The move is the latest in the back-and-forth action since The Iowa Independent noted on Tuesday the new ad and airtime purchase by Crossroads GPS, a conservative policy and advocacy group founded by Karl Rove.

“Despite the flowery statements pouring out from Leonard Boswell and the Iowa Democratic Party, Leonard Boswell fails to explain why he voted to waste $830 billion on Obama’s first stimulus bill and now enthusiastically supports another round of stimulus spending tied to a $450 billion tax hike,” Nate Hodson, director of state and regional media relations, said in a Crossroads statement.

“Iowans deserve to know why Leonard Boswell continues supporting Obama’s failed policies which waste taxpayer dollars without creating jobs.”

The remarks from Hodson followed responses from the Iowa Democratic Party and Boswell’s campaign regarding the new ad, which were also published by The Independent on Tuesday and linked to in the Crossroads release.

“This morning Karl Rove’s shadowy corporate special interest group American Crossroads, began running ads blaming Congressman Boswell for America’s economic crisis. This blatant attempt to smear and distort the Congressman’s record is downright shameful,” wrote Joshua Sulier in an email from the Boswell for Congress campaign.

The campaign is asking for contributions to raise an additional $10,000 for the campaigns “rapid response fund” to fight attack ads. …

Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue Dvorsky said the ad shows Karl Rove, who’s behind the Crossroads GPS, is trying to help U.S. Rep. Tom Latham (R-Ames) defend a “record of supporting corporate loopholes and opposing a plan to create jobs and strengthen the middle class.” …

“Tom Latham and Karl Rove think they can buy this election with anonymous, special interest money. They should know better,” Dvorsky said. “Iowans take a serious look at the candidates and the issues facing our state. On all accounts, Congressman Boswell has been a fighter for this state and has the record of fiscal responsibility and leadership to prove it.” …

Latham campaign spokesman James Carstensen didn’t respond to the IDP and Boswell campaign’s attacks on Crossroads and Latham, or on whether the ad is a precursor for a potentially nasty 3rd Congressional District race.

“Congressman Latham is focused on fighting for and advancing policies that will foster job and economic growth,” Carstensen said. “We will wait to focus on politics and elections next year.”

Boswell, a Des Moines Democrat, appeared along with U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in Des Moines earlier this month to promote the American Jobs Act, and specifically the $50 billion earmarked within the plan for transportation infrastructure like bridges and roads. Earl Agan, president of the Central Iowa Building and Construction Trades Council, estimates the nearly $500 million that would come into Iowa as a part of the proposal would fund more than 6,500 construction workers.

Boswell indicated that at a time when Americans are searching for employment and the nation’s infrastructure needs repair, the Obama proposal could fill both needs.

“I will be doing all I can to push for this much-needed relief. Iowans are counting on us to come together, do the right thing and get people working again,” Boswell said in an Oct. 14 briefing.

“I remain committed to taking care of our middle class and will support legislation that creates jobs and provides Iowa’s families and workers with the tools and assistance they need to get back on their feet and contribute to the recovery of our national and local economies.”

In early September, shortly after Obama’s jobs address to the nation, Boswell said, “In order to invest in job creation, Washington must get on the same page as the rest of America and stop putting corporations and special interests above everyday workers and small businesses. It is clear to most Americans that oil companies are doing just fine without the taxpayer’s help. It is clear to most Americans that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can afford to pay the same percentage of payroll taxes that their own secretaries pay. It is clear to most Americans that our nation will never recover if the federal government keeps offering tax breaks to companies that outsource U.S. jobs.

“Let’s redirect the taxpayer dollars that fund these luxury handouts and corporate incentives to put Iowans back to work, repair our roads and bridges, update our public buildings, and get Americans making things again. I look forward to the hard work ahead.”

According to an analysis of the stimulus — known officially as The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — in relation to job creation by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the government plan, during the second quarter of 2010 alone, increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with what employment would have been otherwise. The CBO also states that well over half a million jobs were funded in each of the other three quarters of 2010. Subsequent analysis by the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center, which runs FactCheck.org, finds Republican and conservative claims of the plan’s failure to be a matter of opinion and not fact.

“Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill,” the analysis reads. “The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there’s no doubt that the number is positive.”

“This morning Karl Rove’s shadowy corporate special interest group American Crossroads, began running ads blaming Congressman Boswell for America’s economic crisis. This blatant attempt to smear and distort the Congressman’s record is downright shameful,” wrote Joshua Sulier in an email from the Boswell for Congress campaign.

The campaign is asking for contributions to raise an additional $10,000 for the campaigns “rapid response fund” to fight attack ads.

“Faceless millionaires will not sway this election! Please add $10 to our grassroots fund today,” Sulier wrote. “Together we can prove the people are stronger than the special interests.”

Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue Dvorsky said the ad shows Karl Rove, who’s behind the Crossroads GPS, is trying to help U.S. Rep. Tom Latham (R-Ames) defend a “record of supporting corporate loopholes and opposing a plan to create jobs and strengthen the middle class.”

Latham opted to move and take on Boswell in the state’s newly drawn 3rd Congressional District rather than stay in the 4th District and battle U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Kiron). National political observers say the race could be a bellwether for which party gains control of the U.S. House, and may be one of the most expensive in the country.

According to OpenSecrets.org, Crossroads GPS spent $15.1 million against Democrats in the 2009-10 cycle and $479,619 for Republicans. It spent another $1.1 million on electioneering communications. The group doesn’t disclose its donors.

The group has spent $85,125 so far at KCCI, the local CBS affiliate in Des Moines and the state’s largest network TV station. The group has run ads since late June, and recently spent $13,472 for ads running between Oct. 25 and Nov. 3. At least a portion of the ads being run in Iowa target Democratic U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell.

American Crossroads, a related “super PAC,” raised $26.5 million in 2010 and spent $21.5 million. It raised and spent the most out of any independent expenditure-only committees in 2010. The super PAC, which must disclose its donors, has raised $6.6 million so far this cycle.

“Tom Latham and Karl Rove think they can buy this election with anonymous, special interest money. They should know better,” Dvorsky said. “Iowans take a serious look at the candidates and the issues facing our state. On all accounts, Congressman Boswell has been a fighter for this state and has the record of fiscal responsibility and leadership to prove it.”

Latham has not yet responded to a request for comment on the ads.

A spokesman for Latham’s office did not directly respond to whether Latham supports an extension of Social Security payroll tax cuts, a major part of the American Jobs Act. On Latham’s website it says he “will oppose — and fight against — any increases in Social Security payroll taxes.”

But the spokesman, Fred Love, said most Americans don’t agree with the tax increases that are also a part of Obama’s jobs plan.

“Even the president acknowledged just a few months ago that raising tax rates while the economy is in such a fragile condition is counterproductive,” Love said. “On this matter, Congressman Latham agrees with the president and believes that raising taxes at this time will only put us in an even deeper hole and further stifle an environment needed for job creation.”

And Latham campaign spokesman James Carstensen didn’t respond to the IDP and Boswell campaign’s attacks on Crossroads and Latham, or on whether the ad is a precursor for a potentially nasty 3rd Congressional District race.

“Congressman Latham is focused on fighting for and advancing policies that will foster job and economic growth,” Carstensen said. “We will wait to focus on politics and elections next year.”

(Editor’s note: This report was updated at 3:35 p.m. to include comments from U.S. Rep. Latham’s office.)

When Saft America Inc. opened its lithium-ion battery manufacturing plant at Cecil Commerce Center in Jacksonville in 2010, Stearns lauded the company for bringing jobs to the area.e

“I am honored to join in welcoming Saft’s Li-ion battery manufacturing facility to the Cecil Commerce Center, which underscores that this is a good place to do business. In addition, as a member of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I recognize the contributions of these advanced rechargeable batteries in meeting our energy needs,” Stearns said at the groundbreaking.

As pointed out by a recent article in E&E News, ”nearly half the cash for the new Saft America Inc. facility was provided through a cost-sharing arrangement funded through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act” — a stimulus program that Stearns has campaigned against.

The E&E article, which is worth reading in full, goes on to explore Stearns’ inconsistency in opposing the Obama administration’s use of stimulus funds to support green jobs. Stearns is currently heading a House Energy and Commerce Committee investigation into Solyndra, a bankrupt solar energy company that received more than $500 million in stimulus money through a Department of Energy loan program. Some worry that Republicans are using Solyndra as evidence of failed stimulus funds, just as Obama is rolling out a new jobs plan.

On Tuesday, Stearns said that the president’s efforts to create green technology is “suspect” during a meeting of Department of Energy and Office of Management and Budget officials. Following a Wednesday committee meeting, Stearns took it a step further: “I see no reason for the taxpayers to have any confidence that these funds could be spent wisely and it should be returned to the Treasury to reduce our debt.”

Today, the Saft facility is set to host its grand opening. Though Stearns was invited, it is unlikely he will be attending. When asked about the Saft grant, he reportedly said he has “no opinion on it right now.”

“Less than two months ago, Mr. Harrison met with us and other Committee members to assure us that Solyndra was in a strong financial position and in no danger of failing,” DeGette wrote with California Representative and Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman. “At that time, [Harrison] said the company was projected to double its revenues in 2011, there was ‘strong demand in the United States’ for its shipments, and the company was expected to double the megawatts of panel production shipped this year. These assurances appear to contrast starkly with his company’s decision to file for bankruptcy last week.”

