The Iowa Fiscal Partnership released a must-read report yesterday by economist Peter Fisher. Facts don’t support political rhetoric about a supposedly unfriendly tax environment for Iowa business, Fisher demonstrates:

Whether one focuses only on the corporate income tax, or the whole range of taxes falling on business, Iowa’s state and local taxes are well below average, and have been for some time.

Iowa’s corporate income tax in recent years has been considerably lower than the national average level of taxation and lower than all but 11 states. How can this be when the top tax rate – 12 percent – is the highest in the nation? The answer is simple: That 12 percent tax rate is applied to only a small portion of a company’s profits in Iowa. Iowa is one of only four states that allows a portion of federal corporate income taxes to be deducted from income. On top of this, Iowa determines how much of a multi-state firm’s profits are taxable in Iowa solely on the basis of sales in Iowa. The majority of states take into account a firm’s payroll and property in the state as well as sales. As a result, many large corporations selling nationally and worldwide earn substantial profits on Iowa operations but pay taxes on only a small fraction of those profits. Finally, Iowa offers a range of generous tax credits that further reduce corporate tax liability.

I recommend reading the full report, Corporate Taxes and State Economic Growth (pdf file) or at least the two-page backgrounder. While you’re on the Iowa Fiscal Partnership’s site, check out the many other valuable reports they have published in recent years. For instance, last month’s report showed why “additional cuts to essential public services are not needed to balance the 2011-12 [Iowa] budget.” The Iowa Policy Project, which is part of the Iowa Fiscal Partnership, is on Twitter here.

After the jump I’ve posted a few excerpts highlighting key conclusions from Fisher’s latest research. Keep these facts in mind next time you hear Iowa Republicans claim that we “can’t afford” a modest raise for state employees, continued investment in preschool or any growth in K-12 education budgets.

UPDATE: Agree 100 percent with what Fisher told Iowa Independent:

“Revenues are improving, in spite of the drain already in place by business breaks. A responsible budget does not include new breaks, especially when we know that the services provided by state and local government are important to a thriving business climate,” Fisher said. “We should be looking for ways to avoid cuts in services that will actually hurt Iowa jobs and the Iowa economy.”

An estimated 29,183 long-term unemployed Iowans could qualify for some $116.3 million in additional benefits, but only if state legislators act quickly, according to a new report by the National Employment Law Project. Federal dollars could cover an extra 13 weeks of benefits for those Iowans. Follow me after the jump for details and background on the federal stimulus money we may leave on the table.

Clerking for a state legislator is a great first job in politics, but here’s a warning to the young and politically involved: sharing your personal views on Facebook can get you fired. Tyler Kingkade has the story at the Iowa State Daily:

Jessica Bruning didn’t think her personal stance on political issues would jeopardize her position as a clerk with Rep. Renee Schulte, R-Linn, in the Iowa legislature. However, after a Facebook post bucked the Republican party’s stance on the impeachment of the state Supreme Court justices, she quickly found herself out of a job.

She had been told to “tone it down” after the State of the Judiciary speech by Chief Justice Mark Cady, where she took part in standing ovations along with Democrats.

During the 2010 election season, Bruning worked for the Branstad-Reynolds campaign but often shared information on Facebook about Justice Not Politics – a bipartisan group formed to advocate retention of the justices. […]

Bruning continued to share articles and information in support of the justices after the elections as House Republicans began talk of impeaching the remaining judges.

But after a Facebook post in January, the next thing Bruning knew she was let go from her position as a clerk. She said she currently cannot go into further details on the event.

Technically, the Iowa House Republican caucus isn’t committed to impeaching the four remaining justices who concurred in the Varnum v Brien ruling on marriage. In fact, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich “we want to drive procreation” Anderson has said he doubts articles of impeachment would clear his committee. Nevertheless, I’m not surprised that Bruning got fired by criticizing the impeachment drive, especially after she stood up to applaud Chief Justice Cady. His speech wasn’t warmly received by the House Republican caucus.

To me, the most surprising thing about this story is that Bruning was hired as a clerk for Schulte despite having criticized the anti-retention drive during the campaign. To my knowledge, not a single Iowa GOP lawmaker or legislative candidate advocated voting to retain the three Supreme Court justices on the ballot. Speaking to Kingkade,

Bruning said young people are often told throughout their years in school to get involved and voice their opinion, “Then when I post a simple Facebook status, I get fired. They’re conflicting messages.”

That’s the way the cookie crumbles if your Facebook status goes against your political party’s dominant view. If Bruning had been lambasting the justices on social media, or bashing impeachment while clerking for a Democratic state representative, she’d still have a job today.

UPDATE: Schulte disputes Bruning’s account but declined to specify why the clerk was sacked:

Two weeks ago, Schulte gave The Des Moines Register a brief statement about Bruning’s assertion, deferring additional questions to House Republican leadership.

“The short answer is no,” she was not fired for supporting same-sex marriage rights, Schulte told the Register. “Basically she’s an at-will employee. It could be for any reason. It makes me sad that she thinks that that’s why.”

Proud to be an Iowan. Period. Thanks Zach.

After a crowded public hearing last night and about three hours of floor debate today, the Iowa House approved House Joint Resolution 6, a constitutional amendment that would ban all legal recognition for same-sex relationships in Iowa. All 59 Republicans present voted for the amendment, as did three House Democrats who represent rural districts: Kurt Swaim, Dan Muhlbauer and Brian Quirk. The bill now goes to the Iowa Senate, where Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has pledged to keep it from receiving a floor vote.

Many of the 37 House Democrats who voted no on the amendment took to the floor to speak out against the bill. You can read excerpts from their remarks here, here, here and here. (UPDATE: Several of the House Democrats’ speeches from the chamber are on YouTube as well.)

In contrast, only a few Republicans gave prepared remarks supporting the amendment, including lead sponsor Dwayne Alons (rarely afraid to say something ridiculous) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich Anderson. Anderson justified the amendment as serving the state’s interest in promoting childbearing:

“We want to drive procreation into a stable relationship and procreation only happens between a male and a female. See a male and a female can do something that a homosexual couple cannot: They can create children accidently. That’s the issue. It’s not about love. It’s not about romance. It’s about driving state policy toward responsible procreation.”

The Iowa Supreme Court addressed and rejected that argument on pages 59 and 60 of the Varnum v Brien ruling. Anderson also raised the familiar “slippery slope” concern that legal same-sex marriage would lead to state recognition of incestuous and polygamous unions. No one’s tried to do that in the other four U.S. states that recognize same-sex marriages, or in Canada or any of the European countries that do the same.

