The Iowa legislature was supposed to adjourn for the year on April 29, but the session could go on for quite some time. The most important unresolved issues relate to the state budget and tax policy: whether legislators will pass spending plans for one fiscal year or two, how much and what kind of tax cuts will be approved, and whether the state will take the unprecedented step of passing no allowable growth for K-12 education budgets. I doubt all of this will be resolved in a week or two. Governor Terry Branstad and Republican leaders in the Iowa House worked out a deal on property tax reform, which cleared the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, but it sounds like that is a non-starter in the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate. Earlier this month, the Senate passed a $200 million commercial property tax break on a bipartisan 46 to 4 vote. Some Democrats have also warned that the Republican property tax plan usurps local government powers.

This Tuesday, May 3, Linn County residents will be able to vote on whether to extend the one percent local option sales and services tax beyond July 1, 2014. Cedar Rapids would use the local option sales tax revenue “for flood protection, street repairs, and property tax relief.” Click here for more details on the ballot initiative and flood prevention plans.

Cedar Rapids officials have asked state legislators to let the city use $200 million in state sales tax revenues for flood prevention over the next two decades. The idea has some support at the capitol but hasn’t won final approval yet. Peter Fisher of the Iowa Policy Project and Iowa Fiscal Partnership has made a convincing case against this approach to funding flood prevention (see also here).

Iowans for Tax Relief has experienced a mass exodus of high-level staff this month, and the influential conservative group’s most prominent board member resigned as well. I’m sure there’s an interesting back-story, but the latest public communication from Iowans for Tax Relief Chairman Dave Stanley wasn’t enlightening. Maybe the group will turn up on some Republican presidential campaign staff soon.

Good news and bad news came out of the April 27 meeting of the State Board of Regents. The bad news is that students at Iowa State will pay 3 percent more next year for room and board. Those charges will go up 4.3 percent at the University of Northern Iowa and 5 percent at the University of Iowa. The good news is that the University of Iowa will expand its small certificate program for students with intellectual disabilities. Former Iowa Lieutenant Governor Sally Pederson was instrumental in getting that program going; click here for more background.

Speaking of college life, the country’s conservative noise machine was up in arms this week about a dust-up in Iowa City. Anthropology and Women’s Studies Professor Ellen Lewin used an obscene epithet responding to an e-mail from the College Republicans about a conservative “coming out” event on campus. University President Sally Mason has already spoken out against the “bad behavior” by a faculty member. Natalie Ginty, leader of the College Republicans, isn’t satisfied and filed a formal complaint against Lewin, seeking further investigation of the incident. I don’t know what she expects investigators to turn up regarding a hasty “F** You” e-mail. I think we can all agree that faculty shouldn’t communicate with students in that way. The Daily Iowan editorial board got it right in my opinion:

There is no evidence that this was anything more than a momentary lapse in professionalism. Professors, like students, are justified in having their own political perspectives – as long as they do not get in the way of their duties. If Lewin were engaged in a pattern of harassing conservative students, strict punitive measures would be justified; an inappropriately vulgar expression of outrage is another matter. […]

The disproportionate response to this case is indicative of a Manichean partisan culture in which both sides thrive on misplaced martyrdom.

Harsh punitive measures would only serve to legitimize the exaggerated indignation, and our rhetorical culture deserves better.

A simple reprimand would remind Lewin of her duties as a professor: to hold herself as an example of intellectual, professional competence and a model of reasoned argumentation.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: State Senator Bill Dotzler delivered clever floor remarks on May 2, giving five reasons Iowans for Tax Relief should hire Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair Joe Bolkcom as its next executive director. I’ve posted the case he made after the jump.

Two-term State Representative Nate Willems announced this morning that he will run for the Iowa Senate in the new district 48 in northeast Iowa. Willems was first elected in 2008 to Iowa House district 29, comprising parts of Linn and Johnson Counties. He is the ranking Democrat on the Iowa House Education Committee.

Senate district 48 comprises all of Delaware County, most of Linn County (other than Cedar Rapids and its suburbs), and part of Jones and Buchanan counties. Part of Willems’ current district (southeast Linn County, including the towns of Mount Vernon and Lisbon) are in Senate district 48. He grew up in Anamosa (Jones County), which is also in the district. After the jump I’ve posted the detailed map of the Senate district 48, the map showing all 50 new Iowa Senate districts, and Willems’ campaign announcement.

No incumbent senator lives in the new district 48, and it is one of the most evenly-balanced districts created in the redistricting plan. As of April 2011 the district contained 11,553 registered Democrats, 11,552 Republicans and 15,559 no-party voters.

Democrats currently hold a 26 to 24 majority in the Iowa Senate. For Democrats to maintain that majority after the 2012 elections, district 48 is probably a must-win.  

The Iowa Senate confirmed six of Governor Terry Branstad’s appointees to state offices and boards yesterday, but Democratic senators indicated that two of the governor’s picks may not receive the two-thirds vote needed in the upper chamber. Meanwhile, Branstad suggested at his weekly press conference that race may be a factor in opposition to Isaiah McGee as director of the Iowa Department of Human Rights.

Follow me after the jump for more on who was confirmed yesterday and the battles coming later this week.

UPDATE: On April 12 the Senate rejected McGee as well as William Gustoff, one of Branstad’s appointees to the state Judicial Nominating Commission. Senators confirmed Teresa Wahlert with two votes to spare and three members of the Environmental Protection Commission. Details on the April 12 votes are below.

Former State Representative Roger Wendt of Sioux City died last night at the age of 77, following a long battle with lung cancer. After many years of remission, his cancer returned last year, forcing Wendt to step down after four terms in the Iowa House.

Wendt spent more than 40 years of his life working in education, first as a teacher and later as a principal. As chair of the Iowa House Education Committee, he was a crucial backer of key bills, from the 2007 “Iowa Safe School” anti-bullying act to the statewide voluntary preschool program for four-year-olds to the model core curriculum. Wendt also supported changing state law to address inequities in school building funding between rural school districts and those in urban or suburban areas with major shopping venues.

I didn’t know Wendt, but people who worked with him always spoke very highly of his professionalism and concern for Iowa children.

The Iowa House won’t gavel in until 3:30 pm on April 4 so that members can attend their former colleague’s funeral. Visitation for Wendt takes place Sunday, April 3, from 3 to 5 pm at the Meyer Brothers Chapel, 3220 Stone Park Blvd in Sioux City. Funeral services will be held at 10:30 am on April 4 at Faith Lutheran Church, 3101 Hamilton Blvd in Sioux City.

Share any thoughts or memories of Roger Wendt in this thread.

UPDATE: Bret Hayworth of the Sioux City Journal posted his tribute to Wendt here.

Iowa will soon introduce a season for hunting mourning doves, which had been protected for nearly 100 years as a symbol of peace. Last week, with no debate in the Iowa House or Senate, Senate File 464 passed both chambers easily. Governor Terry Branstad signed the bill into law with the usual photo-op for key backers, but he didn’t seem keen on media attention. The official press release on signing Senate File 464 lacked any quotes about how great the new law will be.

Over the decades, many Iowa lawmakers introduced dove-hunting legislation, and the Republican-controlled House and Senate approved a bill in 2001, but Governor Tom Vilsack vetoed it. Feelings on this issue have never broken down strictly on party lines; Democratic Senator Dick Dearden of Des Moines has been one of the most committed dove-hunting advocates. Senate File 464 passed the Iowa Senate on a bipartisan 30-18 vote; 19 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted yes, while 15 Democrats and three Republicans voted no. The bill cleared the House by 58 to 39; 48 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted yes, while 11 Republicans and 28 Democrats voted no. You can find the Iowa Senate roll call here and the House roll call here.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board argued that legislators should have respected tradition and left the ban in place. In a Mason-Dixon poll of 625 Iowa voters between March 17 and 19, 54 percent of Iowans were against legalizing dove-hunting, while just 25 percent supported it. The Humane Society of the United States commissioned the survey, which found majority opposition in the Republican, Democratic and independent sub-samples.

Although I don’t hunt, I don’t feel more connected to mourning doves than to other wild birds. On the other hand, I believe legislation to expand hunting should have included provisions to protect wildlife from lead poisoning, which is a significant problem in Iowa.

Other news that caught my eye this week:

The Des Moines Register’s chief political reporter since 2002, Tom Beaumont, took a new job as the Des Moines correspondent for Associated Press.

As Des Moines Correspondent, Beaumont will join a political coverage team that includes state government reporter Mike Glover and Iowa City Correspondent Ryan J. Foley. Along with reporters from across the region and the AP’s Washington staff, they will ensure the AP’s report on the caucuses and the 2012 election is consistently first and always complete.

With only nine or ten months remaining before the Iowa caucuses, that’s not a timely departure for the Register.

Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy informed the Board of Regents that he will step down in the summer of 2012. He’s held the job since July 2001. I hope that before he leaves, Geoffroy will do the right thing and help the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture find strong leadership and more independence within the university. His successor won’t want to rile up the corporate interests that helped ISU set fundraising records during the past decade.  