Silicon Valley-based solar panel maker Solyndra was a new-energy darling of the Obama 2009 stimulus package. The company received roughly $530 million in government loans and yet went belly up last month.

The events seemed to confirm the worst fears and suspicions of green energy critics who see the sector as a money hole, a land of hyped hope and dreams that provides fertile ground for get-rich-quick schemes and government-business insider graft.

Stearns this week said he “smelled a rat” in Solyndra from the beginning and pointed to the fact that Solyndra investor George Kaiser was an Obama campaign donor. The Energy Department downplayed the accusations, saying that Solyndra support was in the pipeline during the Bush administration and the Obama team merely finished the deal.

More likely, Solyndra appears to have made the kind of business bets that can make or break a company and that broke this one.

As the New York Times reported, the company’s panels don’t use silicon, which was a much more costly commodity in 2009 when the loan guarantee was approved than it is now. And the cylindrical design of the panels was meant to cut installment costs and improve efficiency by more easily catching the sun wherever it is in the sky. But manufacturing those special panels proved too costly.

The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee will conduct its hearing on the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program and Solyndra on September 14th.

DeGette’s letter:

Dear Chairman Stearns:

We understand that you have scheduled a hearing on September 14, 2011, to examine the Department of Energy’s 2009 loan guarantee to Solyndra and the recent announcement by the company that it is planning to file for bankruptcy. We hope this hearing will help the Committee understand whether mistakes were made in the handling of this loan and how Congress can improve loan guarantee program and develop appropriate policies to promote clean energy technologies.

We are writing to request that you invite Brian Harrison, chief executive officer of Solyndra, to testify at the hearing. Less than two months ago, Mr. Harrison met with us and other Committee members to assure us that Solyndra was in a strong financial position and in no danger of failing. At that time, he said the company was projected to double its revenues in 2011, there was “strong demand in the United States” for its shipments, and the company was expected to double the megawatts of panel production shipped this year. These assurances appear to contrast starkly with his company’s decision to file for bankruptcy last week.

Any thorough examination of the Solyndra loan guarantee should include the opportunity to ask Mr. Harrison about his representations. He did not convey to us the perilous condition of the company and the Committee should know why.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman Diana DeGette
Ranking Member Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Speaking at Legend’s Bar & Grill before a dozen students from Iowa State University, largely members of the College Republicans, told them he supported Democrat Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries. Karger said he would support a Democrat if they fell in line with his beliefs, and he supported Barack Obama when he became the eventual nominee. But he also said Obama has been a disappointment to him and the gay community, and that’s what pushed him into the race.

Karger has always been a Republican and worked on the campaigns of former presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Over the past 10 years, Karger — who is openly gay — spent most of his time as an activist for gay rights, especially fighting the Mormon church over Proposition 8.

He said part of the reason he’s running is to try to influence the debate among the Republican party, to get them away from an ideological divide over social issues and become a “big tent party” once again. That’s why he’s trying to visit with college students.

“Reince Priebus is making that a big part of his initiative is to bring in younger people into the Republican party,” Karger said of the new head of the Republican National Committee. “And I’ve heard him say that — and I’ve talked to him about that — and I’m clearly the only Republican running who is actively trying to bring new and younger members into the party.”

Karger won a straw poll at a college campus recently in New Hampshire, beating former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. He attributed that to spending a week at a time in the Granite State repeatedly, meeting with voters. He said college students are typically more accepting of his sexuality and are able to get around it to talk about policy and other larger concerns.

Karger admits he’s taking a page out of Obama’s playbook by targeting youth voters, but believes Obama is “vulnerable” in 2012 despite a “bleak field” of GOP candidates emerging.

When students asked him about the size of government, Karger said some social programs will have to stay because some people just can’t take care of themselves. But he said the size of entitlements needs to be on the table.

Photo by Tyler Kingkade/The Iowa Independent

“I’m not making any finite recommendations but … I’m not running from it,” Karger later told The Iowa Independent. “Because of health care [improvements], people are living far longer than they were when Medicare was passed, when Social Security was passed.”

Along with him, Karger brought frisbees that read “Fred Who?” to pass out. He said the frisbees are intentional because it’s part of his initiative to get people healthy. “It may not be throwing frisbess,” he admitted, but he wants to encourage people to take small steps like walking up stairs, going for short runs and making an effort to live healthy. That’s part of why health care costs are so high, he claimed.

Karger said part of his campaign will be focused on listening to ideas from potential voters rather than simply throwing out his policy ideas right away. But he will focus on fiscal issues over social issues, such as gay rights or a woman’s right to choose.

“I want to bring back that entrepreneurial spirit and get people to stop relying on government,” Karger said.

He also declared he would not accept any matching dollars from the federal government for his campaign. He said there has been too much money being raised.

