SHARE:
Policy Points from Iowa Fiscal Partners

Posts tagged Iowa Legislature

Worker safety: Who gets protected?

Posted June 17th, 2020 to Blog

The COVID-19 crisis poses a dizzying combination of health and economic risks, and it has forced us to rethink the ways in which our public policies protect us against those risks. The underlying logic of the CARES Act, for example, was based on the assumption that sharing public spaces — especially workplaces — posed a grave threat to the public health. Its benefits — including a limited program of paid leave and a relatively generous expansion of unemployment insurance — were designed to make not working and sheltering in place possible.

That instinct was right but its execution was dismally flawed. State unemployment systems could not begin to manage the avalanche of claims. The virus flourished in settings — most starkly meatpacking plants — that ploughed ahead as “essential” businesses. And states impatient to open up again did everything they could to discourage workers from accessing the new federal benefits — a point Iowa Workforce Development Director Beth Townsend all but conceded in testimony before Congress last week.

From the first hint of the virus to the rush to reopen, Iowa has done perilously little to protect its workers, their families, and their communities. Safe workplaces are pretty clearly defined in the guidelines developed by both the CDC and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). But there is nothing in state or federal law that compels employers to follow them, and ample evidence that many are not. Even in the midst of local outbreaks, county health directors lacked the authority to shut down production. “They just don’t get it,” as the Tama County emergency management coordinator, complained in the midst of an outbreak at the National Beef plant there, “They will keep going until all of their employees have this virus. They would rather risk their employees’ health and keep their production going.” As Governor Reynolds coldly reminded us in late May: “Our recovery is contingent on our ability to protect both the lives and the livelihoods of Iowans. We can’t prioritize one over the other.”

Those priorities came into sharper focus this week. In a brief and largely aimless session, the Iowa Legislature offered scarcely a passing reference to the health and economic insecurity facing Iowa’s working families. They did, however, jump to address the insecurity of Iowa employers — offering up blanket immunity from COVID related claims coming from workers or consumers.

The “COVID-19 Response and Back to Business Limited Liability Act” (Senate File 2338) requires that any claims of exposure to the virus meet a standard of “reckless disregard” or “actual malice.” Employers “shall not be held liable for civil damages for any injuries sustained from exposure or potential exposure to COVID-19 if the act or omission alleged to violate a duty of care was in substantial compliance or was consistent with any federal or state statute, regulation, order, or public health guidance related to COVID-19 that was applicable to the person or activity at issue at the time of the alleged exposure.” Since such regulations or guidelines are virtually non-existent, it is hard to imagine what such threshold might look like.

At a time of such peril and uncertainty, this is a remarkable and damning expression of our state’s priorities. It is a solution in search of a problem; there has been no stampede of frivolous damage claims — in Iowa or elsewhere. And it ignores the more obvious and equitable tack, which is to protect the workers in the first place, and allow them to refuse work (and draw unemployment benefits) if that protection is not sufficient. “Everybody wins when businesses follow clear, science-based guidelines to protect health and safety,” as The New York Times put it in a recent editorial. “Workers and customers are less likely to get exposed to the virus, and businesses are less likely to get exposed to litigation.”

Now, more than ever, our public policies should be assessed on whom they put at risk and whom they reward; on whom they protect, and whom they do not. The blanket immunity offered Iowa businesses by SF2338, alongside our abject and continuing failure to offer any meaningful protection for Iowa’s workers, fails that assessment on all counts.

Colin Gordon is senior research consultant for the Iowa Policy Project and a professor of history at the University of Iowa.

Back to business at Statehouse

Posted May 27th, 2020 to

Finding best uses of Iowa relief funds as legislators prepare to resume the 2020 session June 3

Over 18,000 Iowans have been sickened with the coronavirus. Over 313,000 Iowans — nearly 1 in 5 workers — have applied for unemployment since the middle of March. Many small businesses have closed or are operating at only limited capacity and suffering drastic losses.

