Iowa Fiscal Partnership / Governor Terry Branstad
SHARE:
Policy Points from Iowa Fiscal Partners

Posts tagged Governor Terry Branstad

Building blocks of inequity

Posted February 10th, 2016 to Blog

Iowa’s school funding process is broken.

Consider:

  • The Legislature repeatedly violates the law by failing to set state aid in time for districts to adequately plan their budgets.
  • The levels of funding lawmakers set — averaging less than 2 percent growth over the last six years — are routinely below the growth in costs that schools face.

As if those two things are not bad enough, inequities grandfathered into the school funding formula have not been corrected. While the four-decades-old formula was designed to reduce inequities between districts of higher and lower property values by augmenting property tax revenues with state aid, a gap persists.

Long and short: There is a $175 range in the “cost per pupil” that school districts must use as the building block of their annual budgets. While the minimum cost for this year is set at $6,446 per student, six districts are as high as $6,621.

The inequities have been known for some time. When combined with chronic underfunding, these inequities are magnified. In one case, Davenport school officials are defying state limits on use of their own resources to make sure their students have the same opportunity as students in other districts.

For example, as school budgets are based on enrollment, a district with 1,000 students and operating at the minimum — the state cost per pupil — is losing out on $175,000 per year in comparison with a district at the maximum. In a district the size of Davenport, that’s about $2.8 million a year.

What many Iowans might not realize is that their own school district may be in a similar situation to that of Davenport.

Few districts (only six) are at the maximum per pupil cost; most districts (84 percent) are $100 or more below the maximum per pupil cost. Nearly half of all districts (164 of 336) are at the minimum.*

Basic RGB

The more you look at this, you can see it is not a Davenport issue, but an Iowa issue, and a failure of public policy.

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

 

*Iowa Department of Management, www.dom.state.ia.us/local/schools/files/FY16/DistrictCostPerPupilAmountsAllFY2016.xls

State aid up 13 percent — for business breaks

Posted January 28th, 2016 to Blog

What do you expect would be the outcry if Iowa’s public schools asked for 13 percent growth in state aid?

Yet few bat an eye when this happens with business tax breaks, as we can expect for FY2017.*

The early scorecard gives business tax breaks the big edge, a 13 percent increase, vs. between 2 and 4 percent for schools.

The Senate approved 4 percent for FY2017 (covering next school year), but the Iowa House on Monday approved 2 percent — even though schools have averaged less than 2 percent for six years, from FY2011-16.

In fact, the Iowa Association of School Boards this year did not even ask for a specific growth number, but rather, that it be set in a timely manner (it’s almost a year late already), and “at a rate that adequately supports local districts’ efforts to plan, create and sustain world-class schools.”

That hasn’t happened for some time. Over the last six budgets, per-pupil growth has been held to 2 percent or below in all but one year. Depending on enrollment trends, some districts even see less.

Basic RGB

Business tax breaks do not face the same budget constraints — ironic, since the cost of those breaks limits what lawmakers permit themselves to spend on services that their constituents demand, not the least of which is education. Other areas — environmental quality, child care, health care and public safety — also are constrained.

A much greater percentage increase in business tax breaks is set in place, as shown below. The total increase of $71 million from this budget year to the one lawmakers are working on now actually may be understated. The $35 million for a new sales-tax exemption for manufacturers is considered a conservative estimate. Even at $71 million overall, however, it represents a 13 percent increase.

160108-IFP-Budget-Fig2FB

Spending on business tax breaks is rarely burdened by the public scrutiny and debate that comes with spending on schools and water programs, which must be approved annually.

Most business tax breaks, once passed, are never touched again unless they are expanded. And as shown by the sales-tax break for manufacturers scheduled to begin this summer, a break may never receive legislative approval but still become law. The Governor is implementing this one on his own, with a split legislature unable to stop him.