Given how strongly the Republican base supports overturning same-sex marriage rights, I was surprised more Republicans weren’t eager to explain their votes on the House floor. Tea party favorites Kim Pearson and Glen Massie even declined to yield to a question from Democrat Nathan Willems on whether the equal protection clause applies to all Iowans. House Majority Whip Erik Helland “answered” Willems’ question, but in a non-responsive way.  

It got me wondering: deep down, are they not proud of what they’re doing? Perhaps some of them secretly agree with former Republican State Senator Jeff Angelo, who has changed his position on marriage equality and now views a constitutional amendment as “government intrusion in the lives of law-abiding citizens.” Rarely do legislators vote to change the constitution, and Iowa has never before approved an amendment to limit the rights of citizens. If House Republicans believe the public interest demands putting minority rights up for a majority vote, they owe us compelling arguments.

Politically, it was probably wise for House Republicans to keep quiet during today’s debate. Many must realize that they’re on the wrong side of history, as public opinion polls show increasing support for same-sex marriage rights. A “loud and proud” statement for the public record supporting this bill could be embarrassing 10 or 20 years from now.

Still, I wonder if voting for House Joint Resolution 6 will ever become a political liability for any of today’s Republican lawmakers. During the 1980s and 1990s, decades-old opposition to school desegregation or other policies of the civil rights era occasionally became a campaign issue. I remember many politicians apologizing for things they said or votes they took in the 1960s and 1970s. During the 2008 presidential race, Republican candidate John McCain felt compelled to admit he had been “wrong” to oppose a holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

After the jump I discuss a half-dozen members of the Iowa House Republican caucus who may one day wish they’d had the courage to be out in front accepting marriage equality.

A busy week at the Iowa legislature kicks off Monday evening with what’s sure to be a packed Iowa House hearing on a constitutional amendment to ban legal recognition for same-sex relationships. Groups supporting conservation of Iowa’s natural resources have several rallies and lobby days planned during the next two weeks. Those and other event details are after the jump. Please post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of an event that should be included on this calendar.

Yet another winter storm is heading for Iowa this week, but spring rains aren’t too far off. Gardeners and anyone who cares about conserving water and reducing runoff may be interested in a sale of rain barrels (all repurposed to keep waste out of landfills). Proceeds benefit the non-profit 1000 Friends of Iowa, specifically to “support the development of an educational exhibit which focuses on land use and water as it relates to run-off from non-porous surfaces as well as to bring attention to the many uses for collected rain water.” Those uses include watering gardens, washing cars and general housecleaning. Click here for more information about the rain barrels and here to order by February 11.

Governor Terry Branstad presents his draft budget to members of the Iowa House and Senate this morning. His staff have indicated he will outline about $700 million in budget cuts, including layoffs of hundreds of workers. Branstad and Republican legislators say Iowa needs to reduce spending by $700 million to make up for the projected budget gap for fiscal year 2012, which begins on July 1.

The facts tell a different story: Iowa has a projected gap of around $263 million for the coming fiscal year. That figure was the Legislative Services Agency’s best guess as of December 2010, but it probably overstates the gap. Congress extended the Bush tax cuts for all income levels, which means higher-income Iowans will not be forced to pay more federal taxes and therefore will not have more to deduct from their state tax returns. With the Bush tax cuts in place, Iowa can expect to collect about $140 million more in state tax receipts for the 2012 fiscal year. That would be enough to cover the estimated cost of the new AFSCME contract Branstad has declared unaffordable.

The $700 million figure Branstad uses assumes Iowa will use more than $300 million from the current-year budget surplus to pay for corporate and other tax cuts. He also wants to reduce commercial property taxes, which will cost the state more money to reimburse local governments. Those are Branstad’s preferences, not policies state government is obliged to implement. It’s not that Iowa can’t afford to continue the preschool program that costs about $70 million per year, or can’t afford any allowable growth in K-12 education budgets. Republicans simply want to do other things with the public’s money.

I am curious to hear what Branstad says about transportation funding today, since he came out this week against passenger rail subsidies but for a future gas tax hike to build more roads. I also wonder whether he will propose any specific reform to tax-increment financing in Iowa. TIF was originally intended to spur redevelopment in “slum and blighted” urban areas but has become increasingly costly for state government and has created inequities in commercial property taxes.

I’ll update this post with details from Branstad’s speech and political reaction after the jump. Meanwhile, share any thoughts about the state budget in this thread.

UPDATE: IowaPolitics.com posted the prepared text of Branstad’s speech. Big surprise: he’s not planning to eliminate appropriations for preschool, just to reduce them to $43 million per year. Further thoughts are below.

FRIDAY UPDATE: At the end of this post I’ve added Senator Rob Hogg’s assessment of Branstad’s draft budget. He notes that zero percent allowable growth for K-12 schools for two years is “unprecedented in the history of Iowa’s school financing formula which was created in 1973.”

Lack of funding for various flood mitigation and watershed management programs also concerns Hogg, a Democrat representing Cedar Rapids and a leading advocate of improved flood prevention efforts in Iowa.

A constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to couples of the opposite sex advanced on January 24 in both a subcommittee of the Iowa House Judiciary Committee and the full committee. House Joint Resolution 6 states, “Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state.” Iowa Republicans have promised for months to approve a constitutional amendment overturning the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2009 decision striking down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. This amendment goes further, barring any kind of legal union apart from marriage and therefore any legal recognition for same-sex relationships.  

After an emotionally charged subcommittee hearing with more than 200 observers present, Republicans Dwayne Alons and Chris Hagenow voted to advance the amendment, while Democrat Beth Wessel-Kroeschell voted no. Later in the day, the full House Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a 13 to 8 vote. Democrat Kurt Swaim joined all 12 Republicans in voting yes, while the other Democrats on the committee voted no. Click here for a list of House Judiciary Committee members.

Reading the news coverage of yesterday’s debate, I was struck by how many misleading talking points were used to justify denying rights and privileges to thousands of Iowans.  

The Iowa House approved a major “deappropriations” bill, House File 45, on January 19 by a party-line vote of 60 to 40. Republican leaders fast-tracked what they call the Taxpayers First Act, which passed the House Appropriations Committee on the third day of the 2011 session. The bill would cut dozens of programs while increasing spending in a few areas. In addition, $327.4 million from this year’s surplus revenue would go into a new “Tax Relief Fund,” instead of being used to help close the projected budget gap for fiscal year 2012. This bill summary (pdf) lists the budget cuts and supplemental appropriations in House File 45. Click here for the full bill text.