Raising nearly hundreds of millions of dollars just before entering the White House, as Obama did, makes health care reform packages and stimulus programs with price tags near $1 billion seem like no big deal, Karger asserted.

The universities made up most of the cuts through efficiency measures — staff and faculty reduction, closing programs, reducing janitorial services — but average tuition increases have been increasing while nationally they have declined. The Regents say they would need to increase tuition by 38 percent to close the gap in appropriations from 2009. In the past two years, Regents absorbed 20 percent of the overall budget cuts. Over a period of 10 years, from FY 2001 to FY 2011, in-state tuition increased 99.7 percent.

At the community college level, enrollment increased 15 percent over the past five years while their appropriations remained largely stagnant as a percentage of state spending. The national stimulus plan would have provided $12 billion in investments to community colleges, but was whittled down to only $2 billion.

Iowa will see an average 5 percent increase in tuition for the 2011-12 academic year. But that number changes based on the program a student is enrolled in; nursing students at the University of Iowa will see the largest tuition increase in the nation with a nearly 40 percent rise.

Not all Regents agreed on the tuition increases, with both Ruth Harkin and Michael Gartner voting against it. Gartner had an alternative proposal.

“For every $7 million they add back to the Regents budget for fiscal 2012, we will cut the proposed 5 percent rate by one percentage point,” Gartner wrote in an op-ed. “If they added $35 million — which could be done quite easily — we’d agree not to raise tuition at all for resident undergraduates.”

How Iowa compares to other states

Iowa’s public universities still rank at the bottom compared to peer schools in tuition and fees. Neighboring states Illinois and Minnesota both charge nearly double what Iowa’s universities do. Iowa has been able to keep tuition and fees below the national average throughout the past 10 years.

The average annual cost of public 2-year college in Iowa is $3,415, ranking the state 8th in the nation. Iowa ranks 25th for average annual costs of 4-year colleges at $13,831. This is including more than simply tuition and fees, like books and other education expenses, but not food or housing.

Tuition now accounts for 54 percent of general education revenue for public higher education, up from 20 percent in 1982. State appropriations have shrunk from 77 percent of revenue in the 1982 to 39 percent in FY 2011. The national average in FY 2009 was 63 percent of revenue came from state government appropriations.

Despite Illinois having a much higher tuition than Iowa, they surpass that 63 percent national average, as do other states like California and Texas. Arizona, which has tuition near or lower than Iowa’s levels and is towards the bottom in average student debt loads, provides 60 percent of public higher education revenue. There are states like Michigan which maintain higher tuition than Iowa and provide less state support directly to public universities.

Overall, Iowa ranks 2nd in the nation for per capita spending on higher education with $1,353, only behind New Mexico at $1,363, according to data compiled by the American Human Development Project.

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education says the cost of college has risen more than 450 percent since 1982, or four times the rate of the Consumer Price Index. The cost to attend postsecondary education is outpacing the median family family at a 2-to-1 rate, and is far surpassing the rate of increasing medical costs.

Students Push Back

Iowa is not seeing the same cuts as other states like California, and so few students have taken action to protest the cuts. This year a small crowd organized in Iowa City and students traveled by busloads to the state Capitol for the annual Regents’ day.

“The budget cuts that we make now are going to affect the University for the next week, next year, for the next 50 years,” said Jared Knight, Vice-President of the Iowa State Government of the Student Body.

Knight said he’s already seen the impact of cuts with class sizes, cleanliness of the facilities and technology available to students.

“Every single day we hear complaints from professors about technology not working–I mean, it’s Iowa State University of Science and Technology and we’re years behind in technology,” he added. “It’s a state school, it needs state support. Otherwise it might as well be a private school.”

The Board of Regents themselves have been vocal this year about their concern with the cuts. Regents president David Miles appeared alongside students at the Capitol. He and other board members have also written editorials, as have some professors and university administrators.

While cuts came last year, and Iowa now has a surplus, stimulus funds have dried up and the state faces a structural budget deficit.

The cuts force the universities to become leaner, which often means fewer class offerings and chances to utilize various labs on campus.

Gov. Terry Branstad said while he is proposing cuts for FY 2012, he wants to see a restoration of funding levels to higher education eventually. He said he took out student loans when he was an undergraduate and is sensitive to the cost of college, but insists he has an obligation to balance the budget.

“We have to get our financial house in order first,” Branstad told The Iowa Independent, when asked what stands in the way of increasing appropriations for the Regents. He added that the state is in a financial mess, and education makes up more than 60 percent of the budget, but remains hopeful as the economy improves Iowa could provide more support to higher education.

Iowa ranks near the bottom in terms of the size of the state’s budget gap, with a 6 percent shortfall.