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: Todd Dorman goes over the unusual process through which the dove-hunting bill passed:

Dove hunting did not soar to passage on gossamer wings, folks. It was more like a roach skittering across the kitchen floor in the dark, shielded from scrutiny by quick, deft maneuvers.

The dove bill was off the radar until just before a legislative funnel deadline that exterminates bills that don’t clear a committee. At the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee’s final meeting before the deadline, its chairman, Sen. Dick Dearden, D-Des Moines, sprung the bill and pushed it through. The bill was not on the committee’s published agenda. Surprise.

It passed the full Senate. That sent the bill to the House, where, normally, it would go through a House committee before being taken up on the floor. That provides some time for input and deliberation. Lawmakers can even call a public hearing.

Instead, just one day after Senate passage, House Republican leaders called up another Senate bill having to do with raccoon hunting. The House amended the raccoon bill so that it actually became the Senate dove bill. That very unusual bit of procedural crossbreeding allowed the dove bill to skip the House committee process entirely. Soon, the bill flew to Gov. Terry Branstad, who signed it fast and in private.

The Board of Regents approved a significant tuition hike yesterday in response to expected reductions in state funding for the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa. B.A. Morelli reported for the Iowa City Press-Citizen,

In-state students at UI, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa will see a 5 percent increase. But there are additional mandatory fees, and out-of-state students and students in specialized programs, such as business, engineering and nursing, will have increases up to 41.4 percent.

Details and background information are after the jump.

Lots going on at the state capitol this Tuesday: first, rival lobby days for the LGBT advocacy group One Iowa and Bob Vander Plaats’ umbrella organization FAMiLY Leader, which is reportedly bringing in ousted Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. Later in the day, another pro-labor rally will be held on the west steps outside the capitol building. More details on those and other events coming up this week are after the jump.

As always, post a comment or send me an e-mail to let me know of public events that should be included on this calendar.

Iowa State University Professor Matt Liebman has warned university President Gregory Geoffroy that the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture risks losing its “national and international reputation for excellence in scholarship and service” unless ISU’s administration embraces the center’s mission and removes the it from the supervision of the College of Agriculture. Liebman is a professor of agronomy who holds the Henry A. Wallace Endowed Chair for Sustainable Agriculture. His three-page letter to Geoffroy has been making the rounds in the Iowa environmental community this week. I received it from multiple sources and posted the full text after the jump.

The impending departure of the Leopold Center’s interim director prompted Liebman’s letter. He notes the “rapid turnover” and “absence of stable leadership” at Leopold since 2005, as well as the “failed and controversial national search to fill the director position” last year. Bleeding Heartland covered that fiasco here and here. Following a national search, ISU offered the top job at Leopold to plant pathologist Frank Louws, the preferred candidate of the Iowa Farm Bureau. Corn expert Ricardo Salvador had received higher evaluations from the search committee, but ISU didn’t offer him the job even after Louws turned down the position. Since then, the Leopold Center has had interim leadership with no target date set for another director search.

In his letter to Geoffroy, Liebman said the “sense of uncertainty as to the Center’s future has also created wariness among those who might be applicants for the director’s position if and when a new search is initiated.” He reminded the ISU president that the 1987 Iowa Groundwater Protection Act defined a three-fold mission for the Leopold Center:

(1) identify the negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts of existing agricultural practices, (2) research and assist the development of alternative, more sustainable agricultural practices, and (3) inform the agricultural community and general public of the Center’s findings. It is important to recognize that this mandate creates, by design, a dynamic tension between conventional and alternative forms of agriculture. This tension is a healthy part of the Center’s work; it does not indicate the Center is failing to fulfill its mission or communicate effectively. The Center has a particular responsibility to focus on the environmental problems of agriculture and their solution.

In order to “to put the Center back on track and foster circumstances that would be conducive to a national search for a permanent director,” Liebman argued that the ISU administration

needs to demonstrate its unequivocal support for the Leopold Center’s three-part mandate. Specifically, it needs to re-affirm and embrace the Center’s work in defining the shortcomings of current agricultural systems, developing alternatives, and communicating findings. Without a clear indication from the university administration that dissenting opinions about agricultural sustainability are welcome and expected, I think it will be impossible to find a nationally renowned permanent Center director who personifies excellence in scholarship, communication, and service. The absence of a national search would indicate to many observers that the university no longer prioritizes a vibrant and widely respected Leopold Center.

Second, the university administration should move supervision of the Leopold Center to the offices of ISU’s President or Vice President for Research and Economic Development. […] The university would provide more prominence to the Leopold Center and enhance its impact by placing supervision of the Center at a higher administrative level, above the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

ISU’s Dean of Agriculture Wendy Wintersteen was widely criticized last year for her handling of the Leopold Center director search. Not only did she pass over the search committee’s top candidate, she informed Salvador that he did not get the job before her first choice had decided whether to accept the position. Salvador is highly regarded in the sustainable agriculture community and appeared in the documentary “King Corn.”

The Leopold Center’s work deserves more support from the university administration. ISU alumni or others with a connection to the university, please consider adding your voice to those urging Geoffroy to preserve the center’s excellence by increasing its independence.

A public hearing on the collective bargaining bill under consideration in the Iowa House is likely to be one of the main political events of the week, but there’s much more going on around the state as well. Details are after the jump.

As always, post a comment or send me an e-mail to let me know of public events that should be included on this calendar.

Governor Terry Branstad announced some important personnel decisions in the past few days, naming former State Representative Libby Jacobs to chair the Iowa Utilities Board and three new members of the Board of Regents, including Bruce Rastetter.

Follow me after the jump for more on those and other Branstad administration appointments.

UPDATE: On March 1 President Barack Obama named Branstad to co-chair the Council of Governors, “established by the National Defense Authorization Act in 2008 to strengthen further partnership between the Federal and State governments as it pertains to national security.” Branstad will serve a two-year term as co-chair.

SECOND UPDATE: Branstad announced more than 200 appointments to state boards and commissions on March 2. Bleeding Heartland covered the four appointees to the Environmental Protection Commission here; all have ties to large agribusiness.

Another name that caught my eye was Eric Goranson, a lobbyist and parochial schools advocate whom Branstad named to the State Board of Education. He has been a leading critic of the Iowa Core Curriculum (see here and here). The Under the Golden Dome Blog argues that Goranson’s appointment may violate Iowa code, which states, “A voting member [of the Board of Education] shall not be engaged in professional education for a major portion of the member’s time nor shall the member derive a major portion of income from any business or activity connected with education.” Several of Goranson’s lobbying clients represent religious private schools or Christian home-schooling parents.

THIRD UPDATE: I forgot to mention Branstad’s two appointees to the State Judicial Nominating Commission: Helen St. Clair of Melrose and William Gustoff of Des Moines. I have been unable to find any information about Helen St. Clair, but a Maurice St. Clair of Melrose was among Branstad’s top 20 individual donors, contributing more than $45,000 to the gubernatorial campaign. I assume he is related to Helen St. Clair and will update this post if I confirm that. William Gustoff is a founding partner of the Whitaker Hagenow law firm, which includes Republican former U.S. attorney Matt Whitaker and State Representative Chris Hagenow. Branstad’s legal counsel Brenna Findley also worked at Whitaker Hagenow last year.

The Des Moines Register continues to release results from its latest statewide poll. Selzer and Co surveyed 800 Iowa adults between February 13 and 16. Bleeding Heartland discussed the Register’s poll numbers on Governor Terry Branstad here.

Follow me after the jump to discuss President Barack Obama’s approval inching up in Iowa, slight growth in support for same-sex marriage rights, views on ways to close the state budget gap, and more.

The U.S. House approved a continuing resolution to fund the federal government through September 30 by a 235 to 189 vote at 4:40 am Saturday morning. The bill contains about $61.5 billion in spending cuts; it “would kill more than 100 [federal] programs and cut funding for hundreds more.” The roll call shows remarkable party unity; all but three House Republicans voted for the bill, and every Democrat present voted against it. Iowa’s representatives voted along the usual party lines.

Much of the language in this continuing resolution will never become law. President Barack Obama has already threatened to veto the House bill, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate is working on its own continuing resolution with roughly $25 billion to $41 billion in spending cuts. Some signs point toward a federal government shutdown, but House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan says House Republicans are not seeking that outcome. Quinn Bowman and Linda Scott further note:

To make time for the negotiations between the two chambers, yet another short term [continuing resolution] might need to be passed – which brings up another wrinkle: as time passes and the fiscal year gets shorter and shorter, Republicans set on cutting billions from the rest of the year’s budget will have a smaller pie to slice as money is spent.

Many House Democrats denounced the Republican budget cuts, but I didn’t see any of them acknowledge the failure to pass 2011 budget bills when Democrats still controlled both chambers of Congress. U.S. Senate Republicans blocked the Democratic omnibus spending bill during the lame-duck session in December, setting the stage for the current budget brinksmanship. None of these fiscal 2011 spending cuts would be on the table if Congress had passed budget bills on time last year.