While the misery is widespread, low-wage workers and persons of color have disproportionately felt the health and the economic consequences of the crisis. Both groups are more likely to be exposed to the virus — because they are more likely to be “essential workers” — and more likely to experience health and social disadvantages associated with poverty and racism that increase the odds of serious effects when exposed.[1]

Congress on March 27 passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act, which created the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) to cover expenses of state and local governments related to the COVID-19 health and economic emergency. Of $139 billion for states, Iowa’s share is $1.25 billion. Because we have no cities with a population over 500,000, no funding went directly to local governments, but the state is free to allocate funds to localities.

Quick and effective use of these funds is important not just to help the thousands of Iowans suffering from the effects of this crisis, but also to boost the state economy. It has been shown that the most effective way of stimulating economic activity is to get more money in the hands of lower and middle income households, who can be counted on to spend in the local economy and support Iowa’s businesses. That in turn will boost state sales tax and income tax revenues, moderating the state’s fiscal problems.

How can the state use CRF funds, and what are the best uses?

CRF money must go for expenditures necessitated by the coronavirus emergency through December 30, 2020.[2] Congress made it explicit that these funds are for unforeseen and necessary additional expenditures, not to replace revenue lost because of the falloff in economic activity.[3] Still, the range of allowable uses is quite broad.[4] Eligible expenditures include not only direct expenses for public health needs but also expenses “incurred to respond to second order effects of the emergency, such as providing economic support to those suffering from employment or business interruptions due to COVID-19 related business closures.”[5]

As of this writing, Iowa plans to spend $100 million of the $1.25 billion, all to the Small Business Relief Program.[6] The Governor also will use $20 million to fund a new rental and mortgage assistance program. Lawmakers should use the remaining $1.13 billion to prioritize protecting state and local finances — key to long-term recovery — and meet the needs of low-wage workers and people of color who have borne the brunt of the virus.

Here are ways legislators should allocate CRF funds or adjust state priorities when they reconvene June 3:

  • Pay salaries and benefits of state government employees who have been diverted from their usual activities to respond to the current emergency. By using CRF for some state payroll costs, Iowa would face a smaller budget shortfall from the expected precipitous drop in state revenues.
  • Transfer funds to cities and counties to cover additional costs associated with the emergency, including payroll. Cities and counties face sizable costs for emergency management, purchase of personal protective equipment, sanitizing of facilities, technology needed for staff to work remotely, overtime for public safety workers, and elections costs with greater use of voting by mail.[7]
  • Transfer funds to school districts, which face added costs to divert education staff to online learning programs, facility cleaning, and ensuring that all students have access to educational programs while schools remain closed. Funds provided directly to schools by the CARES Act represent just 1 percent of school district budgets and are unlikely to cover all of these costs.
  • Bolster the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) with state funds and create a parallel program to prevent water shutoffs.
  • Strengthen the state’s Child Care Assistance program by increasing the maximum family income eligibility level and raising provider reimbursement rates. These boosts will support essential workers unable to afford the full cost of child care, help stabilize the child care industry by bringing new families into the system and improve its underlying financial structure.
  • Expand cash assistance under the Family Investment Program to help families meet basic needs and avert serious hardship.
  • Expand food assistance by increasing income eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, easing access with broad-based categorical eligibility and initiating a Disaster SNAP (D-SNAP) program to reach currently excluded Iowans. SNAP puts food on the table and is an important way to stimulate local economies.
  • Hire more staff at Iowa Workforce Development to facilitate applications for unemployment benefits, and create a network of navigators to help individuals apply for various forms of public assistance needed now by those affected by the crisis, particularly those with language barriers.
  • Provide additional funds to counties for general cash assistance to individuals in emergency situations and those left out of traditional assistance programs.
  • Expand internet access for remote work and education, access to TestIowa and online commerce.
  • Assess the need for financial support to hospitals beyond the $691 million in “provider relief funds” to Iowa health care providers already included in the CARES Act. Hospitals are seeing revenues drop as people avoid seeking care for fear of contracting the virus, a trend that could well continue even after hospitals reopen for elective procedures.