Branstad has said he believes colleges need to be more efficient, and that was echoed by the Iowa State University College Republicans at the Regents day.

Iowa State President Gregory Geoffroy outlined what his university has done to make up the budget shortfalls, other than tuition increases:

Our many operational efficiencies and cost savings measures include: Administrative and program reorganizations in several colleges; elimination and downsizing research centers and institutes; new processes to gain efficiencies in information technology; and streamlined administrative functions. We restructured the statewide extension system in 2009, reducing the number of county and area directors by 77 positions and closing several regional offices. No other statewide Iowa government reorganization matches the scope of what we had to do in restructuring ISU Extension.

“We need to continue to find more efficiencies and, yes, it’s the Regents’ job to be mindful of tuition,” Miles told The Iowa Independent. “But a significant part of our budget for educating students comes from state appropriations.”

Miles said as much as he’d like to see a return to the support Regents got 30 years ago, he believes this year would be appropriate to begin to stabilize and move away from cutting further, even if an increase is not in the cards.

What investing in higher education means for the rest of the state

While $551,738,691 was appropriated to Regents in FY 2010, Miles said there was $8 billion in economic impact. This would mean Iowa receives around $14 back for every $1 put in to public higher education.

The universities also provide services to small businesses, helping more than 1,000 Iowa businesses each year with research and start-up opportunities, according to the Board of Regents. But the budget for Iowa State University’s economic development has gone from $3,019,446 in FY 2009 to potentially being cut to $935,233 in the Iowa House budget target for FY 2012.

A state relations officer for the Regents explained to The Iowa Independent the economic development includes five hours of free consultation for small businesses. A hand sanitizer company in Muscatine went through this fund to help define the chemical makeup of their product. Larger companies like John Deere had help from Iowa State to identify a problem on a pipe on their manufacturing line.

But without looking at what the state puts in, the higher the level of education an individual, the more they work and earn. That’s what the Iowa Policy Project argues; someone with a bachelor’s degree will earn on average $7.26 more an hour than a person with only high school diploma. The IPP would encourage the state to offer tuition scholarships for low-wage workers; their analysis finds it would return $3.70 for every dollar invested in a 2-year degree and $2.40 for each dollar invested in a bachelor’s degree.

Iowa is a relatively low-wage state, ranking 32nd nationally with a median personal income of $26,856, according again to the American Human Development Project. The state ranks 41st for those with at a professional or graduate degree with 7.33 percent of the population. Iowa is slightly better at 35th in the nation for those with at least a bachelor’s degree; 24.3 percent of the state’s population hold one.

A study by Georgetown’s Center on Education and the Workforce found Iowa will need 319,000 new, postsecondary-educated workers by 2018. Sixty-two percent of all Iowa jobs will require at least some higher education within seven years.

“America needs more workers with college degrees, certificates and industry certifications,” stated Anthony P. Carnevale, the Center’s director. “If we don’t address this need now, millions of jobs could go offshore.”

However, the barrier of the cost of college is prohibitive on many young people seeking to further their education. The results of a Associated Press and Viacom survey of 18- to 24-year-old students found them citing money over grades as the major reason for dropping out of college. Two-thirds of respondents work part-time jobs and 57 percent said they rely on loans. Still, 85 percent believed college was worth the high cost.

“It’s not partisan — it’s not about this particular legislator or this governor — it’s been going on for years,” Miles said. “Now that the economy has gotten a little better we’re saying to everyone, it’s time to reinvest.”

No budget has been decided in Iowa, and the legislature is now expected to go past their scheduled end of session. Senate Democrats are fighting against Branstad’s desire for a biennial budget, and other legislators are concerned about the governor’s transfer authority if he would be given a two-year budget.

Head Start provides education for low income children prior to kindergarten. According to internal documents, in 2009 Head Start provided 8,137 Iowa children with preschool education, and an additional 1,771 pregnant women and their children under age 3 benefited from Early Head Start programs. Head Start funding provides jobs for 2,411 Iowa workers, including nearly 500 teachers.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created 61,000 slots for children to enroll in Head Start nationwide; however, that funding is going away. House Republicans have proposed a 15 percent reduction in funding for Head Start, cutting $1.08 billion from the program’s budget. The Republican cuts coupled with the loss of ARRA funding would translate to a reduction in 1,794 children in Iowa from being enrolled in Head Start.

Some 157,000 at-risk children up to age 5 could lose education, health, nutrition and other services under Head Start nationwide.

Cuts to Head Start, like other preschool programs, contradict a growing body of research suggesting investment in early education leads to children being less likely to get involved in criminal activity, and become generally more successful in their education.

