SHARE:
Policy Points from Iowa Fiscal Partners

Posts tagged budget

Ongoing mistake in ‘one-time’ rhetoric

Posted July 8th, 2015 to Blog

The Governor appears to be missing his own point.

Vetoing one-time funding for one-time uses — as Governor Branstad did last week — goes against what the Governor himself has been saying. And Iowa students will suffer for it.

Set aside for a moment that it can be quite sensible to use one-time funds for ongoing expenses. It depends on the circumstances. Set aside the fact that Iowa revenues and projections are strong and that state money seems to be available on an ongoing basis for corporate subsidies if not for restoring repeated shortfalls in education funding.

In the case at hand, the Governor vetoed one-time funds — for public schools, community colleges and the three regents universities — that ironically would have been spent in line with his own stated concern. The $55.7 million in one-time funds for local schools and area education agencies would have supplemented regular funding, set at 1.25 percent growth per pupil, all part of a package negotiated by the split-control Legislature.

Here’s the oft-stated concern about one-time funds, in a nutshell: You don’t spend one-time money on things that commit you to the same or greater spending in the future, because you don’t know whether the funds will be there later on.

The compromise on school funding negotiated and passed by legislators (part of HF666) reflected that concern:

  • For K-12 schools, the legislation specifies that funds “are intended to supplement, not supplant, existing school district funding for instructional expenditures.” It goes on to define “instructional expenditures” in such a way that assures the funds are for one-time uses that carry no additional commitment beyond the FY2016 budget year.

So, you can add to one-time expenses that you would have had to leave out, for purposes such as textbooks, library books, other instructional materials, transportation costs or educational initiatives to increase academic achievement. You can’t plan on having the same funds available in the following budget year.

  • For community colleges and the regents, each section of the bill included this stipulation: “Moneys appropriated in this section shall be used for purposes of nonrecurring expenses and not for operational purposes or ongoing expenses. For purposes of this section, ‘operational purposes’ means salary, support, administrative expenses, or other personnel-related costs.”

In his veto message, the Governor stated, “Funding ongoing expenses with one-time money is unsustainable.” In neither case did the Legislature propose doing so.

The larger problem with one-time funding is that such a cautious approach was unnecessary, because funds are available for more ongoing spending on education than what either the Governor or the House leadership permitted. The latest estimates are for 6 percent revenue growth in the coming year.

With or without the one-time funds that would have helped school districts, the legislative compromise ensures the continued erosion of the basic building block for school budgets, the per-pupil cost.

150602-AG-history
Supplemental State Aid (formerly termed “allowable growth) defines the percentage growth in the cost per pupil used to determine local school district budgets, which are based on enrollment. For FY2016, the Legislature and Governor have set the growth figure at 1.25 percent. Though state law requires this figure to be set about 16 months before the start of the fiscal year, the issue was not resolved until last week, when the Governor signed the legislation, and the fiscal year had already begun. The Senate passed 4 percent growth for FY2017 and the House 2 percent, but no compromise emerged and that remains unsettled. The education funding vetoed last week by the Governor affects separate one-time spending that would not have affected future budgets.

For the last six budget years, per-pupil budget growth has been above 2 percent only once. Once it was zero, and schools for the coming year are at 1.25 percent. This does not come close to meeting the costs of education at the same level year after year.

Ultimately, that is the test of what is, or is not, sustainable.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project

 

See the Iowa Fiscal Partnership statement from July 2

Policy choices are about quality, not quantity

Posted May 28th, 2014 to Blog

The headline on my doorstep today says, “Legislature continues trend of passing fewer bills.” That lead story in the Cedar Rapids Gazette notes that for the fourth straight year, a divided Iowa Legislature has passed fewer than 150 pieces of legislation.

Ah, numbers. Can’t live with ’em. Can’t live without ’em. But in this case, they don’t make a lot of difference.

What matters are the words and the policies embodied in those 150 or fewer bills. It’s about quality, not quantity.