After the jump I’ve posted the five Iowa House representatives’ statements on the House continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011. All include themes we are likely to hear during the 2012 Congressional campaigns. Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) embraced the principle of reducing government spending, but argued that the GOP plan would eliminate jobs here and undermine the national economic recovery. I noticed that Boswell is holding a roundtable discussion about transportation on February 22; expect him to warn of the dire consequences of proposed GOP spending cuts.

Braley’s comment on the continuing resolution warned that the proposal “will kill thousands of jobs in Iowa’s ethanol industry.” In that vein, I’ve also enclosed below his statement from February 16, touting an amendment he proposed to “safeguard the Renewable Fuel Standard.” The Environmental Protection Agency issued its final rule on the Renewable Fuel Standard earlier this month. Braley asserts that the continuing resolution blocks the EPA “from setting renewable fuel standards for 2012,” and industry groups are worried. House leaders ruled Braley’s amendment out of order, and Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) argued that the language prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases would not affect the ethanol industry in any way. At The Iowa Republican blog, Craig Robinson says Braley “didn’t understand what he was talking about,” while Bleeding Heartland user SamuelJKirkwood claims here that Latham was misinformed or ignoring the facts. If that portion of the continuing resolution becomes law, we’ll find out later this year who was correct (either ethanol industry jobs will disappear or they won’t). Iowans are likely to hear more about this issue during the 2012 campaign, especially if the new map throws Braley and Latham into the same district.

Latham’s statement on the continuing resolution praised Congress for starting down “the road less traveled,” passing “some of the biggest spending cuts in the history of Congress.” He did some sleight of hand: “I joined a majority of my colleagues […] to vote in favor of cutting $100 billion in federal spending over the president’s funding request for the current fiscal year.” Jamie Dupree explains,

As for the budget cuts in this bill, Republicans persisted in calling this a cut of over $100 billion – but that figure is misleading, as it compares the bill’s spending levels to President Obama’s budget from last year, which was never enacted by the Congress.

It’s worth noting that Latham didn’t stand with the most ambitious House GOP axe-wielders. He was among 92 Republicans who joined Democrats to reject an amendment containing $22 billion more in cuts. Without elaborating, Latham described that proposal as “not thoughtful.” (As opposed to, say, zeroing out federal support for the Public Broadcasting Service or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–very thoughtful!)

The statement from Republican Steve King (IA-05) focused on his own successful amendments to the continuing resolution, which prohibit the use of federal funding “to implement and enforce ObamaCare.” King has consistently been one of the loudest voices in the House for repealing or otherwise blocking the health insurance reform law approved last March. Incidentally, unlike Latham, King voted for that amendment proposing to cut an additional $22 billion from current-year spending.

I haven’t seen any statement from Senator Chuck Grassley regarding the House GOP’s spending cut plans. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin has been on a tear for days, blasting how the House continuing resolution would affect health care in Iowa, employment and training in Iowa, the Social Security Administration in Iowa, education in Iowa, and so on.

Share any thoughts about the federal budget or the political debate over spending cuts in this thread.

House File 45 heads to Governor Terry Branstad’s desk today after the Iowa House approved the “deappropriations” bill by a 95 to zero vote. The bill was the top legislative priority for House Republican leaders, but the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate eliminated many of its controversial provisions last week. The full text of House File 45 is here, and the complete bill history is here. The Senate Journal for February 17 contains roll calls for votes on House File 45 and various amendments (pdf file). The final Senate version of House File 45 passed with 48 yes votes. First-term Republican Senator Mark Chelgren voted against the bill, and Republican Senator Sandy Greiner was absent.

Thanks to the Senate amendment, state funding for preschool, family planning, passenger rail, smoking cessation programs, and the core curriculum live to fight another day in the Iowa legislature. So do the Power Fund, the Office of Energy Independence, and the Grow Iowa Values Fund, all economic development programs long targeted by statehouse Republicans.

In addition, the Senate removed language from House File 45 that would have reduced funding for state universities, area education agencies, land acquisitions by the Department of Natural Resources and the Resource Enhancement and Protection fund.

The Senate’s version of House File 45 also did not include language creating a “tax relief fund” that would have collected surplus revenues after state reserve funds were filled.

After the jump I’ve posted an overview compiled by the Iowa House Democratic research staff on “major items eliminated” by the Senate amendment to House File 45. I’ve also listed some other significant points of divergence between the Senate and House versions of this bill, as well as key points on which the Senate left House File 45’s language intact.

Finally, I’ve posted the House Democratic research staff’s explanation of language that would create searchable databases on the state budget and tax rates.  

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? Some news that caught my eye recently:

Tens of thousands of people in Wisconsin have protested against efforts by Republican Governor Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled legislature to impose big benefit cuts on public employees and curtail their collective bargaining rights. The 14 Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate left the state to deny Republicans a quorum for passing the anti-union bill. I’ve been following the day to day news on the Uppity Wisconsin blog.

Joel Northup, a wrestler for Linn-Mar high school, qualified for the state tournament but defaulted when his bracket paired him with Cassy Herkelman, a girl from Cedar Falls. Herkelman and Megan Black of Ottumwa made history this year by becoming the first girls to qualify for the Iowa high school state wrestling tournament.

Johnson County supervisors voted 5-0 on Thursday to ban firearms and dangerous weapons from buildings, lands and vehicles owned by the county. Some Republicans in the Iowa legislature are pushing a bill that would bar local governments from restricting guns in that manner.

State Senator Mark Chelgren’s stupid comments about Iowa’s voluntary preschool program for four-year-olds prompted Mr. desmoinesdem to look up information about pre-primary education in the Communist bloc. Contrary to Chelgren’s assertion that the Soviets started indoctrinating children early, when “they’re so malleable,” the USSR provided essentially day care rather than formal education for children under age 7.

The Internal Revenue Service declared this month that breast pumps are a tax-deductible expense, reversing a determination made last fall. A quality pump can cost hundreds of dollars. Pumping has its detractors but can be invaluable for working women who want to continue breastfeeding, or for women whose babies are unable to breastfeed.

Zach Wahls, whose testimony against the marriage amendment at an Iowa House public hearing went viral on YouTube, appeared on the Ellen show this week.

Governor Terry Branstad’s double-dipping (continuing to draw his $50,000 state pension while receiving a $130,000 salary as governor) made news in Iowa a few days ago. Branstad’s communications director, Tim Albrecht, said the governor “made a significant personal sacrifice” by resigning as president of Des Moines University. In that job he had received more than $350,000 per year.

One low-profile story that should be getting more attention is the wide-ranging spending cut bill under consideration in the House of Representatives. H.R. 1 would decimate funding for too many good programs to list in this post. For example, Iowa would lose $12 million in K-12 funding for various programs, $116 million in Pell grant funds, $1.4 million for vocational and adult education, $6.9 million for job training, $1 million for mental health and substance abuse treatment grants, $4.3 million for various low-income housing programs, $28 million in clean water-related funds, $28 million for Community Development Block Grants, and $1.3 million for justice assistance grants. Key transportation programs nationwide would also lose funding, including public transit and high-speed rail.

This is an open thread.

Republican elected officials are sending a mixed message about Iowa’s finances. Before the 2011 legislative session began, Republicans were outraged about a so-called “unaffordable” union contract that would give state workers modest raises, at a cost of about $100 million a year for two years.  Barely a week into the session, a party-line Iowa House vote approved a broad “deappropriations” bill, in which about a third of the savings came from cutting Iowa’s preschool grant for four-year-olds. The universal voluntary preschool program was expected to cost $70 million to $75 million per year (according to Legislative Services Agency estimates), or up to $90 million by some other estimates.

Since then, House Republicans have passed House File 185, which allows zero growth in K-12 education budgets for the next two fiscal years. That was an unprecedented move. In nearly 40 years, the Iowa legislature has never approved less than 1 percent allowable growth for school district budgets: not during the farm crisis, not during the recessions and budget crunches of the early 1980s, early 1990s, 2001-02 or 2009-10. Now, we are told, our dire fiscal condition doesn’t leave any room to spend $65 million to allow school districts to increase their budgets by 2 percent.

Yet on February 16, the Iowa House approved House File 194 on a mostly party-line vote. The bill would cut Iowa’s individual income tax rates by 20 percent, which the Legislative Services Agency estimates would cost $330 million during fiscal year 2012 and more than $700 million in each of the next three fiscal years.  How Iowa can afford that loss of revenue and what services would be cut to keep the budget balanced, House Republicans don’t say.

Meanwhile, Governor Terry Branstad plans to lay off hundreds of state workers to cut labor costs and sent state legislators a draft budget with no allowable growth for K-12 schools for two years. This week Branstad offered a preschool plan that would support fewer children at a lower cost ($43 million per year). He and his Department of Education director, Jason Glass, have repeatedly said Iowa cannot afford to continue the preschool program as currently structured. Yet Branstad’s plan to cut corporate taxes in half would deprive the state of at least $100 million in revenues. He has proposed about $450 million in commercial property tax cuts, with the idea that state government would reimburse local governments for much of that lost revenue. If our budget constraints are so severe, how can we afford those policies?

More context on the state budget is after the jump, along with details on the Iowa Senate’s resistance to Republican tax and education funding proposals.

