.S. Climate Change Science Program, "Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate," August 16, 2007.

When even Bob Elliott and scientific reports that make it through the Bush Administration agree there's a problem -- and, more important, a solution -- it's time for all of us to abandon levies, rebuilding in floodplains, and sandbagging and get behind Mother Nature's flood control plan.

Where to start? (1) Find out more about Greenbelts at GO IOWA!, http://resourcesforlife.com/goiowa, and (2) work to pass the conservation bond issue on the November 4, 2008, ballot.

# # #

To Live Like a Republican You Have to Vote Like a Democrat

June 19, 2008, 7:25 a.m.

Unions and Iowa's Economic Growth
A Republican friend of mine and I have a good number of disagreements on public policy -- along with a surprising number of agreements. My friend is very hostile towards unions. I am not. But the other day they were arguing that not only were unions bad for the country, they are also bad for workers, for whom they've never done anything but take union dues and keep corrupt officers in power.

Today's topic involves both a confirmation and a confession of error.

I have often written here of the hypocrisy and inconsistency of those Iowa leaders who simultaneously (a) bemoan the departure of Iowa's best and brightest for greener pastures and search for ways to retain them, while (b) continuing Iowa's hostile, anti-union practices. You want to know how to keep our kids here? Pay them. And unions are one way to do that. (I know. The jobs we're trying to create, and fill, are often well above union scale. But "a rising tide lifts all boats"; pay the working poor more, and the wages of the working class will also go up, and when they do the salaries of the professional classes will also rise.) And if you happen to be among Iowa's top 1%, or 1/10th of 1%, in pay don't worry; you'll still be able to get by.

But I have also written that while there are many differences between elected Democrats and Republicans -- in short, there IS "a dime's worth of difference" -- that there is very little difference between the parties when it comes to favoring the wealthy and corporate interests.

Today's story tends to confirm the former (unions do help raise the living standards of the working class), but challenges the second (it turns out the working class does much better under Democratic administrations).

In fairness to my prior position, however, as the story reveals, "[T]he only group for whom partisan politics had little impact was the affluent. Their fortunes grew healthily regardless of party in power." So it's not so much that Democrats are hostile toward the wealthy (who, after all, provide the bulk of their campaign contributions, as well as the financial support for the Republicans) as it is that the Republicans are hostile toward the working class.

The St. Petersburg Times -- one of America's better, if lesser-known, newspapers -- has a columnist named Robyn Blumner who regularly writes in an insightful way about what's going on around us. The Gazette reprints a recent one this morning as Robyn Blumner, "Return of the Robber Barons, Under Republican Control," The Gazette, June 19, 2008, p. A6. (It originally appeared as Robyn Blumner, "Democratic Presidents Mean Better Wages," St. Petersburg Times, June 15, 2008, p. Perspective 3.)

She reports on a study by Princeton Professor Larry Bartels regarding the relative progress of the middle class under Republican and Democratic administrations. Here are some brief, "fair use" excerpts.

Bartels found that the real incomes of middle-class families grew more than twice as fast when Democrats were in the White House than when a Republican was president. And for the working poor, their real incomes grew six times as fast under a Democratic president. . . .

[T]he only group for whom partisan politics had little impact was the affluent. Their fortunes grew healthily regardless of party in power. . . .

[O]ur nation is increasingly one of haves and have-nots, mired in income inequality more severe than at any time since the days of robber barons. . . .

One dependable way for employees at the lower end of the income scale to demand a piece of increased productivity and profits is through joining unions or threatening to do so. Democrats traditionally are supportive of this while Republicans are generally hostile.

While it is true that regardless of who has resided in the White House, rates of unionization have markedly declined over the last 40 years, it is also true that helping unions and workers succeed is a central tenet of the Democratic Party. . . .

Bush's 2009 budget request seeks 100 times more money to regulate unions than to ensure that employers follow wage and hour laws and other labor protections. . . .