What have those bills included in recent years? Here are some key points:

  • A commercial property tax overhaul that is tainted by big benefits to huge out-of-state retailers that need no help and pay too little in Iowa tax as it is.
  • An expanded Earned Income Tax Credit that improves tax fairness for low- and moderate-income working families across Iowa.
  • Funding to assure a tuition freeze remains for a second year in regents institutions.
  • A small boost in child care assistance for working students, making them eligible for the benefit so they can get skills for better paying jobs to sustain their families.

What have those bills not included in recent years? Here are some noteworthy omissions:

  • No overhaul of the personal income-tax system to better balance tax responsibilities for all taxpayers regardless of income, or to assure revenues are kept adequate to meet costs of critical services.
  • No greater accountability on spending that is done through the corporate tax code, outside the budget process.
  • No increase in the minimum wage, stagnant at $7.25 for over six years now.
  • No broad expansion of child care access for struggling families who don’t make enough to cover costs, but make too much to receive assistance.
  • No move to battle wage theft, which we have estimated to be a $600 million annual problem in Iowa’s economy — not including the $60 million lost in uncollected taxes and unemployment insurance.
  • No long-term answers for funding of education at all levels, violating the promise of law for K-12 schools, and leaving a legacy of debt for many college students and their families.

Those are not exhaustive lists, but a statement of priorities established by agreement, stalemate or inertia. We covered some of these points in our end of session statement. Some will like the overall product of recent years, some will not. Few will ask how many bills were passed.

At least one theme weaved by this record cannot be disputed: Iowa is on record that we will not ask the wealthy and well-connected to do more. We pretend more often than not that we can meet our obligations to the citizens of Iowa without investing in the public services they require, that if we just keep cutting taxes all will be well. Every now and then we’ll say something about opportunity for all and mean it, but we’re not ready to make that a long-term commitment.

Sometimes, not passing something says as much about legislative priorities as passing it.

Owen-2013-57   Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director


Steps forward in ’14 — more ahead?

IFP News: Statement on 2014 Legislative Session

Iowa families took a couple of important steps forward in the 2014 legislative session, but those steps paled in comparison to lawmakers’ refusal to address long-term funding challenges for critical services.

PDF (2 pages)

IOWA CITY, Iowa (May 7, 2014) — The Iowa Fiscal Partnership released the following statement today about the 2014 session of the Iowa Legislature:

Iowa families took a couple of important steps forward during the just-completed legislative session, while more — and more significant — advancements will have to wait as the General Assembly and Governor continue to focus excessive attention on giveaways to business.

Steps forward paled in comparison to lawmakers’ refusal to address long-term funding challenges for critical services including K-12 and early childhood education, and Child Care Assistance, among others.

And, inexplicably, lawmakers left Iowa’s minimum wage at a paltry $7.25 — stagnant now for over six years. Failure to improve the livelihoods of Iowa’s low-wage workers puts greater demands on families because public supports are not sufficiently funded. Eligibility for Child Care Assistance in particular has been held too low to help many low-income working families — one of the lowest eligibility ceilings in the country — and lawmakers passed up an opportunity to improve that.

One bright note from the session was that lawmakers approved increased eligibility for child care assistance to working parents who also go to school part time. They also passed a small improvement in the child and dependent care credit. Iowa Fiscal Partnership research has shown child care is expensive for low-income families, and is a major barrier for parents seeking to improve their education.

Another bright spot is that the state will provide 4 percent increases to Iowa, Iowa State and Northern Iowa to meet a commitment by the Board of Regents to freeze tuition for a second straight year. Likewise, community colleges received a 4.1 percent funding boost to restrain tuition. It is important to note, however, that many more years of increased funding will be needed to reverse the long-term trends that have turned tuition into the majority source of support for the Regents institutions and the community colleges. This causes rising debt for families, reduces access to higher education and lessens Iowa’s commitment to opportunity for all.