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.

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.

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.”

Iowa’s U.S. Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley were among a large bipartisan majority that voted to advance a bill to extend unemployment benefits, the Bush tax cuts and various special tax breaks and credits. The Senate passed the cloture motion by a vote of 83 to 15. Just 10 members of the Democratic caucus and five Republicans voted against cloture for various reasons. A handful of senators who voted for cloture may vote against the bill itself, but the bill will pass easily.

The Los Angeles Times summarized key points in the Senate’s version of the deal President Barack Obama negotiated with Republican leaders in Congress:

The package extends the Bush tax cuts for two years on families at all income levels, including the wealthiest 2% who have incomes above $250,000 a year. Obama once campaigned against tax cuts for those earners.

The package also continues unemployment insurance through 2011 for up to 7 million Americans who otherwise would see their extended jobless aid expire.

One key change for most taxpayers will be a 2-percentage-point reduction in payroll tax worth up to $2,000. It replaces the so-called Making Work Pay tax cut for 95% of Americans, a break that expires Dec. 31.

The package also reinstates the estate tax that lapsed this year under a quirk of law. It establishes a 35% rate on inheritances above $5 million for singles and $10 million for families. […]

[T]he Senate added $10 billion in energy assistance, including nearly $5 billion in ethanol and coal credits that environmentalists oppose. But it also included an extension of grants for renewable energy developers, which supporters credit with having doubled solar plant production in 2010.

The package also includes a long, $55-billion list of specialty tax breaks that tend to be extended each year – help for Puerto Rican rum makers, racetrack developers and Los Angeles film producers.

I don’t have time to list all the shameful aspects of this deal tonight, but I discuss seven big problems after the jump. UPDATE: I recommend Rortybomb’s post on “who got what” in this package.

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.

The Iowa Senate Democratic caucus on November 14 re-elected Mike Gronstal as majority leader and Jack Kibbie as Senate president. Five senators will serve as assistant majority leaders: Joe Bolkcom of Iowa City, Bill Dotzler of Waterloo, Wally Horn of Cedar Rapids, Amanda Ragan of Mason City, and Steve Sodders of State Center. Linn County Supervisor Brent Oleson got Iowa Republicans excited on Saturday by tweeting that Horn would challenge Gronstal, but according to this Des Moines Register report by Jennifer Jacobs, “No one mounted a challenge for either leadership role, several senators said.”

More Iowa Senate news is after the jump.

My children are too young to remember a bad election for Democrats. My older son was just a toddler when returns from Ohio and Florida crushed Mommy’s hope based on the 2004 exit polls. He helped me deliver yard signs in 2006 and was pleased to know that Chet Culver did become governor. Two years ago, he understood that his parents were voting for Barack Obama and was starting to clue in that other people were making a different choice.

This year he and his younger brother started showing interest in the election during the spring. Normally, I don’t encourage my kids to be pessimistic about the future, but my older son (like many seven-year-olds) hates losing at anything, so I felt I needed to prepare him for the likely outcome.  

Governor Chet Culver and Republican Terry Branstad debate for the third and last time today at noon in the Iowa Public Television studios. You can watch live at the Des Moines Register website, IPTV.org or on Mediacom Channel 119. Tonight Iowa Public TV will rebroadcast the debate statewide at 8 pm.

After the jump I’ll cover recent news from the gubernatorial campaign and the main points Culver and Branstad are likely to emphasize today.  

Iowa marked an anniversary on September 1: three years since all accredited schools in the state had to start implementing the Iowa Safe Schools law. I wasn’t able to attend the event celebrating this milestone, but I looked up more information on Senate File 61, “an act relating to the establishment of state and school antiharassment and antibullying policies.” The Iowa legislature passed this law in March 2007, thanks to the leadership of State Representative Roger Wendt and State Senator Mike Connolly. Governor Chet Culver signed it right away, but it didn’t take effect until September 1.

The law defined “harassment” and “bullying” as “any electronic, written, verbal, or physical act or conduct toward a student which is based on any actual or perceived trait or characteristic of the student and which creates an objectively hostile school environment […].” The law further defined “trait or characteristic of the student” as any of the following 17 categories: “age, color, creed, national origin, race, religion, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical attributes, physical or mental ability or disability, ancestry, political party preference, political belief, socioeconomic status, or familial status.”

That’s quite an inclusive list, but you won’t be surprised to learn that when this bill was under consideration, activists on the religious right opposed what they characterized as special rights for the LGBT community. I read through the bill history for Senate File 61 and downloaded the Iowa House and Senate journals for the days the bill was debated on the floor. Republicans offered one weakening amendment after another, most of which were rejected or withdrawn. But in the end, six Iowa Senate Republicans joined all 30 Democrats in the upper chamber to pass the bill. Nine Iowa House Republicans joined 53 Democrats in the lower chamber to pass the bill.

Although their votes weren’t needed to pass Senate File 61, the Republicans who sought to reduce bullying and harassment in Iowa schools should be commended. They went against their caucus leaders on that vote. Many represented suburban districts where tolerance for the LGBT community is more widespread.

Sadly, to my knowledge none of the Republican legislators who voted for this bill in 2007 attended the September 1 celebration, nor did any current Republican elected official or candidate. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.) According to a source who was there, the crowd included First Lady Mari Culver and many other Iowa Democrats, but only one well-known Republican: former Lieutenant Governor Joy Corning. Her pro-equality stance has been known to send Republicans into conniption fits.

State Senator Brad Zaun’s vote for the bullying bill briefly became an issue in this year’s GOP primary in the third Congressional district. Although he offered a couple of weakening amendments and voted for many others during the Iowa Senate floor debate, Zaun ultimately recognized the importance of this bill. Kids should not be bullied in school. Too bad that’s not a politically correct position for the Republican base.

Speaking of schools, the U.S. Department of Education formally approved $96.5 million for Iowa school districts last week. The funding came from the fiscal aid package Congress approved last month. Governor Chet Culver hailed the decision:

“This will allow our schools to recover almost completely from the difficult budget cuts created by the economic downturn. It will mean more teachers staying on the job and fewer students per classroom. I encourage school districts to use these funds immediately to offset previous budget cuts, as that is the intent of the Education Jobs Act.”

Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad opposed the bill that allocated extra federal funds to state education and Medicaid budgets. If he and Congressional Republicans had gotten their way, many Iowa teachers would not have their jobs back. In my children’s school district, elementary school students would have less time for art, music and physical education.

This is an open thread. What’s up with you this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?  

Iowa school districts are able to hire back more teachers as the academic year begins, thanks to the fiscal aid Congress approved earlier this month. That’s the bill Terry Branstad avoided talking about for weeks, before finally admitting that he opposed extra federal money to support state education and Medicaid budgets. Republican governors who aren’t in campaign mode understand how foolish it would be to turn down funding for schools and health care. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, whom Branstad seems to admire, is in full-blown Republican hypocrite mode. Daniels echoed the GOP talking points against the stimulus package this summer, but now that it’s law he’s asking for the education and Medicaid money.

I see why Branstad avoided advertising his opposition to the “one-time money”; the extra federal funding has real-world benefits for tens of thousands of Iowa children. In Des Moines public elementary schools, it means time for art, music and physical education will be restored to previous levels, with 13 jobs saved. We were thrilled to learn that the beloved music teacher at my children’s school will be back. He had expected to be assigned elsewhere in the district because of the cuts announced in the spring.

In the third Congressional district race, Leonard Boswell’s campaign highlighted Republican Brad Zaun’s votes against education funding in the Iowa Senate, as well as his promise to try to shut down the federal Department of Education if elected. In contrast, Boswell

has more than doubled the maximum Pell Grant award for Iowa students attending college, and has made the largest investment in federal student aid since the first GI bill was passed. He has continued to support early childhood education programs like Early Head Start and child care services provided through Community Block Development Grants. Boswell has advocated for smaller class sizes in our public schools and voted to save education jobs threatened due to state budget shortfalls.

You can read the Boswell campaign press release at the end of this post. Zaun’s campaign responded by accusing Boswell of “taking decisions away from our local school boards, and having Washington, DC dictate to us.” In case Zaun hadn’t noticed, local school districts are determining which jobs to restore using the additional federal funds. They’re not all making the same decisions. I doubt that the staff at my son’s school feel Washington has “dictated” anything to them. They are just relieved that more funding came through for the current academic year. Why should young kids get short-changed on art, music and p.e. just because they were in grade school during a recession?

Zaun also noted, “Being married to a teacher, I understand what’s going on very well. Despite increased spending, we are witnessing constantly declining performance. We have a problem that Washington, DC can not and will not solve.” That doesn’t explain why he voted against so much state funding for education.  

Speaking of teachers, I was so touched when my older son’s teacher called me on Friday afternoon. After eight months without a sniffle, he got sick this week and had to miss the first two days of school. She was planning to come in to work over the weekend, so she invited us to drop by the classroom on Saturday. She showed him what he missed on Thursday and Friday, and he was able to paint a picture she’ll laminate and hang on his locker.

This is an open thread. What’s up with you this weekend?