Republicans have also proposed a nearly 25 percent cut to Pell grants under H.R. 1, which was passed by the House on a party-line vote. H.R. 1 cuts Pell grants by $5.7 billion and reduces the amount of maximum award by $845, from $4,860 to $4,015. For Iowa, this would be a $116 million cut in funding for the current fiscal year in Pell grants, affecting 203,000 students in the state. It would affect 9,413,000 students nationwide.

Pell grants are awarded based on information regarding a student’s personal income and — if they are 25 or younger — their parents income provided in the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. The awards could potentially cover tuition for community college, but could not cover in-state tuition at a public university, let alone a private college. Nor would the grants alone extend to cover books, housing, or meals.

However, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was attached to the Affordable Care Act, increased the maximum award incrementally every three years up to 2017. The Congressional Budget Office estimates H.R. 1 will generate $64 billion in cuts in Pell Grant mandatory funding over the next 10 years as a result of the deep reduction it would make in the 2011 fiscal year. It would go on to make a 30 percent reduction in 2014 to Pell grants, and a 34 percent reduction in 2017.

Last week, the House voted and barely passed a measure to make H.R. 1 law if the Senate fails to act to prevent a government shutdown. Of course, the legislation dubbed the “Government Shutdown Prevention Act” is unconstitutional, because the House cannot unilaterally enact law.

Iowa Republican U.S. Reps Steve King and Tom Latham both voted in favor of the “Shutdown Prevention Act.”

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) decried the Republican proposals last month, calling them unbalanced.

“From crib to college, Iowa students will be at a disadvantage if the House proposal is enacted,” said Harkin. “There is no question that the time has come for tough budget decisions, but the smart way to bring down the deficit is for Congress to pursue a balanced approach of major spending cuts and necessary revenue increases, while continuing to make investments in education.”

It should also be noted the Obama administration put forward a proposal to cut year-round Pell grants, effectively eliminating them for summer semesters.

In March, U.S. Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa) asked for an explanation during a committee hearing about the reasoning for those cuts. Loebsack said in 2010, Pell grants funded 760,000 students nationwide, including 6,618 Iowans.

“There is no question that tough choices need to be made to get our nation’s fiscal health in order,” Loebsack said, “but cutting funding to Pell grants, or limiting their availability, will put our country at a competitive disadvantage by making it harder for students to afford quality education, and harder for workers to receive the training they need to succeed in the 21st century economy.”

The CBO expects the tax cuts deal to cost $858 billion over 10 years, while the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act had a cost of $787 billion. A Congressional Research Service study shows that the extension of all of the Bush tax cuts for two years will cost $675.2 billion over ten years.

Influential conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post this morning that President Obama “won” the tax cut debate by negotiating “the biggest stimulus in American history.” Meanwhile, House Democrats in a private meeting gave a vote of ‘no-confidence’ to the tax cut deal, as the House already voted to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.

The Investigative Reporting Workshop story finds:

Out of 70 major wind farms that received the $4.4 billion in federal energy grants through the stimulus program, public records show that 11, which received a total of $600 million, had erected their wind towers during the Bush administration. And a total of 19 wind farms, which received $1.3 billion, were built before any of the stimulus money was distributed.

Yet all the jobs at these wind farms are counted in the administration’s figures for jobs created by the stimulus.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the wind industry’s trade group, responded to the story last night, arguing that wind projects were stalling in 2008 and the Obama administration ensured that the industry could continue to operate.

In late 2008, wind project developers were laying off workers and stopping projects in mid-construction. The 1603 tax credit program for renewable energy allowed work to resume on these more-than-shovel-ready projects and saved 40,000 American jobs. Due to the program, 2009 was an all-time record year for new wind construction in the United States, and wind energy remained a bright spot in the American economy despite the recession.

AWEA is also pushing back against a series of Republican television ads arguing that the Obama administration’s renewable energy tax credits have sent American jobs to China. In an Oct. 22 letter to the heads of the Democratic and Republican campaign and congressional committees, AWEA CEO Denise Bode said:

One policy of particular importance is the renewable energy tax credit, the 1603 program, a continuation and modification of a policy started in 1992 that has been supported on a bipartisan basis.  Some advertisements are making clearly false statements about the 1603 program.  Statements that the 1603 program sent jobs to China when all projects receiving tax credits under the program were built in the US is clearly false.  This program is a great example of “insourcing” jobs to the United States by leveraging both foreign and domestic investment.  It is the opposite of outsourcing. Accordingly, we urge you to use your influence to praise one the most successful programs to defend American jobs and prevent the surrender of jobs to other countries like China, and not encourage any candidates to criticize this program in misleading campaign ads.