On the other end of the education spectrum — 4-year-old preschool — only the Senate passed legislation to help eliminate waiting lists and expand access to more families, so it will be at least next year before that can be considered.

Funding is critical to improvements in many areas. For the environment, the Resource Enhancement and Protection Act (REAP) has been around for a quarter century but only once funded at its authorized $20 million. If the Governor signs improvements passed by the Legislature, conservation and environmental advocates will see it at $25 million.

No noteworthy gains were made or seriously attempted to reform corporate tax credits and other tax breaks that have become a significant and chronic drain on Iowa’s treasury with little apparent return.

While poorly targeted “incentives” to business remain a serious problem for Iowa, one limited credit for solar power improvements was expanded and should be able to stand the kind of return-on-investment review that needs to be applied to all business tax credits.

It remains a contradiction that lawmakers can give away tens of millions of dollars to profitable businesses that pay no state income tax — without a vote and without concern about the impact on the budget — yet leave town claiming they cannot set school aid as required by law because they don’t know how much money will be coming in. If education is a priority, the money can be found from the pool now being given away before it hits the treasury.

The Iowa Fiscal Partnership is a joint public policy analysis initiative of two nonpartisan, nonprofit Iowa organizations, IPP in Iowa City and the Child & Family Policy Center in Des Moines. Reports are available at www.iowafiscal.org.

ALEC’s ‘Tax Myths Debunked’ Misses the Mark

Posted February 11th, 2013 to Budget, Corporate Taxes, Taxes

3-page PDF of this report

By Peter Fisher

The American Legislative Exchange Council has for several years attempted to provide factual underpinnings for its right-wing policy agenda through an annual publication called Rich States, Poor States. This report and similar ALEC documents have come under increasing attack in recent years for their shoddy research methods and misleading conclusions. ALEC has now struck back at its critics in a report by Eric Fruits and Randall Pozdena called Tax Myths Debunked.[i] A portion of that document is devoted to research released last November by Good Jobs First and the Iowa Policy Project in the report Selling Snake Oil to the States: The American Legislative Exchange Council’s Flawed Prescriptions for Prosperity.[ii] Some of the key findings in that report were released in the summer of 2012 in a short piece called The Doctor is Out to Lunch.[iii] It is the latter piece that is referenced in Tax Myths Debunked rather than the full research report; we refer herein, however, to the full document and use its shorthand title, Selling Snake Oil. The full report was known to ALEC well before Tax Myths was released.[iv]

The first criticism leveled in Tax Myths is directed at an analysis in Selling Snake Oil of the factors leading to economic growth and rising incomes among the states between 2007 and 2012. In that analysis we argued that state economic structure — the composition of a state’s economy — is likely to play an important role in the short run in determining how well the economy fares; states more heavily invested in 2007 in sectors poised to grow in the succeeding five years would be expected to do better than states with a concentration of jobs in sectors that would be hit hard by the recession. Thus it was important to control for economic structure in a statistical analysis that attempts to identify whether the policy prescriptions of ALEC performed as advertised, leading to growth and prosperity. ALEC, in Tax Myths, appears to have completely misunderstood what was done in our analysis; their criticism seems to be based on the assumption that our model was predicting changes in the share of employment by sector. Instead we were simply using 2007 economic structure — measured by employment shares — to predict rates of growth in overall state GDP, employment, and personal income. Their criticisms make no sense and are completely off base; 2012 state GDP cannot be a cause of 2007 economic structure, which is the circularity they argue undermines our analysis.

Second, they argue that economists have found a strong relationship between tax policy and economic health, and cite two pieces of research in support. In Selling Snake Oil, we devote several paragraphs to a discussion of the many reviews of dozens of research articles over the past 30 years that have led to the conclusion that business taxes have, at best, a small effect on business location decisions. In our piece, we looked at the consensus among a large number of economists who have examined this question; in Tax Myths, they found two that supported their position and ignored the rest.