P.S. Todd Dorman is not a hobo. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

The Sierra Club published its fourth annual “Cool Schools” report, which seeks to identify the greenest college campuses in the country. Researchers sent detailed questionnaires about sustainability programs to 900 colleges and universities, of which 162 responded. None of Iowa’s state universities returned the Sierra Club’s survey, and only two of the state’s private colleges participated. The full rankings show Grinnell in 104th place and Wartburg College in Waverly at the bottom in 162nd place. Keep in mind, though, that about 82 percent of schools contacted didn’t return the survey. Wartburg finished last among colleges with administrators who care enough about sustainability to respond to a national environmental organization.

The Sierra Club considered ten criteria:

Although energy supply carried the most significance, nine other categories were considered in measuring a school’s commitment to sustainability: efficiency, food, academics, purchasing, transportation, waste management, administration, financial investments, and a catchall section titled “other initiatives.”

Making energy supply the most important factor put Iowa colleges at a disadvantage, because so much of the electricity generated in this state comes from coal. Perhaps Grinnell, Wartburg, or other Iowa colleges could incorporate more wind, solar or biomass power. I noticed that the number one school on Sierra’s list, Vermont’s Green Mountain College, has a facility to generate power using “biogas” (methane derived from cow manure).

Wartburg’s best score came in the “efficiency” category. I downloaded the college’s completed questionnaire from this page and was impressed to read that 99 percent of campus lighting fixtures are energy-efficient, while 75 percent of campus appliances are energy-star rated. Wartburg has room to improve in all the categories, but especially in “purchasing” and “investment,” where the college scored zero points.

In contrast, Grinnell scored a perfect 10 for investment; according to the completed questionnaire, “the college’s investment policy includes a social responsibility provision that encompasses environmental/sustainability factors.” The college also did very well in the waste management, administration, food and transportation categories. Grinnell received its lowest score for purchasing policies.

Grinnell and Wartburg administrators deserve credit for taking sustainability seriously on campus. I hope that next year, more Iowa colleges let the Sierra Club evaluate their green practices. That means you, Luther College (Wartburg’s rival in everything, including conservation). I wonder how the University of Iowa would measure up against Big Ten rivals Michigan (number 46 on the Sierra Club rankings), Illinois (number 66), Penn State (number 80) and Northwestern (number 115). Could Iowa State beat Big 12 schools Missouri (number 118) or Kansas (number 127)? Maybe the Center for Energy and Environmental Education in Cedar Falls could help the University of Northern Iowa score highest among Iowa’s regents universities.  

When Congress passed $26 billion in fiscal aid to the states, including $96.5 million in education funding and $128 million in Medicaid assistance for Iowa, Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad avoided commenting on the issue. Scott Keyes of Think Progress was in Iowa recently and got Branstad to speak on the record about the issue. Click the link for the audio and the full transcript. Excerpt:

[Think Progress]: They just passed that big state aid bill out in Washington. I was curious how you felt about that.

BRANSTAD: I have real concerns because there’s strings attached to that. And it’s one-time money, so it doesn’t solve the problem, it just puts it off a year. And it increases the federal debt. I don’t think they should have done it. I’m not sure, we’ve got to see what the strings are and whether or not we should even accept it or not.

Branstad added that he was against the 2009 stimulus bill and wasn’t sure whether he would accept or reject stimulus funding for Iowa.

Perhaps Branstad has never heard of economic cycles. Congress approved the stimulus bill when the U.S. was in the middle of the worst recession since World War II, and state revenues were dropping at the sharpest rate seen in 60 years. Although the recession is technically over, and state revenues are increasing in Iowa, shortfalls are still projected in key social services.

Branstad says federal assistance “doesn’t solve the problem, it just puts it off a year.” But if the economy continues to improve, state budgets will be under less strain in the 2012 fiscal year. Branstad would rather give up an additional $96.5 million for Iowa schools during the current fiscal year, which would cost approximately 1,800 teachers’ jobs. He would rather do without an extra $128 million for Medicaid, and I doubt he’ll offer an alternative budget showing how he would meet the need for those services. Branstad can’t explain how he would have balanced the current-year budget without stimulus funds, just like he can’t explain how he would pay for his new spending promises.

Branstad is wrong about the $26 billion fiscal aid bill adding to the federal deficit, by the way. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed that the bill’s costs are fully offset by closing tax loopholes and various spending cuts.

Yesterday the House of Representatives approved and President Barack Obama signed a $26.1 billion package to support state education and Medicaid budgets in the current fiscal year. The bill passed the House by a 247 to 161 vote. Iowa’s House delegation split on party lines, as with the 2009 federal stimulus bill and previous legislation designed to support public sector jobs in the states. Iowa will receive about $96.5 million of the $10 billion in education funding, enough to save an estimated 1,800 teachers’ jobs.

The bill also contains $16.1 billion in Federal Medical Assistance Percentage or FMAP funding, including about $128 million to support Iowa’s Medicaid budget in the 2011 fiscal year. Last week I read conflicting reports about how much Medicaid assistance Iowa would receive, but staffers for Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack confirmed yesterday that $128 million is the correct figure. That’s a bit more than Iowa legislators were counting on for FMAP funding in the 2011 budget. Extra federal spending on Medicaid also “has an economic benefit for the state of Iowa far greater than the federal government’s initial investment,” according to Iowa State University economist Dave Swenson.

For the last several days, I have been searching for some comment on this legislation from Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad. I’ve found nothing in news clips, and his campaign has not issued a press release on the federal fiscal aid since the Senate approved the bill on August 4.

Branstad rails against “one-time sources” of funding to support the state budget, but he has nothing to say about $96.5 million for Iowa schools and $128 million for Iowans dependent on Medicaid services.

Branstad is happy to run false advertising about the number of teachers’ jobs supposedly lost in Iowa, but he has nothing to say when federal action saves a significant number of teachers’ jobs. The issue is a bit awkward for Branstad, because Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voted against the fiscal aid bill in the House, just as Republican Chuck Grassley voted no in the Senate.

Perhaps Branstad lacks the courage to go beyond vague campaign rhetoric about excessive government spending. It’s easy to talk abstractly about “one-time” funding, but risky to slam government support for education and Medicaid. CNN’s latest nationwide poll, which was in the field from August 6 through August 10, asked respondents, “Do you favor or oppose a bill in which the federal government would provide 26 billion dollars to state governments to pay for Medicaid benefits and the salaries of public school teachers or other government workers?” 60 percent of respondents favored such a bill, while only 38 percent opposed it.

Speaking of conspicuous silence from Branstad, when will he tell us how he plans to keep his contradictory promises to cut state spending by 15 percent while having the state pay a larger share of mental health and school funding?

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Good news: the U.S. Senate overcame an attempt to filibuster a bill containing $26.1 billion in fiscal aid to state governments today. About $10 billion will support state education budgets in order to save teaching jobs. The other $16.1 billion will support state Medicaid budgets according to the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage or FMAP formula, which was originally part of the 2009 stimulus package. The Senate’s final vote on this bill is set for August 5, and it will easily gain more than the 50 votes needed for passage. Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to call the House of Representatives back from August recess in order to approve this bill next week.

Iowa’s Senator Tom Harkin was a co-sponsor of this bill. Senator Chuck Grassley joined Republicans who tried to block it from getting an up-or-down floor vote. I haven’t seen a statement from his office explaining why. The bill does not add to the deficit, because expenses are offset by revenue-raising measures:

Senate Democrats said the $26 billion bill would be paid in part by revenue raising changes in tax law. Senate Democrats said the modifications would curtail abuses of the U.S. foreign tax credit system. The bill would also end the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit and would return in 2014 food stamp benefits to levels set before last year’s federal stimulus plan.

I’m not happy about cutting future food stamp benefits, but there may be opportunities to restore that funding in other bills. This federal fiscal aid is urgently needed to prevent teacher layoffs in the school year that’s about to begin.  

Republican gubernatorial nominee Terry Branstad has been touring Iowa this summer with a contradictory campaign message. On the one hand, he blasts education cuts that have eliminated some teaching positions (he exaggerates the number of teacher layoffs, but that’s a topic for another post). On the other hand, Branstad criticizes the use of “one-time money” from the federal government to support the state budget. He promises to veto any budget that would spend more than 99 percent of projected state revenues. Branstad has never explained what he would have cut to make up for the federal stimulus money, but other questions are on my mind today, namely:

1. Does Branstad think Grassley did the right thing in trying to stop this fiscal aid package from reaching Iowa and other states?

2. Iowa’s budget for fiscal year 2011 assumes about $120 million in additional Medicaid funding under the FMAP program. If elected governor, would Branstad try to return that money to the federal government?

3. Would Branstad reject federal education funding that is targeted for saving teachers’ jobs in the upcoming academic year?

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: A statement from Senator Harkin’s office says this bill would provide “at least $128 million in additional Medicaid funding” to Iowa in the current fiscal year. Harkin also said,

“This vote came down to one thing: priorities.  Today, a majority of Senators proved that our priority is helping those who are the backbone of this country, America’s teachers and our families, to weather the continuing effects of the great recession.  And we provide this funding without adding one dime to the deficit.