[1] Harvard Center on the Developing Child, “Thinking About Racial Disparities in COVID-19 Impacts Through a Science-Informed, Early Childhood Lens.” https://developingchild.harvard.edu/thinking-about-racial-disparities-in-covid-19-impacts-through-a-science-informed-early-childhood-lens/

[2] Legislative Services Agency, Fiscal Update, March 31, 2020. “H.R. 748 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, And Economic Security Act Appropriations.”

[3] The CARES Act states: “Coronavirus Relief Fund payments may not be used to directly account for revenue shortfalls related to the COVID-19 outbreak.”

[4] U.S. Department of the Treasury: “Coronavirus Relief Fund: Frequently Asked Questions,” updated as of May 4, 2020. A summary of allowable expenses described in this document can be found in the IFP report: “Iowa will need more fiscal relief than Congress has given.” https://bit.ly/2WKMp4o

[5] Legislative Services Agency, Fiscal Update, May 15, 2020, “COVID-19 – Iowa Coronavirus Relief Fund.”

[6] Legislative Services Agency, Fiscal Update, May 15, 2020, “COVID-19 – Iowa Coronavirus Relief Fund” and Legislative Services Agency, Fiscal Update, May 12, 2020, “COVID-19 — Iowa Small Business Relief Program Update.”

[7] An Iowa State Association of Counties found $5.8 million in additional spending required in 11 counties, the majority for emergency management, public safety, public health, courthouse expenses and IT. https://www.iowacounties.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ISAC-COVID-Financial-Impacts-on-Iowa-Counties-Report.pdf The League of Cities is in the process of surveying members, https://bit.ly/2yvMQ9m.

Time for state to act

Posted March 16th, 2020 to Blog
170118_capitol_170603-4x4The Pelosi-Mnuchin stimulus package that passed the U.S. House on Friday includes many measures to protect ordinary Americans who may see lost wages or who may need to stay away from work because someone in the family needs attention. According to The Washington Post:

“The agreement reached Friday is primarily aimed at expanding the safety net to cope with the potentially catastrophic economic impact of the coronavirus. In addition to ensuring free coronavirus testing, the plan would dramatically increase several benefits, particularly family medical leave and paid sick leave, while also bolstering unemployment insurance; spending on health insurance for the poor; and food programs for children and the elderly.”[1]

The food program expansion “nullifies existing work requirements on the food stamp program.”[2] The medical leave and family leave section will allow up to two-thirds of salary to a great number of employees including full tax credits from employment tax for self-employed individuals.[3] The federal share of Medicaid is boosted and unemployment insurance is strengthened. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the Medicaid boost means an additional $240 million is available for Iowa.[4] Noted CBPP’s Jennifer Sullivan:

The House COVID-19 bill’s temporary Medicaid funding boost, if in effect for all of calendar year 2020, would deliver roughly $35 billion in immediate, needed relief to states, which will face growing costs due to the virus and a likely economic downturn. … Similar measures have been a critical part of economic stimulus packages under both Democratic and Republican administrations….