The third criticism is directed at several scatter plots and associated correlations that were presented in Selling Snake Oil.  In those charts we were illustrating how states that were ranked high or low by ALEC in the first edition of Rich States, Poor States in 2007 actually performed in the time since then. Did the states that ALEC ranked high on their Economic Outlook Ranking (EOR) actually perform better than others? Since all ALEC provided was the state rankings (not an index number showing their relative strength or weakness), we correlated those rankings with the measures of performance that ALEC emphasizes: growth in GDP, employment, and income. ALEC argues a technical point here: The formula used to calculate the correlation between two continuous variables (the Pearson coefficient) is different from the formula used to calculate the correlation between two rankings (the Spearman coefficient). We had one ranked variable (the EOR), and one continuous variable, and used the Pearson coefficient.

130211-table1To respond to this criticism, we converted all of the performance variables to ranks first, and then calculated the Spearman coefficient. The conclusions were the same (Table 1). Where there was no statistically significant relation using the Pearson formula (as was the case when we looked at the EOR as a predictor of growth in GDP or jobs), there was also no significant relation using the Spearman. Where there was a statistically significant and negative relation (high ranked states have lower per capita and median family incomes) using the Pearson measure, the same result occurred with the Spearman. In only one instance did results change: Our original analysis showed a negative but not statistically significant relation between EOR and the growth in state revenues. The analysis substituting the state rank in revenue growth and using the Spearman coefficient found a negative effect as well, but this time the effect was stronger and statistically significant.

Finally, Tax Myths presents an alternative to the analyses in Selling Snake Oil, correlating the state EOR each year with the June value of the “state coincident indices” published monthly by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia for each state. The coincident indices are based on four measures of the health of the state economy: non-farm employment, average hours worked in manufacturing, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements. ALEC found a strong correlation between a state’s EOR and the value of the coincident index.

The state coincident indices are designed for tracking the course of a state’s economy over time — whether it is sliding into recession or on a path to recovery — and are pegged to a value of 100 for every state as of 1992. They are used to compare states, but only in terms of the changes in the index over time. So the value of the index as of 2008 is a measure of that state’s growth rate from 1992 to 2008, since every state started at 100. However, a high value for state X in 2008 does not mean that state X has a healthier economy in some sense than state Y with a lower value in 2008, because state Y could have started out with a much higher level of prosperity in 1992 and still have higher incomes and wages than state X in 2008, despite growing more slowly. Furthermore, the correlations performed by Fruits and Pozdena are taken as evidence that ALEC policies, as represented by EOR, cause economic health, but they have done it backwards, in effect trying to demonstrate that conformance to ALEC policies in 2008 caused states to grow more rapidly from 1992 to 2008! So why didn’t they look at the policies in place as of 2008 and see if they predicted economic growth from 2008 to 2012? The answer is, because the correlations between the EOR in 2008 and changes in the state coincident index subsequent to that are near zero. This is not the result they were looking for.

In Selling Snake Oil, we argued that a more sophisticated approach to identifying the effects of a state’s EOR would entail a statistical analysis that controlled for economic structure, as described earlier.  In fact, a Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank economist in an article about the state coincident index explains how state economic structure is an important determinant of the path of the state economy, as measured by changes in that index over time.[v] We decided to see how the coincident index measure of economic performance fared in our regression model. So we used our 2007 economic structure variables, along with either the EOR or several key measures that are components of the EOR, to predict the rate of improvement in a state’s coincident index from 2007 to 2012. The results were much the same as our previous analysis, using growth in GDP, employment, or income as the performance measures. In other words, when state economic structure is controlled for, none of the ALEC policy variables, including the EOR, had a statistically significant effect on the rate of improvement in the state’s economy over this period.

In sum, nothing in Tax Myths actually undercuts any of the analyses or conclusions in Selling Snake Oil. In fact the authors’ misinterpretation of our use of economic structure variables and misuse of the state coincident indices serves only to further confirm the shoddiness of the research sponsored by ALEC.