“This is a crisis of the first order.  Not since the Great Depression have our public schools faced the prospect of such massive layoffs.  With this fund, we will preserve tens of thousands of education jobs that states can use for retaining or hiring employees at the pre-K and K-12 levels.

“Also with the funding, we provide critical assistance to states, whose budgets are already stretched to the limit, to protect Medicaid.  This six month extension of federally-matched funding will allow states to continue health benefits for some of the nation’s most needy.”

SECOND UPDATE: Jennifer Jacobs reported somewhat different numbers for the Des Moines Register:

A federal spending plan that advanced in Congress Wednesday would route $83.1 million in extra money to help Iowa pay for children’s services and payments to hospitals and nursing homes.

But the Iowa Legislature banked on getting an $116 million in extra federal Medicaid money in the first six months of next year.

That means the state budget will be short $32.9 million – or short $116 million if the bill fails to pass Congress altogether, according to the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency. Medicaid is the government health insurance plan for the poor. […]

The measure would give states $16 billion to help cover their Medicaid budgets, and $10 billion to extend programs enacted in last year’s stimulus law to help preserve the jobs of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees.

Iowa would get about $96.5 million in the jobs piece, which would protect about 1,500 jobs, said U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat.

Keep in mind that Iowa’s budget for fiscal year 2011 has an ending balance of $182.6 million, providing a cushion in case some expected revenue doesn’t materialize. Also, state revenues for the first month of the current fiscal year exceeded projections. Falling short $32.9 million in federal Medicaid assistance isn’t ideal, but it is manageable and far better than falling $116 million short, as would happen if Grassley and other Republicans got their way.

THIRD UPDATE: The Senate gave final approval to this bill on August 5 by a 61-39 vote. Grassley voted no along with most of the Republican caucus.

How low will Terry Branstad go in his efforts to score political points on the immigration issue? Before the primary election, he exaggerated how much undocumented immigrants cost the state budget and said he wouldn’t offer their children in-state college tuition. Earlier this month, he called for new enforcement that would copy Arizona’s “show your papers” approach but (magic pony style) wouldn’t leave Iowa taxpayers footing the bill for immigrants jailed.

Now Branstad is grandstanding against the U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows children of undocumented immigrants to attend public schools. Speaking on Jan Mickelson’s conservative talk radio show on July 27, the Republican nominee for governor said, “I believe that we need to see that [ruling] overturned.”

Branstad is taking a fairly extreme position here. The Plyler v. Doe decision, which struck down a Texas statute denying public education to children of undocumented immigrants, has been settled law for nearly 30 years. (Not that I’d put it past the current activist right-wing Supreme Court majority to overturn longstanding precedent.)

I haven’t seen any Branstad campaign press release declaring that he wants to take public education away from illegal immigrants, so maybe he was cynically throwing a bone to Mickelson’s listening audience. Governor Chet Culver’s campaign manager Donn Stanley pointed out that during the 16 years Branstad was governor after Plyler v Doe took effect, “He never had the state Department of Education oppose that ruling.”

But what an indictment of Branstad’s “family values” if he was speaking sincerely on Mickelson’s show. He would tell children no, we’re not going to educate you, because your parents did something bad. Stanley told the Des Moines Register, “It also just seems that having these kids in school instead of on the street would be better for society […] Speaking generally, punishing children for what their parents do illegally is not a value the governor has.”

Branstad should answer two follow-up questions. First, if elected governor, would he try to pass a law denying education benefits to children of undocumented immigrants? Such a law would be challenged in court, perhaps creating an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue.

Second, would Branstad take any other steps to restrict education opportunities for immigrant children? Republican attorney general candidate Brenna Findley recently told Mickelson that while Plyler v Doe applies to Iowa, she favored trying to “work with the Department of Education” to find ways our state could address this issue. Branstad talks up Findley everywhere he campaigns; would he work with her toward this end? Incidentally, even Findley didn’t go so far as to say that Plyler v Doe was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention this part of the Des Moines Register article:

“Gov. Branstad believes that people who are here illegally should not receive taxpayer-funded benefits because it drains our budget and is an added expense to taxpayers,” Branstad campaign spokesman Tim Albrecht said. “We’re talking about those children here illegally. We’re not talking about those born here.”

I haven’t seen any statistics on the estimated number of children in Iowa who were brought to this country illegally, as opposed to native-born Iowa children of undocumented immigrants. Even if Branstad got his wish and the Supreme Court revised its thinking on this issue, it would be difficult to implement the kind of distinction Albrecht is talking about. Theoretically, you could have school district denying enrollment to older siblings while educating younger siblings who were born in Iowa.  

When Terry Branstad formally announced his candidacy in January, cutting the size of state government by “at least 15 percent” over five years was one of his central campaign promises. He needed to establish credibility with the Republican Party’s conservative wing after his record of growing the state budget by far more than the rate of inflation during 16 years in office.

Branstad repeated his intention to cut state government by 15 percent in his early television commercials and on the campaign trail all winter and spring. He never provided a road map for keeping that promise, however. The budget cuts Branstad has specifically proposed so far (ending the preschool program, family planning funding, and reducing administrative costs at Area Education Agencies) would not reduce state budget obligations by 3-4 percent in the first year, which would be needed to work toward a 15 percent reduction over five years.

Since the June 8 Republican primary, Branstad has continued to hammer Governor Chet Culver on fiscal issues (using false claims), but to my knowledge he’s avoided mentioning that promise to shrink government by 15 percent over five years. Nor have we seen any details about how Branstad would balance the budget while spending no more than 99 percent of projected state revenues.

While campaigning in Marshalltown this week, Branstad made an extraordinary pledge:

Branstad said that if elected governor again, he would look at moving some of the services that have been pushed onto the local governments, particularly mental health and school funding, and making those more state funded. Along with that, he would put on a caveat that mandates those levies be abolished, which he said would provide instant property tax reductions for all classes of property across the board.

He said he did something very similar when he was governor before, but critics have since tried to distort his record on those issues.

“That was property tax relief and they called it spending,” he said.

Branstad is borrowing one of Bob Vander Plaats’ key economic ideas here: helping counties provide property tax relief by having the state assume responsibility for mental health and some educational services. As a campaign tactic, it makes sense, because Vander Plaats nearly matched Branstad’s vote total in Marshall County and carried several nearby counties (click here to download the GOP primary results by county).

But think about this for a minute. Branstad now proposes to have the state take over some big new funding obligations. How would he pay for that? He supports at least $80 million in corporate tax cuts and appears to reject using federal funds or reserve money to help balance the budget.

Maybe Branstad hopes that Iowans will forget his earlier campaign promises. But it’s past time for Branstad to show how he would make the numbers add up. The final budget for fiscal year 2011 is now in effect. Let’s see a rough budget document for fiscal year 2012, which doesn’t dip into reserve funds, cuts general fund spending by 3-4 percent, and has the state take on more responsibility for funding mental health and education services.

Speaking of state budgets, did anyone else notice the Branstad campaign’s silence last week regarding Iowa’s improving fiscal condition? The Legislative Services Agency and the Department of Management both reported better than expected revenues and a larger surplus than anticipated at the close of FY 2010. The Branstad campaign said absolutely nothing. We know his staff keeps track of such reports, because a few days earlier they jumped all over a draft Legislative Services Agency document on school districts and property taxes.

Branstad has a habit of ignoring inconvenient facts. We’re still waiting for him to say something, anything, about numerous documents showing he and senior staffers did Republican campaign work on the public’s dime.

Now that State Senator Kim Reynolds is officially the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, it’s time for her political views to receive more scrutiny. On the day Terry Branstad announced he had picked Reynolds, she said this:

We have a projected state budget gap of nearly $1 billion dollars.  And we have seen a dramatic slide in student test scores and teacher layoffs in school districts across the state. We can do better.  We must do better.  And, as Terry Branstad’s running mate, I will dedicate my every waking minute to sharing with Iowans his ambitious goals for our future.

She repeated those talking points in her speech to the GOP state convention on June 26. Republicans never tire of the “projected state budget gap” ruse. Reynolds is talking about projections for the budget year that begins in July 2011. Maybe she forgot that the Democratic-controlled legislature passed a balanced budget for the fiscal year beginning on July 1 despite a projected $1 billion shortfall last November. Reynolds also asserted that Governor Chet Culver has “spent too much, taxed too much, borrowed too much” and dismissed Iowa’s AAA bond rating as irrelevant: “That’s like my husband telling me, our checkbook and savings are empty, but we’ve got $15,000 we can still spend on the credit card.” Not really, Senator Reynolds: Iowa has money left in our state reserve funds (equivalent to a family’s savings account), and independent analysts affirm that our fiscal health is strong coming out of the worst recession since World War II. Many states fully depleted their rainy day accounts in response to an unprecedented drop in state revenues, but Iowa did not.

Like Branstad, Reynolds laments teacher layoffs across the state, and like Branstad, she fails to acknowledge that those education cuts would have been much deeper without the federal stimulus money Iowa has received.