Although the majority of speakers at a January 18 public hearing opposed the bill, and organizations lobbying against the bill outnumber those that have signed on in support, the House Republicans passed the bill with few significant changes. Democrats offered many amendments as floor debate went late into the evening on January 19, trying to save funds for the statewide voluntary preschool program, passenger rail, smoking cessation programs, and sustainable communities, among other things. Representatives rejected almost all those amendments on party-line votes. This page shows what amendments were filed, and the House Journal for January 19 contains the roll call votes.

House File 45 now moves to the Iowa Senate, which has a 26-24 Democratic majority. Democratic senators are likely to back increased expenditures for mental health services and indigent defense while opposing many of the spending cuts. After the jump I take a closer look at some of the most controversial provisions in House File 45.

Iowa Republicans vowed late last year to pass new abortion restrictions modeled on a Nebraska statute which in effect bans the procedure after the 20th week of gestation. Abortions are already illegal in Iowa after the sixth month of pregnancy except if a doctor believes the procedure could “preserve the life or health” of the pregnant woman. The new bill, House File 5, asserts that an “unborn child” can experience pain after the 20th week of gestation and bans abortions after that time unless “The pregnant woman has a condition which the physician deems a medical emergency” or “It is necessary to preserve the life of the unborn child.”

Very few abortions are performed in Iowa after the 20th week of pregnancy. In 2006 just nine out of more than 6,700 abortions occurred at the 21th week of gestation or later. Of the 5,829 abortions performed in Iowa in 2009, only six were induced after the 20th week. However, Republicans want to prevent Dr. LeRoy Carhart from opening a clinic in Council Bluffs to serve women seeking abortions after 20 weeks. Carhart had worked with Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas for more than a decade but moved to Omaha after Tiller’s assassination in 2009. The new Nebraska law prompted Carhart to close his Omaha clinic. Last month he began working at a Maryland clinic.

Iowa House Republican leaders have expressed confidence about passing new abortion restrictions. They have a 60 to 40 majority with no pro-choice members of their caucus. I believe this legislation could pass the Iowa Senate, because unlike the 1980s and 1990s, there are no longer any pro-choice Republicans to cancel out the votes of Democrats supporting more restrictions on reproductive rights. Governor Terry Branstad would be eager to sign any anti-choice bill.

However, Craig Robinson reported yesterday that House File 5 lacks the votes to clear the Iowa House Human Resources Committee. Two of the most conservative first-term GOP legislators, Kim Pearson and Glen Massie, serve on that committee and oppose the bill, presumably because it would not go far enough to restrict abortions. Without their support, Republicans can count on only 10 votes in the 21-member committee. According to Robinson, Iowa Right to Life, the Iowa Catholic Conference, and the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition all support House File 5. But the FAMiLY LEADER organization led by Bob Vander Plaats and others from the Iowa Family Policy Center oppose the bill.

Pearson and Massie will face tremendous pressure to change their position. I wouldn’t be surprised if they vote for House File 5 after all. But if they resist carrots or sticks Republican leaders wave at them, the bill could be dead for the 2011 session.

Speaking of reproductive rights, no one in the House Republican caucus seems to realize that the family planning spending cuts in House File 45, which passed the chamber on January 19, would likely increase the number of early abortions performed in Iowa. It’s sadly typical for anti-choice politicians to oppose effective means to prevent unintended pregnancies.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register’s Jason Clayworth posted a good rundown on the GOP split over this bill.

Nearly the entire Iowa House Republican caucus is co-sponsoring House Joint Resolution 6, a constitutional amendment that would ban not only same-sex marriages, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples in Iowa. The bill was introduced today, although the text of HJR 6 is not yet available on the legislature’s official website.

Fifty-six of the 60 Republicans in the Iowa House are listed as sponsors of the bill. No Democrats have signed onto the bill as a sponsor.

Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, is leading the resolution and said he offered it to all Republicans to sign as sponsors as well as some Democrats.   Democrats and the four Republicans declined to sign this version, he said.

The four Republicans who declined to sign are Reps Steve Lukan of New Vienna, Peter Cownie of West Des Moines, Scott Raecker of Urbandale and David Tjepkes of Gowrie.

Cownie told the Des Moines Register’s Jason Clayworth that he plans to vote for the bill on the House floor, and I assume Lukan, Raecker and Tjepkes will too.

Once upon a time, Republicans pretended they didn’t mean to write discrimination into the state constitution, they only wanted to protect a traditional definition of marriage. I’m “shocked, shocked” to learn that Republicans want not only to exclude some couples from civil marriage, but also to foreclose any legal recognition of or protection for same-sex relationships.

That position clearly does not reflect popular opinion in Iowa. Even before the Varnum v Brien ruling, a Hawkeye poll conducted in March 2009 found that 26 percent of Iowans supported same-sex marriage rights and another 28 percent supported civil unions, while just 37 percent opposed any legal recognition of same-sex relationships and 9 percent did not know. An Iowa poll this month by Public Policy Polling did not ask about civil unions but found that 41 percent of respondents supported same-sex marriage rights. In the same poll, 52 percent of respondents said same-sex marriage should not be legal, but presumably a significant portion of that group would back civil unions or some form of legal protection.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has said he will block any marriage amendment from coming to a vote in the upper chamber, so Iowa House approval is probably the end of the road for House Joint Resolution 6 this session. If the GOP wins an Iowa Senate majority in 2012, this kind of amendment would likely pass in 2013. Republicans would have to hold both chambers of the legislature and pass the bill again in 2015 or 2016 in order to get a marriage amendment on the November 2016 ballot. A simple majority of yes votes would be needed to approve the amendment.

One Iowa is urging supporters of marriage equality to contact their state representatives and senators immediately. It might be worth mentioning that New Hampshire Republicans, who control both chambers of the legislature, have decided not to try to repeal same-sex marriage rights this year. The GOP leader of the New Hampshire House, D.J. Bettencourt, has said “social issues must take a backseat” to legislation focused on jobs and the economy.

UPDATE: Alons showed the logical reasoning skills that make him one of Iowa’s most clueless legislators when speaking to the Des Moines Register yesterday:

“I think the biggest issue is that if that (a same-sex marriage ban) is carried forward, and then Iowa does civil unions and recognizes that as a substitute status, then, from what I’ve seen in other states,” people would come to consider same-sex civil unions as equal to marriage, Alons said.