Here’s the full text of the letter:

October 22, 2010

The Honorable John Cornyn                                                                                        The Honorable Bob Menendez

Chairman                                                                                                                          Chairman

National Republican Senatorial Committee                                                              Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

425 2^nd Street NE                                                                                                            120 Maryland Avenue NE

Washington, DC 20002                                                                                                  Washington, DC 20002

The Honorable Pete Sessions                                                                                       The Honorable Chris Van Hollen

Chairman                                                                                                                          Chairman

National Republican Congressional Committee                                                       Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

320 First Street SE                                                                                                          430 S. Capitol Street SE

Washington, DC 20003                                                                                                  Washington, D.C. 20003

Dear Chairmen Cornyn, Menendez, Sessions and Van Hollen:

A number of politically motivated television advertisements are being aired across the country by candidates and party committees that falsely attack policies that are critical to the successful development of renewable energy and diversification of American’s energy sources and we ask that the party committees, which you lead, correct the record and that you refuse to support false statements about renewable energy policies in political advertisements.

One policy of particular importance is the renewable energy tax credit, the 1603 program, a continuation and modification of a policy started in 1992 that has been supported on a bipartisan basis.  Some advertisements are making clearly false statements about the 1603 program.  Statements that the 1603 program sent jobs to China when all projects receiving tax credits under the program were built in the US is clearly false.  This program is a great example of “insourcing” jobs to the United States by leveraging both foreign and domestic investment.  It is the opposite of outsourcing. Accordingly, we urge you to use your influence to praise one the most successful programs to defend American jobs and prevent the surrender of jobs to other countries like China, and not encourage any candidates to criticize this program in misleading campaign ads.

In general, the 2,500 members of the American Wind Energy Association and the 85,000 Americans employed in the U.S. wind energy industry, have appreciated the recent bi-partisan efforts of Members of the House of Representatives and Senate to promote the diversification of America’s energy sources and the development of renewable energy.

Renewable energy tax credits, the 1603 program, is one of the important polices under attack in these partisan political advertisements. As the representative for the 85,000 people working in the American wind industry, we can say unequivocally that this tax credit has been one of the most effective public policies in existence for saving American jobs instead of surrendering them all to China.

At a time when the recession threatened at least 40,000 American wind construction, manufacturing and operations jobs, the 1603 tax credit program restarted stalled projects and saved all 40,000 wind jobs at risk. This year, a study by Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (LBNL) found that the 1603 tax credit supported enough current projects to save over 50,000 American jobs. The 1603 program actually led to a record-breaking year of 10,000 megawatts (MW) of new wind in 2009, compared to the 4,000 MW feared prior to the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Today, over 150 small and large wind projects have received the 1603 tax credit, and these investments have led to millions in local taxes for towns and cities, as well as lease payments for landowners willing to host wind farm facilities.

During the outset of the recession and prior to the establishment of 1603, project development and financing for wind farms was nearly impossible to obtain and costly. Many wind projects in mid-development could not complete financing. As a result, wind investment came to a sudden halt, with some projects stopping mid-construction; laying off construction workers and leaving wind towers and blades on the ground.

Every job saved under 1603 was an American job and 100% of projects that receive investment tax credits through 1603 are built in the U.S. as required by law . The program also supports America’s growing wind manufacturing and supply chain industries. As a result of 1603 and other policies over 400 American manufacturing facilities now produce wind components. Contrary to recent campaign ads, these manufacturing plants, projects and policies support American workers.

In the interest of all Americans, we ask that each of you use your influence to correct the record, get these misleading campaign advertisements off the air, and defend American jobs.

Sincerely,

Denise Bode

CEO, American Wind Energy Association

Michigan Republican candidate Dan Benishek promotes the "4Rs" in a campaign ad. (Benishek for Congress)

Dan Benishek, a Republican favored to win the congressional seat in Michigan’s First District, has loads of ideas for reducing the federal deficit. “The Department of Energy was created in the 1970s to make us energy independent, and look at us now,” he said. “So what is its purpose, then?” He also sees potential savings in American military bases in Germany. “We’ve had troops in Germany for the last 60 years. Are the Germans contributing to the price of those troops? I don’t know all the answers but I know we need to look at all that.”

[GOP1] Republicans are expected to gain around 50 seats in Congress in next month’s midterm elections, largely running on a platform of deficit reduction. But interviews with a number of Republican candidates who are likely to join the House of Representatives in January reveal that while they have a wealth of creative ideas to cut federal spending, their plans are often lacking in details or far too limited to bring about the level of deficit reduction the candidates are calling for so forcefully on the campaign trail.

“Consolidate Commerce, Agriculture and Interior into one agency with elimination of duplicate services,” suggested Trey Gowdy, a Republican likely to win South Carolina’s Fourth District seat, in an email relayed by his campaign manager.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — we can find 30 billion worth of cuts there,” said Steve Chabot, who is favored to win back his old congressional seat in Ohio’s First District. “We also shouldn’t hire those 16,000 new IRS agents required under the new health care bill.”