Budget choices? Instead of that $35 million in FY2017 for the new sales-tax break, the Legislature could provide about 1 percent growth in per-pupil school funding. We can expect to find another 1 percent in what we’ll spend in checks to companies that do not pay any state income tax, but have more research tax credits than they owe in taxes.

Perhaps one day we will treat all spending the same, whether the spending comes before or after revenues reach the state treasury. Then the wealthy corporations can compete directly for their tax breaks against education for the skilled people they want to work for them.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project
Mike Owen is a member of the school board in the West Branch Community School District, first elected in 2006.
* For more about Iowa tax breaks for business, see Peter Fisher’s report for the Iowa Fiscal Partnership, “Here a tax break, there a tax break, everywhere a tax break.” http://www.iowafiscal.org/here-a-tax-break-there-a-tax-break-everywhere-a-tax-break/

Reading, ’Rithmetic & Politics

Posted January 18th, 2016 to Blog

First, Governor Branstad challenged the bounds of basic math — miscounting jobs — and now it’s language arts.

The Governor reportedly got a little testy last week at a Des Moines Register editorial board meeting. Among his complaints: references to a “diversion” of revenue from a state sales tax for school infrastructure to support water-quality improvements. From the Register:

Branstad, in particular, took issue with the idea that his proposal diverts money away from schools.

“I can’t see how you can possibly call it a diversion when schools are going to get at least $10 million more guaranteed every year, plus a 20-year extension,” he said. “They’re sharing a small portion of the growth.”

Well, here’s how you call it a diversion:

diversion
[dih-vur-zhuh n, -shuh n, dahy-]
noun
1. the act of diverting or turning aside, as from a course or purpose: a diversion of industry into the war effort.
dictionary.com

Under the Governor’s plan, there is a “diverting or turning aside” a share of sales-tax revenues from their currently authorized “course or purpose,” school infrastructure, from FY2017 beginning July 1 this year, to FY2029. This is illustrated by Governor’s own handout on the plan. See the one-page document his office provided the media on Jan. 5.  The graph at the bottom of that page (reproduced below), shows the diversion shaded in blue, beginning with the black vertical line and running to the red dotted line.

160105-water-school-graph
Of course it’s a diversion. In fact, the diversion continues if the tax — which would not exist before or after FY2029 without voters’ intent for its use in funding school infrastructure — is extended to FY2049.

May future debate focus on whether the Governor’s proposed diversion is a good idea, not the fact that he has proposed it.

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

 

 


Privatizing Medicaid: ‘Why?’ ‘What?’ ‘How?’ not yet answered

Posted November 3rd, 2015 to Blog

060426-capitol-swwWhy do we have Medicaid? It’s a simple question with a simple answer. We have Medicaid because if we don’t, there are millions of Americans, and nearly 600,000 Iowans, who will not be able to get health care. Private industry will not provide it.

Why, we must ask, would we turn over to private industry a critical part of our public safety net to business interests that operate with a principal purpose of making money?

How do we assure that services are provided, that our responsibilities are met, if the people running the operation are not answerable to us?

As the legislative Health Policy Oversight Committee meets today about the Governor’s privatization edict on Medicaid, we need to remind ourselves of these basic questions.

When the Governor cannot detail the purported savings and our common sense tells us otherwise, we need an assurance that data will be available — and publicly available — to monitor what is happening with a service that has been accountable and efficient in expanding health-care access to Iowans who need it. We need to know Iowa is not setting itself to repeat problems that have been demonstrated in other states.

What will pass for public oversight after we’ve turned over the keys to private industry?

Over three dozen people and organizations filed comments (available here) with the oversight committee for today’s meeting at the Statehouse. Many have a firsthand understanding of the purpose and practice of Medicaid as we know it, and serious questions of their own about the uncertain world where the Governor is taking us, on his own.

Clearly, many fundamental questions have not been fully vetted through the legislative process, nor given a hearing before the decision was made within the Governor’s Office.