John Schmitt, a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, finds that unionization would bring a double-digit pay premium to at least 60 percent of America's workforce. Looking at national data for the years 2003 to 2007, the study concludes that unionization raises the income of the typical low-wage worker by 20.6 percent, and that of the median-wage worker by 13.7 percent.

The next election is momentous for . . . countering what we have become: a nation with a small cadre of investor-class winners and a vast population of struggling wage earners, with little ground left to lose."

Think about it Iowans. You want to encourage economic development? We can't gamble our way to riches. And we can't get there on the backs of a minimum wage workforce.

# # #

Flooding, Greenbelts & Catching Up With State29

June 18, 2008, 4:45 p.m.

Greenbelts and Flooding

Two days ago I wrote,

Even if we had never suffered the losses from flooding in the past, and would never have another flood in the future, we should promote the idea of a Greenbelt around the Iowa City-Cedar Rapids Coridor, and Greenways and filters along Iowa's Rivers.

There are hundreds of ways of setting aside land for conservation besides purchase or gifts -- and no need to recite them all now. Uses such as golf courses and farming can continue -- along with forests, prairies and wetlands. The benefits include recreational uses, hunting and fishing, wildlife habitats, "smart growth" for urban areas, with increased real estate values.

But the values also include cleaner water, less soil erosion -- and reduced impact, or elimination of damage from, flooding."

Nicholas Johnson, "Greenbelts, Greenways and Flood Prevention," June 16, 2008.

This morning I was pleased to see Jim Throgmorton -- who knows more about this stuff than I do -- hit a similar theme. Jim Throgmorton, "Looking for Sound Flood Alternatives," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 18, 2008, p. A15 ("eliminate existing structures in the floodplain and . . . use the land only in ways that can accommodate future flooding. As parkland, for example. . . . [T]he long-term conversion of tall grass prairie and wetlands into corn and soybean fields has (when coupled with increased coverage of land with concrete and asphalt) had the effect of reducing the soil's ability to absorb rainfall and slow runoff.")

Catching Up With State29

The past six weeks has involved a variety of semester's-end tasks, along with meeting a goal of creating another book. The former is completed; the latter nearly so.

Not only was I not blogging much during that time, I was also not tracking State29's blog as closely as usual. It turns out that I missed a lot of what he self-describes as "insightfully vulgar" commentary on events and issues we both care about -- even though he often takes me to task for my positions on one of the many matters about which we disagree. Here are a very few selections from the dozens of blog entries he's provided during May and this much of June.

Flooding

State29, "Why Do We Encourage Development in Flood Zones?" June 15, 2008.

UI Athletic Program

State29, "You'd Think The University Of Iowa Would Have Learned Something From The Pierre Pierce Case," June 17, 2008.

The Stories Project

State29, "Feedback Wanted About The Stories Project in Coralville," June 7, 2008.

State29, "Pulp Fiction: The Stories Project Scam in Coralville," June 6, 2008.

K-12 Education

State29, "Des Moines, The Dropout Factory," June 3, 2008.

And perhaps our most closely shared sense of outrage -- Corporate Welfare -- and its commonly linked relationship to campaign "contributions"

State29, "The Roosevelt Corporate Welfare Hotel in Cedar Rapids," May 28, 2008; State29, "Cedar Rapids Approves $775,000 Corporate Welfare Loan," May 30, 2008 ("Sherman Associates owns and manages nearly 5000 rental units, yet somehow they had to ask the taxpayers of Cedar Rapids for a $775,000 loan [to buy the Roosevelt Hotel]. Why can't they go to a bank? Or, better yet, why can't they self-finance that loan? Also questionable are the nearly $4 million in Federal and State tax breaks that Sherman will get for supposedly fixing up the joint, . . ..").

State29, "Tom 'Electric Bus' Harkin," May 29, 2008 ("I'm surprised that absolutely nobody has picked up the story of Tom Harkin's $10 million+ electric bus program for Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which was recently scrapped and sold at auction for a grand total of $30,000.").