“I support increased competition in the educational system by giving tax credits to families that send their children to private or choose to home school,” Marlin Stutzman, who is favored to win in Indiana’s Third District, suggests on his website as a solution to the “federal government’s mind-set of spending its way out of trouble.”

“Operational audits,” added Benishek. “A lot of departments aren’t doing their jobs efficiently, and in private companies, you’d audit their procedures. For instance, Fed Ex — they monitor their procedures all the time. We do audits but we don’t do the same kind as in the private sector.”

But some experts say that the areas in which these candidates are advocating cuts — mainly non-defense discretionary spending in the federal agencies — are precisely the places where cuts are the most difficult to find and the least meaningful in terms of deficit reduction.

The problem with the plans that focus on consolidating federal agencies and making them more efficient, said Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, is they distract from real debates about the role of government. “The idea that we can simply rearrange things and reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies is engaging a lot of wasted energy.”

In addition, most candidates advocate taking spending back to 2007-8 levels, which, though politically expedient because it conjures up the pre-Obama era, don’t represent as significant a reduction in the deficit as candidates are claiming. “They’re trying to say, ‘Let’s go back to pre-stimulus levels,’” said DeHaven. “Unfortunately, that’s going back to the decade when Congress shot spending though the roof. And they’re only talking about non-defense discretionary spending, which is a very small portion of federal spending.”

And the approximately $100 billion in cuts to non-defense discretionary spending that Republicans are proposing represents a “big piece of a rather small pie,” says DeHaven, meaning they’d be especially difficult to find. As a result, many Republican House candidates, while eager to tackle the federal deficit, were reluctant to list specifics about their plans to do so and offered few details when pressed.

“Bill supports reducing overall [non-defense discretionary] spending to 2007/2008 levels and ensuring it remains one percent below inflation until the budget is balanced” was all that a spokesman for Bill Flores, a Republican favored to win the House seat in Texas’ 17th District, was willing to offer via email in response to a query about which aspects of the budget Flores would most like to see cut.

“Just look at the website — all the issues are up there,” said a spokesman for Steve Stivers, who is likely to win in Ohio’s 15th District. “You can easily see what Steve Stivers is all about.” (Stivers’ website pledges to “work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stop this reckless behavior. I will work to pass a line item veto law, cut discretionary spending and stop adding to our national debt.”)

A few GOP hopefuls said that spending on programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — which together now represent approximately 40 percent of the federal budget and are expected to continue growing as the population ages — would have to be scrutinized, but they offered many caveats about their plans for doing so.

“We do need to look at entitlements, realizing of course that there are a lot of people who rely on our current system,” said the campaign manager for Tom Reed, who is favored to win the open House seat in New York’s 29th District. “So a promise made must be a promise kept, but for future generations we need to look at what levels they’ll be at down the road.”

“I’m in favor of personal [savings] accounts,” said Benishek, “but [I want to] guarantee that they don’t lose any money.”

Steve Griffin, who is leading the House race in Arkansas’ Second District, proposes reforming entitlement spending on his campaign website but also opposes privatizing social security or raising the age at which one qualifies for benefits. (He did not respond to repeated requests for more details about his plan.)

Facing serious criticism from Democrats on the issue of privatizing social security, most GOP candidates, however, have steered clear of the issue of entitlements and focused on one-time budget cuts and other popular GOP talking points about repealing Obama-enacted legislation like the stimulus and health care.

“I don’t think it’s realistic to believe that Congress is going to make those cuts to Social Security,” said Chabot of Ohio. “It’s not going to happen, so to act like it’s going to happen is just going to scare seniors, which is what Democrats do in every election.”

The biggest cut that Chabot proposes would be to withhold the remainder of the Obama administration’s stimulus package, which the candidate estimates would represent a one-time savings of approximately $250 billion. In addition, he’d like to repeal the health care reform bill, which many Republicans argue will add to the deficit, despite a Congressional Budget Office estimate that the act will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next ten years.

“I don’t like the savings that they found in there,” Chabot said. “They went after the Medicare Advantage plan that’s been proven to work and be popular among seniors. To cut that is a big mistake, and I don’t buy that they’re going to make these cuts anyway.”

For all their worries about spending and deficits, GOP candidates argue for the extension of the Bush tax cuts, even though Congressional Budget Office estimates predict that a permanent tax extension will force the nation to borrow an additional $3.9 trillion over the next decade. The candidates argue that an extension would stimulate the economy, and that higher incomes would help offset the lost government revenues.

“The problem isn’t that we’re under-taxed,” said Chabot. “The problem is that we overspend. When you reduce taxes, most of that revenue will come back through the resulting growth in the economy. It happened under a Democrat, John F. Kennedy, and a Republican, Ronald Reagan.”