[i] Eric Fruits and Randall J. Pozdena, “Tax Myths Debunked.” American Legislative Exchange Council, 2013. http://www.alec.org/publications/tax-myths-debunked/

[ii] Peter Fisher with Greg LeRoy and Philip Mattera, “Selling Snake Oil to the States: The American Legislative Exchange Council’s Flawed Prescriptions for Prosperity.” Good Jobs First and the Iowa Policy Project, November 2012. http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2012docs/121128-snakeoiltothestates.pdf

[iii] Peter Fisher, “The Doctor is Out to Lunch: ALEC’s Recommendations Wrong Prescription for State Prosperity.” Iowa Policy Project, July 24, 2012. http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2012Research/120724-rsps.html

[iv] The author of the ALEC report evaluated by the “Selling Snake Oil” report was quoted in a news story the day of its release, November 28, 2012, by Mike Wiser of the Quad-City Times, Davenport, Iowa. http://qctimes.com/news/local/report-iowa-tax-policy-might-hurt-state-economy/article_6f578494-39d5-11e2-9519-0019bb2963f4.html

[v] Theodore Crone, “What a New Set of Indexes Tells Us About State and National Business Cycles.” Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Business Review Q1 2006. http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/publications/business-review/2006/q1/Q1_06_NewIndexes.pdf

 

Peter Fisher is Research Director of the Iowa Policy Project (IPP), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that engages the public in an informed discussion of policy alternatives by providing fact-based analysis of public policy issues.

Fisher holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is professor emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. He is a national expert on public finance and has served as a consultant to the Iowa Department of Economic Development, the State of Ohio, and the Iowa Business Council. His reports are regularly published in State Tax Notes and refereed journals. His book Grading Places: What Do the Business Climate Rankings Really Tell Us? was published by the Economic Policy Institute in 2005.

 

Sound budgeting doesn’t include blanket tax credit

Posted January 28th, 2013 to Blog
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

This session of the Iowa Legislature offers a tremendous opportunity to move the state forward with a balanced approach — including responsible, fair tax reform and investments in critical needs that have gone unmet, in education at all levels, in environmental quality and public safety.

The proposal for a blanket $750 tax credit to couples, regardless of need and blind to the opportunity cost of even more lost investments, does not fit that approach. To compound a penchant to spend money on tax breaks is fiscally irresponsible to the needs of Iowa taxpayers, who will benefit from better services, and to the promise that we would return to proper investments when the economy turned up, as it has. Furthermore, to give away Iowa’s surplus when uncertainty remains about the impact of federal budget decisions on our state’s tax system and services is tremendously short-sighted.

As the Iowa Fiscal Partnership has established, cutbacks in higher education funding have caused costs and debt to rise for students and their families, not only at the Regents institutions but community colleges as well. While Iowa voters, through a statewide referendum, have expressly called for new revenues to go toward better environmental stewardship, lawmakers have not taken action. The surplus we now see should be used responsibly for the future of Iowans, who patiently endured budget austerity for the day when we could once again see support for critical services. This is no time to be forgetting our responsibilities.

Iowa can do better by returning to the basics of good budgeting, crafting budget and tax choices that keep a long-term focus on the needs of young and future generations, whose lives will be shaped by the foundations we leave them.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director


Remaking ‘Blazing Saddles’

Posted December 13th, 2012 to Blog
Peter Fisher

Peter Fisher

Some of the arguments against raising tax rates on the richest 2 percent of Americans back to the level that prevailed during the boom years of the 1990s bring to mind Mel Brooks’ classic, Blazing Saddles. In the film, new Sheriff Bart is surrounded by an angry mob. He draws his gun, points it at his own head and warns he’ll shoot if someone makes a move. The mob freezes and Bart escapes to safety.

In the current remake of the film, Bart is being played by the wealthy businessmen claiming they will have to lay off workers if we raise the tax rate on their profits by 3.6 percentage points.