The bill, expected to pass the Senate in a few days, addresses what many expect to be a downturn in the economy caused by the pandemic reaching U.S. shores. Responsible actions at the federal level require a state response as well. Iowa Policy Project blog posts in recent days have noted good opportunities: First, Iowa needs improvements in the unemployment system: (1) Relax the job search requirements to enable individuals forced into unemployment by the virus to collect UI benefits; (2) Allow individuals forced to take a leave of absence to collect UI during that period; (3) Establish procedures for individuals losing a job for health safety reasons or to care for a family member with the virus to qualify for UI, and (4) Establish rules under which employers’ unemployment experience rating is not harmed by virus-related layoffs.[5] Second, Iowans need strong Medicaid and SNAP benefits now more than ever. The safety net helps us all — not just current beneficiaries, but also those on the edge of financial security and the general economy. Any legislation, such as SF430 and HF2030, that imposes new bureaucratic hurdles for struggling Iowans not only will take food and doctor’s visits away when people need them the most, but hurt local communities as well.[6] [1] Erica WernerMike DeBonisPaul Kane and. Jeff Stein. The Washington Post, “House passes coronavirus economic relief package with Trump’s support,” March 14, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/03/13/paid-leave-democrats-trump-deal-coronavirus/ [2] Ibid [3] H. R. 6201 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes. Page 93 and 103. https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20200309/BILLS-116hr6201-SUS.pdf [4] Jennifer Sullivan, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Medicaid Funding Boost for States Can’t Wait,” updated March 13, 2020. https://bit.ly/3d1jPBQ [5] Peter Fisher. IowaPolicyPoints.org blog post,Protecting workers from coronavirus impacts.” March 14, 2020. [6] Natalie Veldhouse. IowaPolicyPoints.org blog post, “Make Iowa resilient: Strengthen supports for working families.” March 13, 2020. osterberg_david_095115David Osterberg co-founded the Iowa Policy Project and is a researcher with the organization. dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org  

Transparent realities of bad law

Posted May 24th, 2019 to Blog
curtains-tighterIn the closing nights of the 2019 session, while most Iowans slept, the Iowa Legislature enacted substantial changes to the way city and county governments fund public services. There was no chance for public input, or for analysis by legislative staff. With no apparent sense of irony, the bill’s supporters argued the purpose was to increase transparency for voters. On Thursday, Governor Reynolds signed the bill out of the public eye, issuing only a one-sentence statement repeating the same claims and ignoring the real impacts. In this one bill, the Legislature managed to enshrine minority rule, punish public-sector workers (yet again), penalize economic growth, and hamstring cities and counties recovering from a natural disaster. The bill will limit the growth of property taxes levied by cities and counties to 2 percent each year. Local elected officials will need a two-thirds vote to do more, if they find that their constituents’ needs demand it. So much for majority rule and local democracy. The bill threatens city services and the local public workers who provide them. Employee benefits, such as health insurance and contributions to pension funds, until now could be financed by a special tax rate, in recognition that the rising cost of health insurance and fixed pension contributions are outside city or county control. These costs have been increasing more than 2 percent annually, often much more. But now they go under that arbitrary 2 percent cap. There was much attention — deservedly so — to how various versions of the bill would affect IPERS pension benefits. This ultimately served to distract many from much broader impacts. When pension contributions and health insurance premiums increase more than 2 percent, the city or county may have to reduce services, cut benefits, or lay off workers to keep overall tax growth under the cap. The bill pits taxpayers against the people who plow their streets, protect their homes, build roads, or maintain parks and libraries. When services are cut, public employees can be portrayed as the scapegoats, which will be convenient to the forces that have threatened public employee pensions. Turning Iowa’s secure pension programs over to less-secure, privately run for-profit administrators remains a goal for those forces. The new bill also penalizes local governments for pursuing growth. A last-minute change in the legislation puts revenue from new construction under the 2 percent cap. As a result, cities and counties experiencing significant growth may be forced to cut rates year after year and will find themselves without the revenue to support the growth if they can’t muster the supermajority. For example, a city growing at 4 percent per year would face a revenue penalty of 17 percent within five years. Another last-minute change left in place existing levy limits, which would have been abolished under both earlier bills. So now cities and counties face two limits, one on rates and another on revenue growth. The combination could be devastating in some circumstances. Consider a flood, or a recession causing a loss of property value. The rate cap forces revenues to decline for any city or county at or near the rate limit, which includes the vast majority of localities. Then, as the recession ends or the city rebuilds, the revenue cap could now undermine recovery. The reduced revenue becomes the new starting point, potentially leaving a city or county unable to restore revenues even to the previous level because of the 2 percent limit on revenue increases. And this just at a time when extraordinary measures are needed to help the recovery. One has to wonder if more transparency in the process might have helped legislators find a better outcome — or at least helped their constituents to argue for one. Peter Fisher is research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City. Contact: pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org Editor’s Note: This post updates and expands upon a previous post about this legislation, prior to the governor’s signing of the bill.