Branstad’s not a numbers guy and hated tough budget meetings when he was governor. Having served four terms as Clarke County treasurer, Reynolds should feel more comfortable talking specifics on state spending. Friends have said she was able to save money as a county treasurer without cutting services. She’s campaigning with a guy who promises to veto any bill that calls for spending more than 99 percent of state revenues collected. Let’s see Reynolds produce an alternative budget for the current year that protects K-12 education without “spending too much.”

Details on the budget for fiscal year 2011 can be found here. All Reynolds needs to do is figure out how to spend no more than 99 percent of state revenues projected for the year. In other words, balance the budget without using the $328 million in federal stimulus money (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds) and the $267 million in reserve funds that Democrats included in the budget Culver signed into law.

If Reynolds is prepared to criss-cross the state bashing Democrats over teacher layoffs, she should be prepared to show us the education budget Iowans could expect under a Branstad administration.

One day after Terry Branstad won the Republican nomination for governor, his accountability problem was back on display. Speaking to the Iowa Association of Business and Industry’s annual convention in Ames yesterday, Branstad told the audience, “I want to get rid of the present incumbent because he’s driven the state into the biggest budget deficit in history.”

In the psychological field, projection is “a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people.” I’m not qualified to offer any professional diagnosis, but Branstad’s the guy who really did keep two sets of books to hide illegal deficits. It’s incredible to hear him keep making that false claim about Governor Chet Culver’s administration. The governor and Iowa’s legislative leaders haven’t run up any budget deficit, let alone the largest deficit ever. If Culver were running deficits, Iowa wouldn’t have a top-level credit rating or be considered one of the states “least like California” in terms of fiscal problems.

How long will Branstad keep getting away with making stuff up about Culver’s record? Your guess is as good as mine.

In other news, Branstad promised the Association of Business and Industry crowd that if elected, he wouldn’t allow key priorities of organized labor like the prevailing wage or collective bargaining bills to become law. I doubt ABI has to worry about that, since Iowa Democrats haven’t delivered on those issues during the past four years.

Culver visited a Cedar Rapids preschool yesterday and blasted Branstad’s “20th Century thinking” on preschool funding:

“This is an investment we cannot afford to not make in the future,” Culver said about the preschool initiative. He said he budgeted $90 million this year for the program and $115 million next year. […]

“While we want to continue to fund preschool … Terry Branstad wants to take that away,” Culver said. […]

The fiscal 2011 funding will assist an additional 150 school districts and school district collaborations under the statewide voluntary preschool program, he said. It is projected that during the 2010-2011 school year about 21,354 four-year-olds will be served by the preschool program in 326 school districts across the state.

Many Iowa families could not afford early education for their children without the state program. Culver is right to pound Branstad for his screwed-up priorities. Culver also criticized the Republican for wanting to go backwards on state-funded stem cell research, women’s reproductive rights and flood recovery funding for the Cedar Rapids area. Like everyone else in the Iowa GOP, Branstad has criticized the I-JOBS infrastructure bonding initiative but not explained how he would have paid for the flood reconstruction and prevention projects Iowa needs.

Branstad told Todd Dorman of the Cedar Rapids Gazette that he would not try to repeal the I-JOBS bonding, but “also compared I-JOBS to the Greek debt crisis.” Give me a break. The professional investor community drove down the interest rate of the initial I-JOBS offering because of Iowa’s solid fiscal condition and plan for repaying the bonds. In fact, I-JOBS was one of the top 10 “deals of the year” in 2009 according to Bond Buyer, the daily newspaper of public finance.

Vice President Joe Biden headlines Governor Chet Culver’s re-election rally today in Cedar Rapids. If you are watching in person or online, please share your impressions in this thread. I will update the post later with more coverage of the event. Adam Sullivan is live-tweeting for Iowa Independent.

Yesterday the governor kicked off his campaign at Hoover High School in Des Moines, followed by stops in Ames, Marshalltown and Waterloo. Kathie Obradovich felt Culver’s speech “salvaged” the otherwise low-energy event in Des Moines. After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from Culver’s remarks, which his campaign released. He frames the race as a choice of going backwards “to policies that created this recession” or forward to continue the investments his administration has begun. Culver outlined some goals for the next five years, such as completing rebuilding efforts from the 2008 floods, “making quality pre-school available to every Iowa child whose parents want to take advantage of it,” pursuing stem cell research in Iowa, and “increasing the percentage of our energy production coming from alternative sources from 20% to at least 30%.” Culver chided Republicans who “just say no,” think corporate tax cuts are the answer for every problem and “continue to preach the failed doctrine of trickle down economics.”

In addition to the excerpts you’ll find below, the governor spoke up for protecting a woman’s right to make her own health-care decisions and against writing discrimination into the Iowa constitution. Later in Marshalltown, Culver noted that discrimination is “not the Iowa way […] We’ve always been at the front when it’s come to civil rights.”

Any comments about the governor’s race are welcome in this thread. Speaking of Republicans who want to take us backwards, Terry Branstad’s campaign started running a new ad today, which portrays the former governor as “the change we need now.” I’ll have more to say about Branstad’s campaign message in a different post, but for now I wonder whether he will get away with repeating his lie about Iowa running a “billion-dollar deficit.”

UPDATE: Um, what the heck? Someone get the governor a driver who won’t try to chase another driver down for a stupid reason.

John Deeth liveblogged the Biden event here. Kathie Obradovich tweeted here. Key points of Biden’s message: he’s known Chet Culver since he was seven years old and knows he has “the gumption to handle the job at this time.” Also, with Culver in charge “Iowa is better off than almost every other state in the nation … Iowa is still moving forward.” Biden praised Culver for being ahead of the curve in establishing the Power Fund in 2007:

“Government is not the answer but it can prime the pump and encourage the private sector.”

“45 out of [50] governors, Democrat and Republican, are sitting on their hands. Because of Chet’s leadership Iowa is better prepared.” […]

“What are Republicans FOR? Not a joke. Tell me one affirmative thing the Republican Party is for.”

Good question, Mr. Vice President. Biden also noted that the stimulus bill brought $3.3 billion to Iowa, and said Culver had used $4 billion in federal and state flood recovery money well. Biden said Iowa is on the upswing and has an unemployment rate well below the national average, which is “no accident, it’s because of Governor Chet Culver.”

SECOND UPDATE: Todd Dorman found Biden’s praise for Culver a bit over-the-top. Tom Beaumont’s story for the Des Moines Register is here. Kay Henderson’s liveblog for Radio Iowa is here. She’s captured more quotes from the vice president.

During Saturday’s Republican gubernatorial debate I was struck by how eager all three candidates were to pander on the immigration issue. For example, in response to a question by Iowa Public Radio journalist Jeneane Beck, all the Republicans said they would deny in-state tuition at Iowa universities to the children of illegal immigrants.

That’s easier said than done, since many children of undocumented immigrants were born in the U.S. and are consequently U.S. citizens. For that reason, former Governor Terry Branstad has backpedaled a bit since the debate. Meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board on Tuesday morning, Branstad “said he would have to consider the constitutionality” of denying in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants who were born in this country. Later the same day, Branstad’s campaign spokesman Tim Albrecht told the Des Moines Register, “If they are born here, they are legal residents. If they are, they should be afforded every opportunity as every legal resident of the state.”

Branstad’s leading Republican rival, Bob Vander Plaats, talked a good game about the “rule of law” during Saturday’s debate but insists that he would deny children of illegal immigrants in-state tuition, even if they were born here. I expect Vander Plaats supporters to make a big deal out of Branstad’s “flip-flop” on the issue, even though Branstad’s new stance is correct from a legal standpoint. The Register’s Tom Beaumont reported that the third Republican running for governor, Rod Roberts, “stopped short of saying U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants should not qualify” for in-state tuition.

Meanwhile, Vander Plaats remains the only candidate in the Republican field to advocate an Arizona-style crackdown on undocumented immigrants for Iowa. I oppose Arizona’s new law on principle, because it is un-American to give the police power to put you in jail if you’re not immediately able to “show your papers.” Branstad and Roberts have declined to advocate copying Arizona for more pragmatic reasons, such as the cost of implementation. Polk County Sheriff Bill McCarthy put in his two cents on that angle yesterday:

“It’s all well and good to demagogue the issue, but there’s a reality to it,” McCarthy said during the elected official discussion segment of this morning’s Board of Supervisors workshop.

If illegal immigrants awaiting deportation were detained at the Polk County Jail at a cost of $95 per day without adequate support from the federal government, it could cost millions of dollars, McCarthy said. […]

The current jail system will not work if Iowa adopts a law similar to the one in Arizona, McCarthy said later in an interview with The Des Moines Register.

“The bottom line is that we’re dealing with human beings,” he said. “And I know they shouldn’t be here and I know they entered the country illegally. But if they’re here, they’re people and I think we have to deal with them in a humane way, particularly when there are children involved.”

The immigration issue provides a convenient crutch to Republican candidates, but the favored right-wing approach would be extremely costly, not to mention impractical. While we’re on the subject, I’d like to hear third district Congressional candidate Brad Zaun explain how he would “put [all the illegal immigrants in Iowa] on a bus and send them wherever they came from.”