We can reasonably assume those workers are currently productive, earning enough for the owner to cover their wages and add something to the bottom line. If not, they would have been laid off long ago. So these owners would have us believe that an increase in the tax on profits would lead them to lay off these productive workers. That, in turn, would mean the business is producing less, earning less profit before taxes.

So the owners are actually saying, “If you raise my taxes, I will show you a thing or two — I’ll deliberately sabotage my business so you have less profit to tax.”

A business owner whose objective is to maximize after-tax profits will always be better off producing more, with more workers, and earning more before-tax profit, no matter what percent of those profits end up going to pay income taxes. On the other hand, making a political point may be so important to these owners that they are willing to shoot themselves in the foot, if not the head, to do it. If they are rich enough to afford that symbolic gesture, I guess we can’t stop them.

Fortunately, in the remake of Blazing Saddles, it appears that the angry mob is ready to call their bluff. They recognize that the “job-killing tax increase” is no such thing. It is simply an effort to reclaim for the average American a share of the increased wealth generated by workers in this economy in recent years that has been captured almost entirely by the richest among us.

Posted by Peter Fisher, Research Director


Remaking ‘Blazing Saddles’

Posted December 13th, 2012 to Blog
Peter Fisher

Peter Fisher

Some of the arguments against raising tax rates on the richest 2 percent of Americans back to the level that prevailed during the boom years of the 1990s bring to mind Mel Brooks’ classic, Blazing Saddles. In the film, new Sheriff Bart is surrounded by an angry mob. He draws his gun, points it at his own head and warns he’ll shoot if someone makes a move. The mob freezes and Bart escapes to safety.

In the current remake of the film, Bart is being played by the wealthy businessmen claiming they will have to lay off workers if we raise the tax rate on their profits by 3.6 percentage points.

We can reasonably assume those workers are currently productive, earning enough for the owner to cover their wages and add something to the bottom line. If not, they would have been laid off long ago. So these owners would have us believe that an increase in the tax on profits would lead them to lay off these productive workers. That, in turn, would mean the business is producing less, earning less profit before taxes.

So the owners are actually saying, “If you raise my taxes, I will show you a thing or two — I’ll deliberately sabotage my business so you have less profit to tax.”

A business owner whose objective is to maximize after-tax profits will always be better off producing more, with more workers, and earning more before-tax profit, no matter what percent of those profits end up going to pay income taxes. On the other hand, making a political point may be so important to these owners that they are willing to shoot themselves in the foot, if not the head, to do it. If they are rich enough to afford that symbolic gesture, I guess we can’t stop them.

Fortunately, in the remake of Blazing Saddles, it appears that the angry mob is ready to call their bluff. They recognize that the “job-killing tax increase” is no such thing. It is simply an effort to reclaim for the average American a share of the increased wealth generated by workers in this economy in recent years that has been captured almost entirely by the richest among us.

Posted by Peter Fisher, Research Director


Talk is cheap

Posted November 20th, 2012 to Blog
David Osterberg

David Osterberg

There are three principal problems with the Governor’s proposed Nutrient Reduction Strategy, and they can be summed up in three words: Talk is cheap.

Solutions to this problem start with enforcement, and that takes money. The state of Iowa shortchanges water quality, underfunding it even compared to what we did a decade ago. Our March 2012 report, Drops in the Bucket: The Erosion of Iowa Water Quality Funding, found that this water-quality funding decline came despite greater needs for water protection and public willingness to fund it.

Second, inadequate enforcement of environmental rules for Iowa’s livestock industry has resulted in the state’s censure by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and this threatens our ability to write permits and otherwise enforce our obligations under the Clean Water Act. The strategy bases enforcement on voluntary acceptance of state rules. This has not worked.

Finally, it says much about Iowa’s commitment to water quality — or lack of commitment — when the state proposes a major nutrient reduction strategy and offers no new money to get the job done. The strategy proposes nothing to make sure Iowa does better in assuring clean water for its residents, for states downstream, and the future.