Public hearing: Public concerns distracted

Posted April 10th, 2018 to Blog

If the goal of a “tax reform” public hearing Monday was to distract Iowans from the massive impact the Governor’s $1.7 billion tax cut would have on their lives, it succeeded.

The media attention on the hearing in the old Supreme Court Chamber in the State Capitol focused heavily on the perennial fight between banks and credit unions — one that won’t be settled whatever happens in 2018, and not the most important issue to be settled in 2018. Therefore, we won’t link to those stories here and add to the distraction.

But, those folks on both sides of the bank-credit union fight took many of the limited speaking slots, so the media focus followed. For their part, House Ways and Means Committee members listened politely, asked no questions and let 30 or so people — including this writer — have their say in three-minute chunks.

It was the public’s only chance thus far to speak on a bill that was introduced two months ago … that may barely resemble what House leaders actually plan to pass … with no disclosure about which of the public speakers may be getting more than three minutes behind closed doors as well.
We should all have been brought to the table long before this, and attention directed to what is really on that table about the future of our state.

Iowans need to focus on the very real threat to public services, from education to law enforcement to water quality to human services that have gone lacking as our state has increasingly directed subsidies and tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, neither of whom need help.

One good resource for all lawmakers, advocates and the public at-large is a series of concise, fact-based two-pagers in the 2018 Tax Policy Kit from the Iowa Fiscal Partnership. Find those pieces here.

If they were listening closely, lawmakers on Monday will have gleaned some important perspectives on the monumental tax changes that are being contemplated without sufficient review.

Lawmakers still have an opportunity to do this right — to steer Iowa’s tax system to a more stable, accountable and fair system that assures giant companies are paying their fair share and the poor are not penalized for their low incomes. Iowa can have responsible tax reform that does not lose money needed for traditional, critical public services that benefit all Iowans. Our focus should be there.

Mike Owen is executive director of the Iowa Policy Project. mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org
Also see:

Perils of a constitutional convention

Posted March 21st, 2018 to Budget, Economic Security, Health, Taxes

•  Article V authority gives no guidance

•  No control, great risk to freedom and representative government. 

Basic RGB

 

By Mike Owen, Executive Director, Iowa Policy Project

Throughout our nation’s history, Americans have been able to depend on the Constitution to be at once our guidepost and our ultimate arbiter of disputes over the bounds of authority. Resolutions now before the Iowa Legislature — ostensibly for specific purposes — actually could put our entire Constitution at risk.

What is Article V?

The Constitution does provide in Article V for states to call for a convention to address changes to the Constitution. However, the authority came with no rulebook. In fact, as many have noted, the original Constitution was called by states to amend the Articles of Confederation that had established a weak national governing structure following the American Revolution. Rather than accept that charge, the convention set its own course and wrote an entirely new governing document that has stood the test of time. And it has been amended in an orderly manner as circumstances —and the nation — demanded. Twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution have been made, from the first 10 establishing a Bill of Rights, to others such as abolishing slavery, establishing voting rights for women and 18-year-olds, repealing Prohibition, barring congressional pay raises during a current term, and providing for an orderly transition of power in the event of a President incapable of serving or a need to fill a vacancy for vice president. As needs have been identified, and support established for change, the Constitution has evolved.

Changes would have to be ratified by states. However, this does not protect against rash decision-making by a rogue convention; a convention could make new rules for ratification, or make its own rules to govern how or whether future changes could be made.