State29, "Congratulations, Bettendorf!" May 28, 2008 ("This [Bettendorf revising TIF policy] is good news. Business owners need to get wise about what sort of politicians are in charge of their own city. . . . Would they allow tax credits for a direct competitor? You business owners really should be asking these questions of your local elected flunkies and trumpeting the results far and wide.").

State29, "Well Well Wells," May 21, 2008 ("Several years ago, the State of Iowa funded the Iowa Agricultural Finance Corp, which was supposed to be this venture capital-like fund exclusively for Iowa businesses that had ties to agricultural-related businesses. It should have been a hit, right? It has been a disaster. Take a look at this PDF and see what it "invested" in:

* Rudi's Organic Bakery. $13 million. Failed and moved to Colorado.

* Wildwood Harvest. $7.1 million. The company has never generated a profit.

* ProdiGene. $6 million. No employees in Iowa. "Struggled" and was fined by the USDA.

* Sioux-Preme Packing Company. $5 million. Profitable. Acquired in 2006 by Hilco Equity, a company out of Chicago, Illinois.

* Iowa Quality Beef. $3 million. Shut down in 2004 and 540 employees laid off.

* Ag Waste Recovery Systems. $150,000. No sales, no employees, and is considered an "idle corporation".)

State29, "Iowa Republicans Took The Rubashkin's Slave Labor-Tainted Money," May 12, 2008 ("A search on OpenSecrets.org details the campaign contributions from the execs of alleged slave laborers and illegal alien-exploiters Agriprocessors in Postville, Iowa."); State29, "Iowa Lt Governor Patty Judge Should Resign For Taking $10,000 In Slave Labor-Tainted Campaign Donations," May 12, 2008.

State29, "Local Option Sales Tax Money To Be Diverted To Corporate Welfare?" May 12, 2008.

State29, "Why Does Iowa Have A Brain Drain? Let Me Count Thee Ways," May 8, 2008 ("'Businesses must be willing to pay more competitive salaries, too. A January report from the Generation Iowa Commission blamed lagging wages as a key reason young professionals leave. Even adjusted for cost of living, Iowa salaries often compare poorly, such as management occupations paying last in the region, the commission reported.' [From a Register editorial. And a suggestion from State29:] . . . End taxpayer-financed corporate welfare. Quit subsidizing politically-connected companies and people at the expense of competition that's already here in Iowa. The State has a bad track record at doing this.").

Iowa Constitution

Although I don't mean to make a legal argument that the Iowa Constitution forbids corporate welfare being provided by the state or its cities, it does seem to me that the following provisions (kindly brought to my attention by Jeff Cox) do rather suggest a general anti-fascist, anti-corporatism spirit of the drafters:

"STATE DEBTS. Credit not to be loaned. SECTION 1. The credit of the state shall not, in any manner, be given or loaned to, or in aid of, any individual, association, or corporation; and the state shall never assume, or become responsible for, the debts or liabilities of any individual, association, or corporation, unless incurred in time of war for the benefit of the state." Iowa Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 1.

"State not to be a stockholder. SECTION 3. The state shall not become a stockholder in any corporation, nor shall it assume or pay the debt or liability of any corporation, unless incurred in time of war for the benefit of the state." Iowa Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 3.

And finally . . .

My thanks to State29 for carrying the entire burden of taxpayer protection during my absence, and making it possible to take a break for other tasks knowing that he would more than adequately do so.

# # #

Floods and Football

June 17, 2008, 8:20 a.m.

Links Without Comment
Floods. For the benefit of those of our friends around the country and world who have expressed concern about the welfare of Iowans in general and myself in particular, the local papers have done a good job of not only daily reporting, but providing archives of their coverage. Here is what the Press-Citizen calls "The Great Flood of '08," Iowa City Press-Citizen, as of June 17, 2008; The Gazette's gazetteonline.com main page is currently headed with "The Flood of 2008," which provides a comparable collection of links to its photos and stories; as does the Des Moines Register for the entire state, at least on its online opening page, "Floods of 2008: Latest News Updates, Videos and Photos," as of June 17. The City of Iowa City's site, "River Watch - Flood Updates; Advisories; Maps," is one of the better all-purpose sites for Iowa City.