Republican Jack Whitver won today’s special election to represent Iowa Senate district 35, covering most of northern Polk County. With two-thirds of the precincts reporting, unofficial results show Whitver with more than 60 percent of the votes against Democrat John Calhoun. UPDATE: With 31 of 32 precincts reporting, Whitver had 4,771 votes (63.5 percent) to 2,739 (36.4 percent) for Calhoun. The result isn’t surprising given the GOP advantage in voter registration in this fast-growing district. Republican Larry Noble won a hard-fought race in Senate district 35 in 2006 (a Democratic wave year) and was unopposed for re-election in 2010. He resigned from the Senate after Governor Terry Branstad chose him to lead the Department of Public Safety.

A former Iowa State University football player, Whitver coaches for the Iowa Barnstormers arena football team, attends Drake University law school and owns a sports training business. He has promised to serve only two terms in the Senate.

Whitver’s victory means that barring any more special elections, Democrats will hold a 26-24 majority in the Iowa Senate during the 2011 and 2012 legislative sessions.

Speaking of the upper chamber, I learned today that only one attorney is currently serving the Iowa Senate. That’s the lowest number of lawyers the body has ever had, according to Iowa Lawyer magazine, a publication of the state bar association. Click here or look after the jump for the name of that lone attorney senator. Of the 100 representatives now serving in the Iowa House, 15 are attorneys.

Tuesday is shaping up to be the big day in Iowa politics this week, with a special election to fill a state Senate seat and a public hearing on the first bill to clear a House committee during the 2011 session.

Details on those and other events are after the jump. Activists and politicians, send me your public schedule so I can add the information to these calendars.

The preschool program will be at the center of Democratic opposition to a “deappropriations” bill the Iowa House Appropriations Committee approved this week. Republicans say House Study Bill 1, which has been renamed House File 45, would save $500 million over three years. Nearly a third of that total would come from eliminating the statewide voluntary preschool program for four-year-olds (estimated to cost $69.9 million in fiscal year 2012 and $75.1 million in fiscal year 2013). Click here for a summary listing the budget cuts and supplemental appropriations in House File 45.

On January 13, House Democrats launched a website to help mobilize Iowans who value the long-term benefits of preschool. Ending the program could affect 20,000 children across the state. This chart (pdf file) shows the preschool enrollment for four-year-olds and cost to the state for each school district. For instance, in the Des Moines area there are 1,335 children enrolled in the preschool program through the Des Moines Community Schools, 235 in the West Des Moines school district, 208 in Johnston, 207 in Southeast Polk, 163 in Norwalk, 147 in Urbandale, and 122 in Ankeny. In the Cedar Rapids area, 473 children are enrolled in preschool through the Cedar Rapids school district and 175 in Linn-Mar.

A public hearing on House File 45 will take place Tuesday, January 18 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the House chambers at the capitol. Only 40 people will be allowed to speak, but any Iowan can send written comments on the bill to lioinfo AT legis.state.ia.us, with “testimony” in the e-mail subject line. House Democrats are also asking members of the public to post comments at the Save Preschool site.

Statehouse Republicans and incoming Governor Terry Branstad want to replace the preschool program with a voucher system geared to low-income families. However, many middle-income families in Iowa are also unable to afford preschool, which can easily cost $700 to $800 per month. If state assistance for middle-class families disappears, many preschools could close for lack of students.

It’s unfortunate that preschool became a partisan issue in Iowa. A Pew Center on the States report published last month found, “Despite persistent budget shortfalls, the majority of state legislatures have once again made the prudent decision to protect pre-k programs.” In addition, more than a dozen states “with control of the executive and legislative branches split between the two major parties” nevertheless “protected their pre-k investments from budget cuts.”

The Iowa Board of Medicine has dismissed a complaint regarding Planned Parenthood of the Heartland‘s use of telemedecine to provide abortions:

The system, the first of its kind in the nation, allows a physician in Des Moines to deliver the pills to patients in remote clinics around the state. After speaking to a patient for a few minutes via videoconferencing, the doctor pushes a computer button that opens a drawer in front of the patient. The patient reaches in the drawer to retrieve the pills, then takes the first dose while the doctor watches. She then takes the rest of the pills at home, where she has an induced miscarriage.

The national anti-abortion group Operation Rescue complained to Iowa regulators that the system broke state law, which says abortions may only be performed by a physician. The group said the remote-control method did not meet the requirement. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland leaders said that the method was legal, and that Operation Rescue was looking for any excuse to limit women’s access to abortion services.

The Des Moines Register posted the letter from Iowa Board of Medicine Executive Director Mark Bowden to Operation Rescue. Excerpt:

After a thorough investigation and careful review of the investigative materials obtained in this matter, the Board voted to close the file Without taking disciplinary action against Dr. Haskell. Although this may not be the outcome you were seeking, you can be assured that your complaint was investigated and the Board reached its decision after full review of the investigative record. […]

The Board’s primary responsibility is to protect the public by ensuring that physicians provide appropriate medical care to patients. The Board takes seriously all complaints it receives.

Republican lawmakers have vowed to push legislation restricting abortion access during the Iowa legislature’s 2011 session, which started this week. One bill likely to pass the Iowa House will be modeled on a Nebraska statute that bans abortions after the 20th week of gestation. Some representatives also want to ban abortions via telemedecine, and Governor-elect Terry Branstad has said he wants that practice to be discontinued. That could force many Iowa women to travel great distances to a clinic providing surgical abortion or a drug that induces abortion.  

The Iowa House Appropriations Committee passed House Study Bill 1 on January 12, by a party-line vote of 15 to 10. Republicans call the bill the “Taxpayers First Act” and claim it would save the state more than $500 million over three years, while refunding some money to taxpayers and allocating an extra $25 million for mental health services over the next 18 months. As Bleeding Heartland discussed here, the potential savings in the current budget year are far smaller. The Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate is unlikely to approve some of the big-ticket spending cuts, such as complete elimination of the voluntary preschool program for four-year-olds. The full text of the bill as introduced is here (pdf file). The Legislative Services Agency analysis of how much various provisions would cost or save is here (pdf file).

