David Yepsen totally misses the lede in his blog post about Tom Vilsack dropping out. He notes that Vilsack was spending $500,000 a month in overhead and he couldn’t continue to afford running for President after only raising one million dollars in the fourth quarter of 2006. The real story is why Tom Vilsack was spending $500,000 a month that he didn’t have. We had previously pointed out that Vilsack’s “dilemma is how he will raise enough money to remain viable for the next year. After all, it doesn’t matter if you’re rock solid if you’re flat broke.” But when your monthly overhead is higher than your reported cash on head, that’s not good budgeting at any time–especially a year before the caucuses. If Vilsack hadn’t hired so many staffers so quickly, he’d probably still be a candidate today. He took a gamble that the money would be there to pay all of the people he hired. He was wrong. It was a high-risk, high reward approach to running for President. It didn’t work out. And that’s why Tom Vilsack dropped out.
February 23rd, 2007
I don’t know how many of you are on Jim Nussle’s email list, but yesterday’s edition nearly put me into a coma—its noxious photos, mind numbing stories of lemonade stands and lunches, and exceptional ability to kill the interesting somehow combine the worst aspects of a PowerPoint presentation with granny’s grand canyon slide show. In short—it is an unholy alliance between boredom and idiocy.
Of course, it does provide a few opportunities for fun.
“Jim’s Journal,” as it’s called, tells us that Jim is doing what every other self-respecting candidate in the state does this time of year—he’s spending significant time at the internationally-acclaimed Iowa State fair. Of course, Jim has something else in common with too many politicians—wherever he is, he seems to be at the same tricks.
Indeed, true to form, Jim did what he does best. He served up pork.
Heck, Jim’s been doing it for years.
As House Budget Chairman he presided over the evaporation (er, trickledown?) of hundreds of billions of dollars. Where’d it all go? Sure, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans played a huge part, as did Halliburton contracts. But another often overlooked culprit was the astronomical growth in pork barrel spending that picked up speed in the early 90’s and only accelerated under Nussle’s tenure as HBC.
Now, one can’t blame all pork on Nussle—Congress is stuffed with chronic earmarkers like a pig with an apple down its throat—but when Jim first got to the hill in 1991, spending on pet project earmarks totaled 3.1 billion dollars. In 2006, that number was 29.3 billion dollars. In his five years as House Budget Chairman, pork barrel spending went up in every one. In 2001, when he took control of the Committee, earmarks hovered around 7,000. By 2005, that number had nearly doubled.
And earmarks under the reign of king Nussle have been especially egregious. According to the conservative Citizens Against Government Waste, this year’s budget includes:
$13,500,000 for the International Fund for Ireland, which helped finance the World Toilet Summit; $6,435,000 for wood utilization research; $1,000,000 for the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative; and $500,000 for the Sparta Teapot Museum in Sparta, N.C.
Thankfully, Nussle’s reign in the House is over. Here’s to making sure we don’t let him do for Iowa what he did in Congress. Iowans—let’s not be what we eat.
P.S. Do us a favor Jim—keep the “journal” to yourself. Diaries are self-indulgent.
August 12th, 2006
Nussle released his education “plan” yesterday, which includes a call for more available AP credit, skills training, increased teacher pay, and guarantees that tuition won’t increase more than the Higher Education Price Index.
Sounds really fabulous, right?
Problem number 1: Nussle doesn’t know where this money is going to come from, as usual. Here’s what he told the Register:
Nussle said he had not priced the entire package completely, but it would be funded by “shifting stuff around” in the state budget.
Naturally Culver responded by pointing out how much Nussle sucks with money.
Problem number 2: Nussle ”guarantees” to hold tuition to less than or equal to the HEPI. First of all, the HEPI rises faster than inflation. Here’s an explanation of why by ISU President Gregory Geoffroy. Secondly, Iowa tuition is already indexed to the HEPI, and it’s not stopping exhorbitant tuition increases. Here’s a NYPIRG factsheet showing that indexing has not held down tuition.
In fact, just today the Regents increased fees at public Iowa universities by $200 because the legislature didn’t appropriate enough back in April.
So without knowing where the money will come from, or really having a new solution, I’m not sure I would take Nussle’s “guarantee.”
(It’s also skeezy to hold your education plan press conference at the high school at which your opponent taught.)
June 21st, 2006
Nussle is often mentioned in the context of large sums of money, but this time we’re not talking about the unprecedented national deficit. The Cedar Rapids Gazette reported today that Nussle has made the first TV ad buy of the 2006 gubernatorial election:
The 30-second ads tout his agenda and his role as chairman of the House Budget Committee. The commercials, scheduled to begin airing this weekend, will try to show Nussle as “a leader in the fight to control spending and clean up the House Ethics scandal.”
Campaign aides said the commercials will run on both cable and broadcast stations statewide. The cost of the ads is $500,000.
Well, that’s an interesting angle for these ads to play. Maybe Nussle’s staff is making these claims about Nussle’s supposed success in controlling spending (something he has actually failed miserably at) on TV at a time when they know that (1) Democrats are too focused on each other to put many resources towards fighting this and (2) the Democratic candidates just can’t afford this widespread a TV buy this early in the year. We need to make sure this story doesn’t go away, so here are the facts:
Before Nussle (according to the CBO in 2000): $236 Billion Surplus
After Nussle (according to the CBO in 2004): $412 Billion Deficit
It’s that simple. Nussle sucked at managing the budget.
April 21st, 2006