In short, we need a strategy that recognizes the serious water quality problem we have and offers a realistic approach to addressing it. This must be more than a goal — but a guarantee to all Iowans.

Posted by David Osterberg, Executive Director


Does Iowa have the will to govern itself?

Posted November 13th, 2012 to Blog

Does Iowa have the will to govern itself?

How ironic that we have reason to ask that question, a week after a presidential election that capped three-plus years of courting of Iowa voters, and a few days before a potential 2016 candidate visits to start all of it brewing again.

Yet the question is unavoidable. Consider two pieces in today’s Des Moines Register.

First, the Register reports, the federal Environmental Protection Agency may take over water quality enforcement in Iowa due to weak efforts by Iowa’s state Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

As IPP’s David Osterberg recently told EPA officials to hold DNR more accountable because the state is underfunding water protection.

“EPA should help the agency in bargaining with a legislature that has shown itself to be less concerned with water quality protection than tax cuts. … There is no question that if EPA simply accepts the agency’s agreement to try to do better, water quality will not improve in this state.”

If the EPA admonishment of Iowa’s lax environmental enforcement were not enough, we also are waiting for the state to offer its long-overdue decision on how to proceed on health reform. The 2012 election affirms the Affordable Care Act will not be repealed, so the state’s dragging its heels on creating a health insurance exchange no longer makes sense — if it ever did.

Yet, we now have a real question of whether it’s a good idea for the state to move ahead on its own with an exchange, where Iowans can shop for affordable insurance and not be denied coverage, or having the federal government do it for us. As the Register opined in an editorial today, “It is too important for this state to mess up.” Citing problems implementing temporary high-risk pools, and political dealings in previous legislative attempts to create an exchange, the Register noted:

“Iowans need the coming insurance marketplace to work for them in years to come. But state leaders have shown they are not the ones to design it.”

Can we govern ourselves? Apparently national candidates will come calling in Iowa without worrying about that. So maybe we should answer if for ourselves.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director


Small businesses understand competitive realities, role of government

Posted October 25th, 2012 to Blog
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

Political talk pandering to small businesses is commonplace, and often involves inaccurate assumptions about positions on taxes and the role of government. Thus, they are not only frequent, but frequently wrong.

A survey released today by the Small Business Majority (SBM) www.smallbusinessmajority.org — a nonpartisan small-business advocacy group — found wide acknowledgement of the need for more equitable, sustainable fiscal choices in Washington. As noted by SBM:

Contrary to popular belief, nationwide scientific opinion polling conducted earlier this month found that the majority of small business owners—more of whom identify as Republican than Democrat (47%-35%)—believe that raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% is the right thing to do in light of our budget crisis. What’s more, 40% strongly believe this.

The polling also found the majority of entrepreneurs see a productive role for government in helping small businesses achieve success. Nearly 6 in 10 agree government can play an effective role in helping small businesses thrive.

These are interesting results but they should not be terribly surprising.

Folks in small business know:

  • Budgets have two sides — spending and revenue.
  • Small businesses benefit when employees and consumers are educated, safe, healthy and financially secure.
  • Small businesses can compete when the playing field is level for all businesses; it’s hard to compete with bigger competitors who are getting special breaks from the referee — government.

And there are lessons in this for state policy makers as well.

Tax breaks geared to multistate corporate giants that can shift profits to other nations or states do not benefit small businesses, or all businesses equitably, and do not always help the economy. It is clear that people running small businesses understand this.

Iowa can make the playing field better, and restore squandered revenue, by plugging tax loopholes that are costing the state $60 million to $100 million a year. Several states already do this, including four of the six states that border Iowa: Illinois (home of Deere & Co.), Wisconsin, Minnesota and Nebraska. But Iowa lawmakers have refused to defy the big corporate lobbyists that have stood in the way of this important reform, known as “combined reporting.”

You can learn more about that and other inequitable, unaccountable tax breaks in Iowa at the Iowa Fiscal Partnership website, www.iowafiscal.org.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director