Looking through the lobbyist declarations on HSB 1, so far only Iowans for Tax Relief, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the Washington-based 501(c)4 group American Principles in Action have declared support for it. The bill’s opponents include the Greater Des Moines Partnership, the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce, the Iowa Association of School Boards, the Iowa chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, major labor unions (AFSCME and the Iowa State Education Association), the State Bar Association, and many organizations that advocate for public health and environmental causes. Numerous lobbyists haven’t taken a position on the bill; influential organizations still undecided include the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, the League of Cities, the State Association of Counties, the Iowa Medical Society, the Cedar Rapids Chamber of Commerce, the Iowa Chamber Alliance, and the American Association of Retired Persons.

UPDATE: The “deappropriations” bill was renamed House File 45. Click here for a bill summary.

Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady addresses the Iowa legislature this morning in what will surely be the most-watched ever state of the judiciary speech. Iowa Public Television is carrying the live feed at 10 am, and I’ll liveblog after the jump. Cady is the senior justice remaining on the high court, having been appointed by Governor Terry Branstad in 1998. He is also the author of the 2009 Varnum v Brien ruling, which struck down Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. That decision sparked a successful campaign against retaining Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices Michael Streit and David Baker in November. The four remaining justices chose Cady to serve as chief justice until replacements for Ternus, Streit and Baker have been appointed.

So far 61 people have applied for a position on the Iowa Supreme Court. The current list is here, but more applications may come in by the deadline (January 14). So far applicants include 10 women and 51 men from many different towns and cities of the state. Most are in their 40s or 50s. The few applicants in their 30s include both U.S. attorneys appointed by George W. Bush for Iowa (Matt Whitaker and Matt Dummermuth). One Republican state legislator, Iowa House Judiciary Committee Chair Rich Anderson, has applied as well. The Des Moines Register noted that one applicant, University of Iowa law professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig, submitted a brief in support of same-sex marriage when the Supreme Court was considering the Varnum v Brien case. Another applicant, Michael Keller, has praised that ruling, which allowed him to marry his partner.

State Court Administrator David Boyd told the Des Moines Register that “he was ‘very pleased, and maybe a little surprised’ with the quality and number of applicants, given the intense public scrutiny on the court since the election.” The state judicial nominating commission “welcomes written comments from the public about the qualifications of any of the applicants.” After interviewing the candidates, the judicial nominating commission will send a short list of nine names to Branstad, who will fill the three vacancies.

P.S. This week a report by the National Institute on Money in State Politics summarized the independent expenditures in last year’s retention campaign. Supporters of retaining Ternus, Streit and Baker were vastly outspent by groups seeking to oust the justices.

UPDATE: Liveblog starting now after the jump. Iowa Public TV will rebroadcast the speech at 9:30 pm on Wednesday.

THURSDAY UPDATE: House Judiciary Committee Chair Anderson seems to be closing the door on impeachment.

Rep. Rich Anderson, R-Clarinda, said he personally believes that the justices’ actions in issuing a ruling that in effect legalized same-sex marriage do not meet the standard for impeachment spelled out in the Iowa Constitution: “misdemeanor or malfeasance in office.” The court ruled that an Iowa law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional.

He said his gut reaction is that the yet-to-be-filed bill won’t make it out of his committee, one of the first steps in the legislative process.

“I don’t believe there’s any likelihood of impeachment,” Anderson said.

I’ve posted more reactions to Cady’s speech from state legislators below.  

During Governor Chet Culver’s final address to the Iowa legislature this morning, he mentioned that his administration

provided the legislature and the new administration with a detailed summary addressing the historic egg recall last summer. This includes five proposed changes in Iowa law that will help improve food safety and employee training standards in the wake of the salmonella outbreak last summer.

I’ve posted the full text of the Culver administration’s egg safety proposals after the jump. This passage summarizes the five areas that would require legislative action:

Although the new federal egg regulatory regime is aimed at the state’s largest producers, a new, mandatory Iowa [Salmonella enteriditis] detection and prevention program should be enacted under amendments to existing law and the creation of a new Iowa Code Section 196.15 to complement the federal government’s efforts to prevent SE contaminated shell eggs from entering into the nation’s food chain from all of Iowa’s egg producers.

There are at least five issues that are not covered by the recent federal egg regulatory reforms, that Iowa law does not currently address and that, therefore, unless corrected legislatively, may leave consumers of Iowa-produced eggs vulnerable to future SE poisoning.  First, federal egg safety laws pertain only to egg farms that host at least 3,000 hens and do not cover smaller operations.  Second, under federal law, producers have no legal obligation to report positive SE testing results to any federal or state agency.   Third, there are no accreditation or certification standards for laboratories that conduct SE testing.  Fourth, there are no legal criteria that establish the minimal level of training and competency for persons who are charged with the responsibility for implementing a new mandatory SE detection and prevention program.  And, fifth, there is no clearly-identified funding stream to support an effective expansion of state egg programs.

It would take heavy lifting to get these sensible ideas passed and signed into law. Even when Democrats controlled both chambers of the Iowa legislature, few new regulations on agriculture saw the light of day. The Iowa House now has a 60-40 Republican majority, which makes passing new food safety rules even more of an uphill battle. Governor-elect Terry Branstad has repeatedly criticized what he views as excessive regulations on farms, and the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation endorsed Branstad and almost a full slate of Republican legislative candidates last year.  

Governor Chet Culver addresses Iowa legislators for the last time this morning. Iowa Public Television will carry the speech, and I’ll liveblog after the jump. Meanwhile, use this thread for any comments about Culver’s record and legacy. I expect Culver will highlight efforts to increase renewable energy production and give more children access to health care and preschool, while leaving the state in better fiscal condition than most of the country.

I see Governor-elect Terry Branstad declined Culver’s invitation to attend today’s speech, and Culver won’t attend inaugural events on Friday.

UPDATE: The speech is now over, and my liveblog is after the jump. The biggest surprise for me came toward the end: Culver alluded to a report prompted by last summer’s massive egg recall, recommending five changes in Iowa law to address food safety issues. I’ll write a separate post later with more details on those proposed changes.

SECOND UPDATE: Here is the full text of Culver’s speech, as delivered.

The Iowa legislature convenes this morning for its 2011 session. Join me after the jump for clips on two of the most contentious issues to be resolved this session: proposed spending cuts and impeachment proceedings against four Iowa Supreme Court justices.

UPDATE: You can listen to opening speeches by Senate President Jack Kibbie, Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, House Speaker Pro Tempore Jeff Kaufmann, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer at the Radio Iowa site.

SECOND UPDATE: Lawmakers issued the official canvass of the 2010 gubernatorial election: Branstad/Reynolds 592,079 votes, Culver/Judge 484,798 votes.