In Iowa

There are joint resolutions in both the Iowa House (HJR12) and Senate (SJR8) calling for a constitutional convention. They would have to pass in identical form. Both have very broad language for an Article V convention “to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints, and limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, …” It is hard to imagine any federal authority that would not fit under that language — in other words, all bets are off for which issues might be considered.

The vast uncertainties are indisputable. A fiscal note on HJR12 from the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency notes the uncertainties with such a convention: “The fiscal impact of HJR12 cannot be determined as it unclear how a constitutional convention would be administered, assuming the required number of states successfully petitioned Congress to initiate such a convention. In addition, it is uncertain how many Iowa delegates would be appointed to attend, how much the delegates would be compensated, or how long a convention would last.”[1]

This is not a home-grown movement, but one pushed by national forces — it is a priority of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate friendly bill mill for model legislation it puts in state lawmakers’ hands to get passed in their states. Only two organizations, both ideologically right-wing organizations, including the out-of-state “Convention of States,” have registered in favor of the resolution — while an ideologically diverse mix of organizations are registered against it.

This is not a partisan issue. While the Iowa House approved its resolution on party lines in March 2017, the move has failed in a floor or committee vote in seven Republican-controlled state legislatures (Kansas, Idaho, South Dakota, North Carolina, Utah, New Hampshire, Wyoming) in 2017 or 2018.

Convention of States is a Constitutional Convention. Scholars have noted that convention advocates appear to have adopted a specialized language in which the term “constitutional convention” is reserved for conventions that write constitutions from scratch, not conventions that amend existing constitutions. One of these scholars, David A. Super of Georgetown University Law Center, has noted that there is no authoritative support for this definition. But even if one accepts this peculiarly narrow terminology, what Convention of States proposes is, in fact, a constitutional convention. Once convened under Article V of the Constitution, this convention could propose any amendments it pleased, including the wholesale replacement of our existing Constitution. In any event, the distinction is meaningless, as the convention is proposed under Article V, and as noted, there are no rules set in the Constitution for such a proceeding.

 

 

Mike Owen is executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project (IPP) in Iowa City, and project director of the Iowa Fiscal Partnership, a joint public policy analysis initiative of IPP and another nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, the Child and Family Policy Center in Des Moines.


[1] Iowa Legislative Services Agency, Fiscal Note on HJR12, March 19, 2018. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/FN/955813.pdf

Protect Iowa taxpayers from bad spin

Posted August 30th, 2017 to Blog

“Protecting Iowa’s taxpayers,” reads the headline on the newspaper column, but the column contradicts that.

On the pages of major state newspapers this week, Iowans for Tax Relief (ITR) is offering its predictable and tired promotion of tax and spending limitations that are neither necessary nor fair.

Instead of protecting taxpayers who live in Iowa and do business here, these gimmicky limitations promote an ideological agenda that fails to offer prosperity — ask Kansas — and is a poor solution to imagined problems invented by its authors.

The limits advocated by ITR never are necessary or fair, but this is especially so where we see K-12 school spending held below needs, where higher-education spending is cut and tuitions raised, and where worldwide corporate giants are taking bites out of Iowa millions of dollars at a time — over $200 million in the case of Apple last week.

By all means, let’s protect taxpayers from thumb-on-the-scale rules that give a minority viewpoint a decided and sometimes insurmountable advantage over the majority. The big money put behind these ideas make elections less meaningful, and erode Iowans’ ability to govern themselves.

The real path to prosperity for Iowa is a high-road path that rests upon sensible investments in education and public infrastructure that accommodates commerce and sets a level playing field for business and individuals. It means promoting better pay to keep and attract workers who want to raise their families here, and sustaining critical services.

Time and time again, we and others have shown irrefutably that Iowa is a low-tax and low-wage state. We already are “competitive” to the small degree that taxes play a role in business location decisions; even conservative analysts such as Anderson Economic Group and Ernst & Young put Iowa in the middle of the pack on business taxes.