How we assure health care access to low-income Iowans needs to be the central issue here, not an afterthought.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director, Iowa Policy Project
mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Big ‘Oops’ for tax-cutters in school vetoes

Posted July 15th, 2015 to Blog

Governor Branstad’s vetoes of “one-time” funding pose “ongoing” and “recurring” problems for a major and ill-advised proposal by his allies to restructure personal income taxes in Iowa.

And they should.

During the last session, while lawmakers and the Governor were telling schools the state could not afford more than a 1.25 percent increase in per-pupil school aid, a group in the House was pushing a plan to let individuals choose a “flat” income tax rate option. In other words, figure your taxes under the current rate structure, then compare it to the flat rate, and choose which one costs you less.

It benefits primarily the wealthy, and it costs big money. There is no upside.

We have seen such a proposal in the past, and we are virtually guaranteed to see it again in some form in 2016. Not only does it compound fairness issues in Iowa’s tax structure, but it loses hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, year after year, that Iowa legislators and the Governor have been telling us we cannot afford to lose.

Its supporters cannot avoid that contradiction, given their obsession this year about not letting a surplus — and a sustained one at that — be used for “ongoing” or “recurring” expenses on grounds they were not “sustainable.” Those are the grounds for the Governor’s vetoes of one-time funds for local schools, community colleges and state universities.

For good analysis of the 2015 alternative flat-tax proposal, which was not presented on the House floor as some of these messaging contradictions quickly became clear, see this Iowa Fiscal Partnership backgrounder by Peter Fisher. As Fisher noted, the projected revenue loss was projected at nearly half a billion dollars — $482 million — for the new fiscal year and around $400 million for each of the next three.

In short, the flat-tax idea is not “sustainable.” No need to discuss in the 2016 session.

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

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

IFP News: Statement on Governor’s Address

Iowans cannot afford new raids on the General Fund when many public services have not been restored to pre-recession levels.

PDF (1 page)

IOWA CITY, Iowa (Jan. 14, 2014) — The Iowa Fiscal Partnership released the following statement today about Governor Branstad’s Condition of the State address in Des Moines:

Two high points stand out from Governor Branstad’s address today.

First, the Governor does not appear to be supporting new initiatives for general reductions in Iowa corporate or individual income taxes. These taxes already are low and quite competitive in the nation and region, as Iowa Fiscal Partnership analysis has demonstrated. Iowans cannot afford new raids on the General Fund when many public services have not been restored to pre-recession levels.

Second is a commitment to higher education, with the second year of a tuition freeze that will help undergraduate students at the state’s Regents universities. The Governor is right in targeting student debt as a challenge to an Iowa Dream of opportunity and prosperity.

The Governor did not close the door on — but also did not address — several other issues important to moderate- and middle-income Iowans.

Among those: improving the minimum wage, now starting a seventh year at $7.25; combating wage theft; boosting child-care assistance to make it easier for low-wage workers to take a job or seek new education or training. These issues have existed since before the Governor took office, and such moves to improve economic prospects for families and reduce poverty, would be a good followup to arguably the most important legislation he signed last year: doubling the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Despite recently strong revenues, Iowa faces critical fiscal challenges now and in the coming years due in part to the bipartisan property-tax cuts passed last year. While the Governor characterized this as “relief” for “middle-class families,” it is important to note that the property-tax package was almost exclusively geared to business — including large retailers that did not need the breaks. As IFP has noted,[1] these breaks and others pose many challenges for critical public services in the years to come.

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.


[1] “Iowa Budget Dilemma for 2014,” Iowa Fiscal Partnership, Jan. 13, 2014. http://www.iowafiscal.org/iowa-budget-dilemma-for-2014/

How about that timing of worker pay report?

Posted October 31st, 2012 to Blog
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

Timing is everything.

Consider the announcement Tuesday by the Branstad administration of a new report produced by an outside company to examine whether Iowa state workers are paid too much.

Paid too much?