This week is a big one in Iowa politics, with the state legislature’s 2011 session starting Monday and Terry Branstad’s inauguration for a fifth term as governor on Friday. Several non-profits are organizing members and supporters to lobby legislators as well. Event details are after the jump.

One of my new year’s resolutions is to post event calendars regularly at Bleeding Heartland. Activists and politicians can help by sending your event notices to me: desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com. Please post a comment if you know of something I’ve left out.

Iowa House Republican leaders rolled out their state budget cutting proposals yesterday. They plan to introduce the “Taxpayers First Act” immediately when the 2011 session begins next week. Rod Boshart covered the planned spending cuts here, repeating the House Republicans’ claim that the bill would “cut state spending by $114 million this year.” That figure doesn’t appear to correspond to the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency’s document spelling out how much each proposal would save in fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013. The first two pages of that document cover fiscal savings from proposals that would not require legislative action; the second two cover proposals that would require new legislation (and therefore support from the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate as well as Governor-elect Terry Branstad’s signature). Click here to download that document as a pdf file.

If everything on the first two pages of the GOP wish list happens, general fund spending would actually increase by $23 million in the current budget year, while about $43 million would be saved from other state government funds, leading to net savings of around $19 million. Even if you assume everything on the second two pages also becomes law (very unlikely), at most $73 million would be saved from the fiscal 2011 budget. That’s way short of the “hundreds of millions” of dollars incoming Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen promised Republicans would cut from the current-year budget.

What happened? The LSA analysis didn’t support the fantasy budget cut numbers House Republicans have been throwing around for ages. Six examples are after the jump.

I also cover some spending cuts that really would save about as much as Republicans have claimed, but in a penny-wise and pound-foolish way.

Before the November election, advocates for retaining the three Iowa Supreme Court justices on the ballot warned that throwing out the judges over one controversial decision would bring more politics into the judicial arena. The new debate over impeaching the four remaining Supreme Court justices shows that’s exactly what has happened.

In 2009, calls for impeaching the Supreme Court justices were a bridge too far even for Bob Vander Plaats, Iowa’s leading critic of the Varnum v Brien ruling. Now newly-elected Republican State Representatives Tom Shaw, Kim Pearson and Glen Massie are drafting articles of impeachment to introduce during the 2011 legislative session.

So far not one GOP official has spoken out against using a controversial ruling as grounds for criminal proceedings against four judges.

JANUARY 3 UPDATE: Governor-elect Terry Branstad finally spoke out against impeaching the remaining Supreme Court justices. Click the link or scroll to the bottom of this post to read his comments.

When the 84th General Assembly convenes on January 10, the Iowa House will have 60 Republicans and 40 Democrats. House Republicans selected leaders and committee chairs last month, and Democrats finished choosing leaders and ranking committee members in the past two weeks.

All Iowa House leaders, committee chairs and ranking members can be found after the jump. I’ve included a link to a short biography for each state representative, as well as the year the person was first elected to the Iowa House and the district he or she represents.  

Three attorneys who are challenging last month’s judicial retention elections today withdrew their request for an injunction to allow Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit to continue serving after December 31. The attorneys filed their lawsuit last week, saying the retention vote was illegal because the Iowa Constitution stipulates that judges “shall at such judicial election stand for retention in office on a separate ballot which shall submit to the question of whether such judge shall be retained in office […].” Lynda Waddington reports today that the lawsuit will go forward, but plaintiffs dropped their request to let Ternus, Baker and Streit continue to serve after learning that “the Iowa Judicial Branch and the justices removed from service were not in favor of it.”

A court will consider this lawsuit sometime next year. I believe it will go nowhere for reasons I discussed here. Iowa has been holding judicial retention elections in conjunction with general elections for nearly five decades. No one has ever demanded that voters be provided special ballots for the retention vote. IowaVoter points out that when Iowans approved the constitutional amendment on replacing judicial elections in 1962, lever machines rather than paper ballots were widely used. I share IowaVoter’s reading of the relevant passage in the constitution: it means that there must be a separate ballot line for each judge, so voters aren’t asked to retain or not retain the judges as a group.

Which do you think will get shot down first, Bleeding Heartland readers? This lawsuit challenging the legality of the retention vote, or statehouse Republicans’ efforts to impeach the remaining four Supreme Court justices?

Any comments about Iowa’s judicial system are welcome in this thread. I believe an impeachment spectacle during the 2011 legislative session will only make it harder for Governor-elect Terry Branstad to get lawmakers to pass the modest reform he favors (requiring partisan balance for judicial nominating commissions).

The Board of Regents unanimously approved requests last week for 95 sabbaticals in the coming year, to be taken by faculty at the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa. That number was way down from the 167 sabbaticals approved a few years ago. But Republicans, including the next Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, had called for a moratorium on sabbaticals to save money.

House Republicans have estimated that eliminating sabbaticals at the regents universities for a year would save taxpayers $6 million. However, “According to the regents, the 95 sabbaticals carry a $422,000 cost for replacement teachers, and last year’s sabbaticals generated $5.2 million in grants.”

Oops. The Republican savings estimate is off by more than a factor of ten. How did that happen? The Iowa City Press-Citizen explains:

[Iowa House Republicans’] projected savings apparently includes salaries that professors will earn whether they are on sabbatical or not.

Great fact-checking there on the House Republican staff. You’ve been circulating this $6 million figure for months, based on a false assumption that if universities stopped granting faculty sabbaticals, they could stop paying those professors’ salaries.

In a rational world, politicians wouldn’t try to micromanage affairs at the state universities, and would recognize their mistake in exaggerating the cost of sabbaticals. But Republicans have found an issue with a lot of symbolic punch. Like Paulsen says, “Why should the taxpayers of Iowa be paying to basically give these folks a year off from teaching?” Good universities have controls to ensure that faculty have research and publications to show for their sabbatical time, but the breaks from teaching can easily be portrayed as a big paid vacation for elitist eggheads.

Steve Kettering, who will be minority whip in the Iowa Senate, told the Press-Citizen that the regents’ vote on sabbaticals “is a thumb in their eye […] It just furthers the distance the people of Iowa feel about their universities. There is just a difference between the lives Iowans lead and the lives of the people in the university sector.” Kettering said legislators may respond either through reducing appropriations to the regents universities, or by passing a law to stop sabbaticals. I don’t think Republicans would be deterred by a Legislative Services Agency analysis showing the cost savings in the range of a few hundred thousand dollars, rather than the $6 million Republicans dream of.