Suffice it to say, you are being peddled a load of garbage by the far right and the privileged, who take what they can from our public structures and policies, and attempt to deny others not only public services, but also a say in the funding of programs that promote opportunity and prosperity for all.

The same suppression mindset prevailed in the Iowa Legislature in 2017 as a majority bullied public workers and decimated workers’ rights. Now they are taking on tax policy in 2018, plus the possibility of new assaults on retirement security and renewed neglect of our natural assets of air and water.

Shake your head at the headlines, throw a shoe through the TV if you must, but only by engaging these issues at every step of the political process will we turn Iowa back from our low-road course.

This is the battle of the 21st century. We are living it. May we survive it.

Mike Owen, executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Session Recap: ‘Historic’ — not label of pride

Posted April 25th, 2017 to Blog

By

4/22/17

IFP Statement: ‘Historic’ session not a label of pride

Legislative session hits working families and traditions of good governance

Basic RGB

Statement of Iowa Fiscal Partnership • Mike Owen, Iowa Policy Project

To describe the 2017 Iowa legislative session as “historic” is not a label its leaders should wear with pride.

Iowans needed a legislative session that worked to raise family incomes and expand educational opportunity. Iowans had long demanded water-quality improvement measures. Many called for lawmakers to address the lack of fairness, adequacy and accountability in a tax system laden with special-interest breaks and costly subsidies to corporations.

Instead, Iowans got a continued ratcheting down of funding for PK-12 public education. There were significant and serious cuts in post-secondary education that will lead to tuition increases. We saw cuts to early-childhood education and other programs that serve our most at-risk children and neglect of the child-care assistance program that helps working families struggling to get by.

The Legislature continues to demand little or nothing of industrial agriculture in cleaning up the mess it has left in our waters. Lawmakers tried to dismantle the Des Moines Water Works board, limited neighbors’ right to complain in court about pollution, and eliminated scientific research at the Leopold Center. Their ultimate action on water merely diverts resources from other priorities, such as education and public safety.

Lawmakers largely left the tax issue to the next session. An overture in the House to reform Iowa’s reckless system of tax credits was a welcome acknowledgment that this issue needs attention, but devils in the details make further discussion of this issue during the interim even more welcome.

Perhaps as troubling as the destructive nature of policy content this session, Iowa’s image of adherence to good governance took a big hit. The most controversial policy changes came not through collaborative, public discussion in committee, let alone the 2016 political campaigns, but were often dumped into lawmakers’ laps with little opportunity for amendments.

In what could accurately be called a “session of suppression,” lawmakers achieved:

  • Wage suppression, with a bill to preempt local minimum wage increases while refusing to raise Iowa’s repressive, 9-year-old minimum of $7.25.
  • Workplace suppression, gutting collective bargaining protections for public employees, and making it more difficult for Iowans recover financially from injuries on the job.
  • Health-care suppression, achieved in workers’ compensation legislation while also refusing to reverse Governor Branstad’s disastrous move to privatize Medicaid.
  • Local suppression, whacking at local government control in a variety of areas: minimum wage, legal defenses against concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), fireworks sales, and collective bargaining options.
  • Voter suppression, with a bill to make it more difficult for many citizens, particularly low-income and senior voters, to exercise their right to vote.
  • Suppression of children’s healthy development, with additional cuts to Early Childhood Iowa and Shared Visions that will reduce access to critical home visitation, child care and preschool services for some of our most at-risk youngsters.

Some legislators may boast of a “historic” session. History will mark 2017 as a low point in Iowans’ respect and care for each other, a legacy that will not be celebrated when future Iowans look back on this session and the closing act of Governor Branstad’s long tenure in office.

#     #     #     #     #

The Iowa Fiscal Partnership is a joint public policy analysis initiative of two nonpartisan, nonprofit, Iowa-based organizations — the Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City, and the Child & Family Policy Center in Des Moines. Reports are available at www.iowafiscal.org, and on the websites of the two partner organizations, www.iowapolicyproject.org and www.cfpciowa.org.