As the Department of Administrative Services was releasing the report, emergency rescue workers across the Eastern seaboard were putting themselves in harm’s way to help their neighbors in the path of the deadly Hurricane Sandy. And right here in Iowa, within a couple hours of the DAS news conference, bank robbers shot two law enforcement officers — critically wounding the Sumner police chief and injuring a state trooper.

We count on public servants every day, sometimes when lives are at stake, sometimes in enriching life with education, sometimes in just keeping life orderly enough that we can enjoy it without worrying whether the water or food will poison us, or that our job will not put us in danger we did not sign up for.

Oh, and the report? It found that pay scales for Iowa state workers are generally competitive. Where the report cited potential problems, the information provided was too sketchy to delve in and really go through it. And, being produced by a private company that copyrighted the report, we might just never know what our tax dollars produced. This is what happens with privatization, folks. But if you want a quick look at the holes in the report, see the review Tuesday by IPP’s Peter Fisher.

So, for those less inclined toward knee-jerk appeals against public workers, the timing of this report, you might say, wasn’t too bad.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director

 

Did Iowa just get taken to the cleaners?

Posted September 21st, 2012 to Blog
Peter Fisher

Peter Fisher

The enormous package of state and local incentives provided to the Egyptian company Orascom to locate a fertilizer plant in Lee County has drawn considerable attention. The package includes $110 million in state tax credits and other incentives and $133 million in local tax abatements — a total of $243 million when all is said and done. All this to attract a plant that will employ just 165 workers.

At a cost per worker of nearly $1.5 million, the incentive is an astounding amount, well beyond the normal range of awards, in Iowa or anywhere else. (While the company claims a large number of ancillary jobs will follow, these claims are unverifiable, and it is not clear how many would even fall to Iowa residents; furthermore, there are always some spin-off jobs with any project, so the valid comparison with other awards is in terms of cost per direct job.)

Yet little attention has been paid to what is possibly the largest incentive provided: tax-exempt bonds, not even included in the above calculations.

Early on in the negotiations, in fact last April, the Iowa Finance Authority awarded Orascom up to $1.19 billion in Midwest Disaster Area (MDA) bonds. These bonds are exempt from federal income tax; Midwestern states affected by the 2008 flood were each given an allocation of these bonds to be awarded to projects in eligible counties — those declared disaster areas after the flood. The $1.19 billion loan would constitute 46 percent of the Iowa allocation.

Because the interest is exempt from federal income tax, the wealthy individuals and financial institutions that would purchase such bonds will accept a lower interest rate than they would require on taxable corporate bonds. The after-tax rate is what they focus on. This means that the company saves money. How much? That depends on the spread between corporate bond interest rates and tax-exempt rates.

Information from officials at the Iowa Finance Authority indicates that the spread would likely range from 1 percent to 2 percent. For a $1.19 billion bond issue to be repaid in equal annual installments over a 20-year period, the savings in interest would amount to between $153 million and $297 million, depending on what the interest rate differential turned out to be.

These tax-exempt bonds could have been used in Lee County or in Scott County; both were flood disaster areas and both, at one point, were under consideration as a location for the fertilizer plant. When the Scott County site was rejected, attention turned to Illinois, specifically the area near Peoria. But neither Peoria County nor any counties surrounding it were eligible for the Illinois allocation of MDA bonds.

This means that Lee County was starting with a huge advantage over the Illinois site: the availability of an incentive probably worth in the neighborhood of $200 million.

While the MDA bonds cost federal taxpayers, there is no loss of Iowa income-tax revenue. (The federal cost comes because the federal government forgoes income-tax revenue on the interest, which must then be made up by the rest of federal taxpayers.) But the point is that, whoever bears the cost, this was a very large incentive that Iowa could provide and Illinois could not.

Thus it raises the question: Given this advantage from the start, why was it necessary for the state of Iowa and Lee County to double down and provide another $200 plus million, especially when the Illinois tax incentives were not even a reality — they had passed the Illinois Senate, but not the House, and the Legislature had adjourned months ago?

Did Iowa just get taken to the cleaners?

Posted by Peter Fisher, Research Director