Under Democratic control, the Iowa Senate probably would not pass a specific law halting sabbaticals, and senators would resist deep cuts to the regents universities’ budgets. However, if the Republican-controlled House appropriates far less to the universities, citing the regents’ failure to control costs, the final budget deal struck between the state senators and representatives could end up reducing appropriations by a lot more than the true cost of sabbaticals. The three state universities’ operating request for fiscal year 2012 is about $639 million.

A related concern is that yet again, we learn that a Republican proposal to save millions of taxpayer dollars isn’t supported by facts. Paulsen has made big promises about cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from the state budget in the current year and beyond, in order to pay for GOP tax-cutting plans. Where will that money come from? Laying off some state employees and axing a few Democratic initiatives, like the Power Fund and voluntary preschool for four-year-olds, won’t add up to enough in savings. Significant cuts to higher education may be on the way, and the Board of Regents could become the scapegoat.

LATE UPDATE: University of Iowa President Sally Mason and P. Barry Butler, the university’s interim executive vice president and provost, published a guest column in the December 28 Des Moines Register defending “career development assignments.” Excerpts are after the jump.

Earlier this year, the Democratic-controlled Iowa legislature passed one of the loosest “shall issue” gun permit laws in the country. The bill appeared to have died in the legislature’s “funnel”, but Democratic leaders revived it, and the final version passed both chambers by wide margins. Democrats presumably thought supporting the top legislative priority of the National Rifle Assocation would save many of their vulnerable incumbents. But even though the NRA endorsed Governor Chet Culver and many Democratic lawmakers, Republicans made huge gains in Iowa last month.

Now the NRA plans “a major push for expanded gun rights in Iowa,” Jennifer Jacobs reported in today’s Des Moines Register. The organization’s priorities for the 2011 legislative session are listed after the jump.

Incoming Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen discussed plans for shrinking state government in a December 8 speech. Rod Boshart has the story:

“You should us expect us to make some tough choices,” Paulsen told a Des Moines Partnership lunch crowd. “I think you’re going to see us just wholesale eliminate a couple difference programs and a couple different offices and we’re going to start with those that have marginal or no benefit.

The incoming House leader said voters sent a clear signal that government at all levels is growing too big too fast, regulating too much, and spending and taxing too much – issues the reconfigured House plans to address next session.[…]

The Power Fund has been administered by the Iowa Office of Energy Independence in conjunction with the Iowa Power Fund Board, two entities that were created when the program was enacted in the 2007 legislative session.

Paulsen also said he would prefer to replace the Grow Iowa Values Fund, started by former Gov. Tom Vilsack, with “things that would grow the economy” under the new public-private partnership envisioned by Governor-elect Terry Branstad [….]

Paulsen’s premise is incorrect. Iowa’s state government has not been growing during the past decade; on the contrary, general fund spending has fallen as a share of the economy and of personal income. But that’s a subject for another day.

House Republicans have advocated cutting the Power Fund for some time, and doing so would theoretically save $25 million per budget year. According to Boshart, the Values Fund received $45 million in fiscal year 2010 and $38 million for fiscal year 2011. I don’t believe the real savings will be nearly so large, because too many business interests have benefited from Values Fund and Power Fund grants. Lobbyists will work to ensure that significant funding for business support remains under a different department or program.

In addition, the Iowa Senate, which is under Democratic control, may insist that the state continue to invest significant resources in renewable energy. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal said last month,

If [R]epublicans have another approach that will help keep us at the forefront of renewable energy in this state and clean energy and green energy we’re completely open to looking at that. It doesn’t have to be called a power fund, it doesn’t have to be called I-jobs.

I will say this: cutting the Power Fund is more realistic than some other big savings proposed by House Republicans in the past. I expect Paulsen will be disappointed by the Legislative Services Agency’s analysis of how much can truly be saved by privatizing the state vehicle fleet or denying benefits to undocumented immigrants. The Iowa Senate will block efforts to eliminate the preschool program, although some money may be saved by means-testing that program, as Governor-elect Terry Branstad has advocated. Last year’s government reorganization already improved efficiencies in state purchasing.

One old Republican idea I haven’t heard Paulsen mention lately is implementing “the Principal Plan” to impose salary cuts on non-union state employees. House Republicans have called for requiring the governor to negotiate pay reductions on a sliding scale, from 2 percent for employees earning less than $40,000 per year up to a 10 percent salary reduction for those earning more than $100,000. This pdf file shows the projected savings in the different categories.

Share any thoughts about the state budget in this thread.

Governor-elect Terry Branstad announced three appointments on December 7. He will retain Brigadier General Tim Orr as Adjutant General of the Iowa National Guard, a post Orr has held since March 2009. Story County Treasurer Dave Jamison, who unsuccessfully ran for state treasurer, will head the Iowa Finance Authority in the Branstad administration. Retired Iowa Army National Guard Brigadier General Jodi Tymeson will lead the state Department of Veterans Affairs. Tymeson retired from the Iowa House this year, having represented district 73 for five terms.

Press releases containing background information on all three appointees are after the jump. None of them should have trouble being confirmed by the Iowa Senate. I noticed the Branstad administration’s bio of Tymeson didn’t mention her most recent role as co-chair of Bob Vander Plaats’ gubernatorial campaign.

Branstad has asked all state department heads to send him their resignations by December 15. He will replace most, if not all, of Governor Chet Culver’s appointees.

Branstad named three new staffers today. His liaison to the Iowa House and Senate will be Todd Schulz, who has handled government relations for Newton-based Iowa Telecom. The governor’s executive scheduler will be Alicia Freed, a former staffer for Senator Chuck Grassley who most recently worked as project manager for RuffaloCODY LLC in Cedar Rapids. Jimmy Centers, who was northeast Iowa field coordinator for Branstad’s gubernatorial campaign, will be deputy communications director. I wouldn’t be surprised if Centers got a promotion before too long, because Branstad’s communications director Tim Albrecht may go work for one of the Republican presidential campaigns in 2011.

Meanwhile, Branstad spoke about his property tax plans while addressing the Iowa Taxpayers Association’s annual meeting in West Des Moines today.

In proposing to cut commercial property tax rates by 35 percent to 40 percent for new businesses and phase down rates for existing businesses in a like manner over four or five years, Branstad said part of the lost revenues for local entities could be offset by increased business activity that would generate new property tax receipts. He also suggested that cities and counties should be less aggressive in offering tax increment financing and abatements that create disparities among new and existing businesses.