Lost legacy of science and research?

Posted April 19th, 2017 to Blog

Editor’s Note: The Cedar Rapids Gazette published a version of this piece online Tuesday, April 18, 2017.

While Iowans and others celebrate Earth Day on Saturday with a March for Science, many legislators have already tripped over their own votes.

Besides several cuts to higher education Iowa legislators have taken aim at particular scientific centers at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University.

With the state’s second largest city and its largest university both almost recovered from massive flooding, they attacked the Flood Center at the UI, which may survive with a 20 percent cut to reward how its data and research have helped citizens of the state.

Certainly as troubling is the pending elimination of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at ISU, and the farming out of duties at the Energy Center at ISU to the Iowa Economic Development Authority. So much for independent research.

One thing lost in these assaults is a sense of institutional memory. Those of us who started the Leopold Center some 30 years ago found agreement to assure Iowans a lasting resource independent of industry control and other research funding. And it has worked.

Much of the research on how to reduce agricultural damage to water quality has been started by the Leopold Center — more than 600 research projects, according to Leopold’s director, Professor Mark Rasmussen.

You drink the water. You breathe the air. Are you comfortable that Iowa’s premier research universities are being blocked from conducting research on topics including water quality, manure management, livestock grazing, cover crops, alternative conservation practices, biomass production, soil health and local food systems development?

In fact, as Rasmussen notes, many practices recommended in Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy to reduce agricultural pollution — including streamside buffers, erosion control measures, and bioreactors — “were first researched through Leopold Center funding.”

Now, the history of the Leopold Center is being reinvented by lawmakers attempting to erase a three-decade, bipartisan commitment to sustainable funding of independent research. They would eliminate the publicly directed mission and turn it over to businesses.

It is hard to know if these attacks are driven by politics or corporate interest. Maybe it is just Iowa’s version of an attack on science generally.

Either way, the bill eliminating the Leopold Center has passed the Senate and Iowans have only a short time to demand more from their elected officials in the House and the Governor. Voices rising helped to save the Flood Center with only a cut. Concerned Iowans may yet save the Leopold Center, but the clock is ticking.

 

David Osterberg, a state representative from Mount Vernon from 1983-1994, is co-founder and lead environmental researcher at the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. Osterberg and fellow legislators Ralph Rosenberg and Paul Johnson were co-authors of the law that created the Leopold Center at Iowa State University.


Today’s virtual House graphic: Iowa impacts of ACA repeal

Posted February 9th, 2017 to Blog

Editor’s Note: The Iowa House of Representatives voted Monday to deny the ability of lawmakers to use visual aids in debate on the floor. To help Iowans visualize what kinds of graphics might be useful in these debates to illustrate facts, we will offer examples. Here is today’s graphic, to illustrate what could be expected to happen in Iowa if Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act.

170119-IFP-ACA-F2xxRepealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) without an adequate replacement, as Congress and the incoming Trump administration appear poised to do, jeopardizes the health care coverage and economic well-being of the most vulnerable Iowans. About 230,000 fewer Iowans would have health coverage in 2019 if the law is repealed, including 25,000 children.

In fact, repeal of the ACA could leave tens of thousands of adults uninsured who actually had insurance prior to the ACA. Some 69,000 Iowans covered by an Iowa program, IowaCare, became part of the Iowa Health and Wellness Program with the advent of the ACA, while even more Iowans had insurance with the help of ACA subsidies.

Repeal leaves all three of those programs gone — IowaCare, Iowa Health and Wellness, and the ACA subsidies. Thus, fewer will have insurance than in 2013, prior to the ACA, and low-income Iowans will be worse off. This is an issue that state legislators may be left to address with no help from the U.S. Congress, but is not getting attention at the Iowa Statehouse.

For more information, see this Iowa Fiscal Partnership policy brief by Iowa Policy Project Research Director Peter Fisher.