(And our family? As a result of fortuitous circumstance, for which this generation can take no credit, both the family home, and son Gregory's "small house," are at an elevation well above the flood plain.)

Football. Months ago I wrote about the University's handling of a matter allegedly involving one or more football team members. Therefore, for the record, here -- though without further comment -- is a link to a rather thorough update. Lee Hermiston and Brian Morelli, "Documents detail sexual assault case; Judge orders release of court records," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 17, 2008, p. A1.

# # #

Greenbelts, Greenways and Flood Prevention

June 16, 2008, 10:20 a.m.

Flood Prevention with Greenbelts
Now that the flood waters appear to be receding, we, like the River itself, are going through a number of stages. At some point there will be a time for reflection, looking to the future, and proactive planning.

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross described what has come to be known as the "Five Stages of Grief," On Death and Dying (1969): denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

There are another kind of "stages" to a flood: "flood stage," "crest stage," and "receding stage."

But a variation on Kübler-Ross' stages of grief are also present.

There's the hope that what seems probable maybe won't happen. The initial shock that it is happening. The kumbaya stage of coming together, sand bagging, volunteers and heros. Then what Cedar Rapids is going through now, when hard-working, tired, public officials of good will, trying to provide for the safety of life and property, confront the frustrated citizens who want and need to get to their homes and are prevented from doing so. The stage of waiting, patience and frustration, and hardship that comes when the water is no longer rising each day, but it's not going away, either. The stage when the River finally returns to stay inside its banks, but what it has left in fields, neighborhoods and business districts remains. Finally, there is the clean-up stage when the elected officials, mass media, volunteers and kumbaya has long since vanished, leaving victims to fend for themselves with the muck and the bureaucracy of insurance companies, contractors, and FEMA.

But then comes the stage of reflection and proactive planning.

And when that time comes we need to think long and hard about Greenbelts, Greenways and the conservation bond issue on the ballot this November 4th.

See, Nicholas Johnson, "Preserving for Our Grandchildren," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 20, 2008, p. A13, reproduced in Nicholas Johnson, "Greenbelts for Grandchildren," February 15 and 20, 2008; Nicholas Johnson, "GO Iowa! - The G-reat O-utdoors of Iowa," May 5, 2008, a reference to the Web site GO Iowa! at http://resourcesforlife.com/goiowa; and the bond support group, "Our Land, Our Water, Our Future," at http://landwaterfuture.org.

Even if we had never suffered the losses from flooding in the past, and would never have another flood in the future, we should promote the idea of a Greenbelt around the Iowa City-Cedar Rapids Coridor, and Greenways and filters along Iowa's Rivers.

There are hundreds of ways of setting aside land for conservation besides purchase or gifts -- and no need to recite them all now. Uses such as golf courses and farming can continue -- along with forests, prairies and wetlands. The benefits include recreational uses, hunting and fishing, wildlife habitats, "smart growth" for urban areas, with increased real estate values.

But the values also include cleaner water, less soil erosion -- and reduced impact, or elimination of damage from, flooding.

Why is this? For starters, Greenbelts contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gases and our carbon footprint. But even those who don't believe we're getting climate changes from global warming can appreciate the reduction in water runoff.

The streets of suburbia, and parking lots of shopping malls, don't absorb much rainfall. Forests, prairies and wetlands do. Planting the right "filters" along rivers can slow runoff, prevent erosion of our farm land, and minimize flash floods and rapid rise in our rivers.

Are Greenbelts the total answer to flooding? Of course not. But they are a major part of the answer.

There are plenty of reasons to support Greenbelts and Greenways besides flood control. But while we're trying to figure out how we're going to pay for recovery from our recent multi-billion-dollar losses in Iowa from flooded rivers, we might want to start thinking about that $20 million bond issue as a mighty small down payment toward reducing losses like that in the years to come.

# # #