The price tag for lowering the commercial property tax burden would depend on the growth the proposed relief could generate, he said. Branstad said his plan would be to provide state funding to hold local governments “harmless” but not give them a windfall in the process – similar to when the state phased out the property tax on machinery and equipment in the 1990s when he previously served as governor.

“We want to make this adjustment in a fair way,” Branstad said, conceding that the cost could be as much as $500 million over four years.

The Iowa Taxpayers Association supports Branstad’s property tax plans, but Republican legislative leaders have warned getting the proposal through the legislature will be difficult. Yesterday Democratic Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal described the phase-out of the property tax on machinery and equipment as “pretty close to the biggest unfunded mandate in the history of the state.” The executive directors of the National League of Cities and the Iowa League of Cities both expressed concern about Branstad’s proposal:

No other state in the nation is considering similar cuts to commercial property taxes, said Donald Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities, a national advocate for municipalities. Resulting cuts to key city services such as police protection and road improvements ultimately could push businesses away, he said.

“The objective” to lower commercial property tax “is a laudable one, but the cost to municipalities could be draconian,” Borut said. “If there is some way to guarantee in blood that the municipalities would be held harmless, it’s one thing, but I don’t know how one can do that. Even with the best intentions, the pressures would be enormous.”

UPDATE: James Q. Lynch has more on local government officials worrying about Branstad’s property tax proposals. In that piece, Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett raises some good points:

Cedar Rapids is more dependent on property taxes than many communities, Corbett said. It has no gaming revenue and it local option sales tax is dedicated to flood recovery.

On a personal level, he’d like to see property tax relief targeted to benefit local businesses.

“Is there some different classification within commercial property tax base so you’re not giving Wal-mart a tax break at the same level as small business” he said.

Iowa Senate Democratic leaders announced committee assignments on December 6. After the jump I’ve posted details on the leadership team and committee chairs. Asterisks are next to the names of all Democrats who were elected to four-year terms in 2008 and therefore will be up for re-election in 2012. Redistricting will force some Democrats who were just elected this year to be on the ballot again in two years, but until the new map is approved, we won’t know where the extra elections will take place.

Democrats currently hold 26 of the 50 Iowa Senate seats. Republicans hold 23 seats, and a special election will be held in Senate district 48 in January. Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley announced committee assignments on December 7. Scroll all the way down for the list of GOP leadership and ranking members in the upper chamber.

Iowa’s three-member Revenue Estimating Conference again raised projections for state revenues during the current fiscal year and fiscal year 2012, following another month of growing state tax collections in November. The news hasn’t deterred Republican leaders from planning mid-year budget cuts, and legislators from both parties acknowledged the end of federal stimulus funds will make the next budget year difficult. Details and proposals are after the jump.

The newly elected Iowa House Republican caucus picked a leadership team last week, and incoming House Speaker Kraig Paulsen named committee chairs this week.

Follow me after the jump for information about who will run various House committees in the 84th General Assembly. It’s notable that Paulsen passed over veteran legislators while giving chairmanships to some representatives beginning their second or third terms.

LATE UPDATE: Democratic ranking members for the appropriations subcommittees have been added at the bottom of this post.

Cutting spending from the current-year budget as well as from the budget for fiscal year 2012 will be statehouse Republicans’ top priority, incoming Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen told journalists yesterday. Paulsen said Republicans will seek to reduce fiscal year 2011 spending by “hundreds of millions” of dollars.

Mid-year spending cuts would make sense if Iowa faced revenue shortfalls, like the declines that prompted Governor Chet Culver’s across the board budget cut in October 2009. However, state revenues have been coming in ahead of projections since fiscal year 2011 began, and the 2011 budget was balanced when Democratic legislators approved it in March. The Revenue Estimating Conference will meet again in December. If their projections show that Iowa’s finances are on solid ground, with revenues still exceeding expectations for the current-year budget, how will Republicans justify their planned cuts?

Paulsen asserts there are “several hundred million dollars in the current year’s budget of marginal or no value to Iowans,” but a large share of the budget goes toward education and human services. Todd Dorman posted the wish lists for spending cuts Iowa House Republicans offered during the last two legislative sessions. Some of the ideas are more realistic than others. Republicans could save tens of millions by scrapping the preschool program and the Power Fund. However, Iowa doesn’t spend anything like the $92.3 million Republicans claim we could save by ending “all state benefits to adult illegal immigrants.” I expect the Legislative Services Agency to point that out next year.

Republicans have said $18.5 million could be saved through privatizing the state’s vehicle fleet. However, Democrats have disputed those projections:

Since December 2009, the Department of Administrative Services has already achieved more than $10.5 million in cost savings under [Executive Order] 20 and [Senate File] 2088 on fleet management reforms. A 2007 Iowa Legislative Services Report concluded that selling off the entire state fleet would cost taxpayers millions of dollars, instead of saving money.

I doubt it would be workable to combine administrative functions at the University of Iowa, Iowa State and the University of Northern Iowa, which Republicans claim would save taxpayers $62 million.

Republican plans to save $4 million by eliminating “taxpayer-funded lobbyists” are misleading too. Although some state employees register as lobbyists during the legislative session to weigh in on bills that would affect their departments, the state does not hire any contract lobbyists. A Des Moines Register report from last summer identified $1.8 million in Iowa taxpayer-funded lobbying costs, but that figure included lobbying expenses of “state agencies, municipalities, county agencies and associations where member dues are paid by taxpayers, such as the Iowa League of Cities.”  

Any comments about the state budget are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: In the comments, willinIA points out that the $62 million in supposed savings from merging administrative functions at the regents universities was pulled out of the air by Ed Failor of Iowans for Tax Relief.

Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal promised this week to block an Iowa Senate vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, even if a majority of senators sign a petition asking for a vote. The Republican reaction to Gronstal’s comments makes me wonder whether gay marriage will be in the coming decade what the death penalty was to Iowa Republicans in the 1980s and 1990.

Reinstating the death penalty was a major theme in all of Terry Branstad’s previous election campaigns. But as governor he didn’t deploy his political capital to push that bill through the state legislature, even when Republicans controlled both chambers during his last two years in office. Many Iowa Democrats believed Branstad valued having the issue to run on more than he cared about the policy.

In light of Tuesday’s election results, Republicans sound surprisingly resigned to failure on passing a marriage amendment in the new legislature.