Iowa Fiscal Partnership / Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Policy Points from Iowa Fiscal Partners

Posts tagged Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

IFP News: Food Insecurity Trends Rising in Iowa

Posted September 4th, 2013 to Economic Security, Food Assistance, IFP in the News

As Farm Bill Idles, Food Needs Challenge 13 Percent of Iowa Households

PDF of this release (2 pages)

IOWA CITY, Iowa (Sept. 4, 2013) — While Congress fails to resolve a stalemate on food assistance and the Farm Bill, long-term trends show hunger rising in Iowa.

food insecurity definitionAn annual report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on family food insecurity found a larger share of Iowa households had trouble putting food on the table, on average, in 2010-12 than a decade earlier.

Iowa was one of 39 states where the share of households with food insecurity rose from 2000-02 to the most recent three-year period, 2010-12. In Iowa, the share rose from 9.1 percent to 12.6 percent.

Furthermore, Iowa households in more severe conditions — “very low food security” — also increased from 2000-02 to 2010-12, from 2.8 percent to 4.8 percent.

The same report, however, found that Iowa did not show a statistically higher proportion of families having food insecurity issues, on average, in 2010-12 than in 2007-09.

“While the challenge to put adequate food on the table throughout the year remains less a problem in Iowa than the national average, it has become a greater challenge within our state than it used to be,” said Mike Owen, executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project, part of the Iowa Fiscal Partnership.

“This is a glimpse of the real-life consequences for Iowa families if SNAP opponents get their way in a new Farm Bill. In short, clearly we are still in recovery from the 2007 recession.

“When the number of Iowans in dire situations already is on the rise despite improvements in SNAP through the years, lawmakers need to be aware of the consequences.”

The report found an estimated 14.5 percent of American households were food insecure at least some time during the year in 2012, meaning they lacked access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members.

The national change from 14.9 percent in 2011 is not considered statistically significant, and the prevalence of very low food security was unchanged at 5.7 percent, the report noted. USDA uses one-year Census data for national comparisons to previous years, but for state-level comparisons, the data are presented in three-year averages for greater reliability.

For Iowa and many states, however, the situation was different.

According to the latest report:

—  Food insecurity in Iowa rose from 9.1 percent in 2000-02 to 11.5 percent in 2007-09, and 12.6 percent in 2010-12. The change from 2007-09 to 2010-12 was not considered statistically significant, while the longer-term increase of 3.5 percentage points was considered a statistically significant change.[i]

—  Very low food security in Iowa rose from 2.8 percent in 2000-02 to 5 percent in 2007-09, then dipped to 4.8 percent in 2010-12. The small decline from 2007-09 was not considered statistically significant, while the longer-term increase was considered statistically significant.

—  The 2010-12 Iowa averages are significantly below the U.S. averages (14.7 percent for food insecurity, 5.6 percent for very low food security).

The Iowa Fiscal Partnership is a joint public policy analysis and research initiative of two nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations based in Iowa, the Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City and the Child & Family Policy Center in Des Moines.

[i] Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Mark Nord and Anita Singh, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Household Food Security in the United States in 2012,” Economic Research Report No. 155, September 2013. – .UidxtbwpfTw. Also see Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Statement by Stacy Dean, Vice President, Food Assistance Policy, On the New USDA Report on ‘Food Insecurity.’” September 4, 2013.

lacked access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members.


Nonsense from the Far Right

Posted August 24th, 2012 to Blog

Political consultant Dick Morris slipped into Iowa last week, and the Spin-O-Meter was in overdrive.

Now, rather than repeat Mr. Morris’ misinformation, here is a link to a Des Moines Register story about his appearance at a rally orchestrated by the national right-wing organization Americans for Prosperity.

What Iowans need to know is that (1) Morris is wrong about what is driving the federal budget deficits, and (2) the causes are clear: You can’t cut taxes and fight two wars at the same time without digging a big budget hole.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities graph

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

As shown in the graph at right from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain the vast majority of the deficit through 2019. One thing folks must recognize is that deficits caused by those factors cause more debt down the road, because we have to keep paying interest. Even after the Iraq war ended, we have to keep paying for it.

As we deal with these self-inflicted budget problems, we must maintain the fundamental and long-accepted responsibilities of our nation — to care for the most vulnerable and put them on their feet to get work and succeed in our economy.

Dick Morris has a big megaphone to try to instill something other than a factual presentation about what’s causing our deficits and debt. Fortunately, the discerning Iowan can find the facts by looking for them, and not buying into the conventional spin he delivers in his traveling medicine show.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director

Why the federal budget debate matters in the states

Posted August 9th, 2012 to Blog

There’s doggone near nobody who isn’t concerned about dealing with the nation’s long-term budget challenges of deficit and debt.

What not enough people will recognize, however, is the danger of diving headlong into a deficit-cutting approach that just digs a deeper hole, both for the economy and for the critical services that federal, state and local government spending supports.

Ryan budget impacts

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

And that’s the problem with the so-called “Ryan Budget,” named for Congressman Paul Ryan. That approach, passed by the House, makes cuts to funding for state and local services that are far deeper than the cuts many expect to happen with sequestration, the automatic cut process demanded by last year’s Budget Control Act compromise.

A new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities outlines the challenge for states generally with the Ryan approach:

  • Federal cuts of 34 percent by 2022 to Medicaid compared to current law, and by steadily larger amounts after that.
  • Federal cuts of 22 percent in 2014 and in later years to non-defense “discretionary” spending — which leaves Medicare and Social Security alone but hits local and state services in education, infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and public health and safety including law enforcement.

For Iowa, the non-defense “discretionary” cuts are projected at $237 million in 2014 alone, and $2.1 billion from 2013 through 2021.

Want clean water? If you live in Iowa, where the state routinely shortchanges environmental enforcement, how bad do you think things might get when the federal funds are cut as well? Concerned about the quality of your food? Or your kids’ schools? Maybe the safety of the bridge you’re approaching on the way to work?

Well, folks, you get what you pay for.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director