Any thoughts on immigration policy are welcome in this thread. How long do you think Republican candidates will get away with massively exaggerating the amount of money Iowa could save by cutting services to undocumented immigrants?

Jim Gibbons has emerged as the Republican insiders’ choice against seven-term incumbent Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third district. Nine members of Congress are hosting a fundraiser for Gibbons in Washington on February 24, the Gibbons campaign announced today. The hosts are Senator Chuck Grassley, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (VA-07), and Representatives Jason Chaffetz (UT-03), Dean Heller (NV-02), Jim Jordan (OH-04), Steve King (IA-05), Tom Latham (IA-04), Kevin McCarthy (CA-22), and Peter Roskam (IA-06).

I cannot recall whether Grassley or Latham endorsed a candidate in the four-way GOP primary to represent IA-05 in 2002, which King won at a district convention. I also don’t remember Grassley, Latham or King getting involved in the three-way GOP primary in IA-01 in 2006, or the three-way primary in IA-02 in 2008. If any Bleeding Heartland reader remembers endorsements by members of Congress in those races, please post a comment here or e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

CORRECTION: Not all of the co-hosts at this event are endorsing Gibbons in the Republican primary. Bleeding Heartland user mirage notes in the comments that Iowa Republicans in Congress also co-hosted an event for Dave Funk in Washington. Grassley’s spokeswoman e-mailed the following comment to me today: “Senator Grassley has not endorsed anybody in the 3rd District race. It is correct that Senator Grassley was also listed as a co-host of an event for Dave Funk.  If the other Republican candidates asked, he would do the same thing for them.”

Gibbons was recruited by key Iowa Republican donors, and has since been anointed by the National Republican Congressional Committee.

State Senator Brad Zaun, probably the strongest rival to Gibbons in the five-way Republican primary, has the backing of several Republican state legislators, including Iowa Senate Minority leader Paul McKinley. An internal poll for Zaun showed he begins the campaign with more name recognition and support in the district. However, Gibbons raised far more money in the fourth quarter of 2009.

Tea Party favorite Dave Funk recently attacked Gibbons for supposedly saying in an interview, “It[‘]s fine for me where the Constitution says that the federal government should be in charge of education.” Today Gibbons advocate Craig Robinson of The Iowa Republican blog declared Funk’s attack “sloppy and untrue.” After listening to a recording of the interview, Robinson concludes that Gibbons actually said, “Find for me where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is in charge of education.”

Robinson transcribed part of the interview in question and posted it here. Gibbons doesn’t come across as someone who knows what he’s talking about. But that’s not surprising, given his ignorance about Congressional procedures and idiotic federal income tax holiday proposal.

What does surprise me is that according to Robinson, no one at the Gibbons campaign “set the record straight” after Funk issued his press release. Maybe it’s a strategy for Gibbons to not acknowledge his primary opponents, but I think his press shop needs to stay on top of what the other candidates are saying about him.

UPDATE: In this comment thread Funk stands by his press release about what Gibbons said, and several commenters write that they heard Gibbons’ remarks as Funk did.

LATE UPDATE: Latham assured moderate Republican Mark Rees that he will not be endorsing a candidate before the primary.

The Iowa Legislature has been moving at an unusually fast pace during the shortened 2010 session. It’s time to catch up on what’s happened at the statehouse over the past three weeks. From here on out I will try to post a legislative roundup at the end of every week.

February 12 was the first “funnel” deadline. In order to have a chance of moving forward in 2010, all legislation except for tax and appropriations bills must have cleared at least one Iowa House or Senate committee by the end of last Friday.

After the jump I’ve included links on lots of bills that have passed or are still under consideration, as well as bills I took an interest in that failed to clear the funnel. I have grouped bills by subject area. This post is not an exhaustive list; way too many bills are under consideration for me to discuss them all. I recommend this funnel day roundup by Rod Boshart for the Mason City Globe-Gazette.

Note: the Iowa legislature’s second funnel deadline is coming up on March 5. To remain alive after that point, all bills except tax and appropriations bills must have been approved by either the full House or Senate and by a committee in the opposite chamber. Many bills that cleared the first funnel week will die in the second.  

It’s been a year since President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (better known as the stimulus bill) into law. I didn’t like the early concessions Obama made to Republicans in a fruitless effort to win their support for the stimulus. I was even more upset with later compromises made to appease Senate conservadems and Republican moderates. They reduced spending in several areas that had real stimulative value (school construction funds, extra money for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, aid to state governments) in order to include tax cuts that have much less stimulus “bang for the buck.” Senator Tom Harkin was right to question why 9 percent of the stimulus bill’s cost went toward fixing the alternative minimum tax, for instance.

Still, I supported passage of the stimulus bill. In late 2008 and early 2009 the U.S. economy was losing 600,000 to 700,000 jobs per month. Something had to be done. On balance, the stimulus did much more good than bad. Economists agree it has saved or created a lot of jobs:

Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.

Two and a half million jobs isn’t enough to compensate for the 8 million jobs lost since this recession began, but it’s a start.

Not only did the stimulus create jobs, it greatly increased spending on programs that will have collateral benefits. Incentives to make homes more energy efficient will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save consumers money that they can spend elsewhere. Money for sewer improvements will provide lasting gains in water quality (inadequate sewers and septic systems are a huge problem in Iowa). The stimulus included $8 billion for high-speed rail. It wasn’t nearly enough, of course; we could have spent ten or twenty times that amount on improving our rail networks. But that $8 billion pot drew $102 billion in grant applications from 40 states and Washington, DC. The massive demand for high-speed rail stimulus funding increases the chance that Congress will allocate more funds for rail transportation in the future.

Unfortunately, most Americans don’t believe the stimulus bill created jobs. That’s largely because unemployment remains at a historically high level of 10 percent nationwide. Also, inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings have gone down during the past year. In addition, Republicans have stayed on message about the worthlessness of the stimulus bill, even though scores of them have hailed stimulus spending in their own states and districts.

Democrats on the House Labor and Education Committee released an ad that lists various popular stimulus bill provisions, such as increasing Pell Grants and teacher pay. The ad uses the tag line, “There’s an act for that,” naming the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at the end. I don’t think it’s effective, because the ad doesn’t include the word “stimulus.” Few people will realize that the ARRA refers to the stimulus bill.

Bleeding Heartland readers, how do you view the stimulus one year later?

Republicans have complained for years about Democrats allegedly spending too much on “big government,” but a majority of Iowans think state government is about the right size, according to the latest poll by Selzer and Co. for the Des Moines Register. The poll surveyed 805 Iowa adults between January 31 and February 3 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. Respondents were asked, “In general, do you think the size of state government is too big, about right, or too small?” 52 percent said “about right” and only 39 percent said “too small.”

The Des Moines Register poll also indicates that Iowans would rather tap into the state’s tax reserves, raise fees and perhaps even raise taxes than impose massive service cuts or lay off hundreds of state workers.

The poll tested eleven options for balancing the budget and asked whether that option should be considered, strongly considered or taken off the table. The largest majority (76 percent) said consolidating some state government services should be considered or strongly considered. The Iowa legislature will pass a government reorganization bill this session, but the savings won’t be large enough to avoid other painful budget decisions.

The next largest majority (61 percent) supported considering taking up to $200 million from the state’s cash reserves. But even that probably wouldn’t be enough to balance the 2011 budget.

The other three options that at least half of respondents said should be considered were “increase fines, license fees and other user fees” (53 percent), expand gambling by allowing casinos to host large poker tournaments (51 percent) and raise the sales tax by 1 percent (51 percent).

The Register reported that several political observers found the sales tax numbers most surprising. I was more surprised to see the public evenly divided on raising the income tax. Some 48 percent of respondents said “lawmakers should consider raising state income taxes by a half percentage point; 50 percent said that idea should come off the table.”

The Register’s poll found much less support for “cutting services to thousands of Iowans” (just 33 percent favored considering that option, while 60 percent said it should be taken off the table). Only 42 percent favored considering laying off hundreds of state employees or consolidating school districts. Only 43 percent said legislators should consider eliminating all business tax credits. Just 45 percent said reducing the number of Iowa counties should be on the table.

My point is not that politicians should put blind faith in the wisdom of crowds. I don’t agree with every finding in this poll. I’d rather reduce the number of counties and scrap many business tax credits than raise the sales tax, and I find Iowans’ support for the film tax credit baffling.

The larger message from this poll is that Iowa Democrats should not cower in fear when Republicans bash “big government.” Offered a range of choices for balancing the state budget, most Iowans would prefer not to see services slashed. The Register’s November 2009 poll pointed to the same conclusion, finding broad support for spending increases Democrats have adopted in recent years.

Republicans will be cheered by the portion of Selzer’s latest poll that found one-third of Iowans called themselves supporters of the “tea party” movement, and a majority believe state government is spending too much money. To me that suggests the framing of the budget issue will be critical for this November’s elections. Democrats need to convince voters that they did all they could to find efficiencies in state government without cutting priority areas. If Republicans object, for instance, that the state could have saved tens of millions of dollars by ending the preschool initiative started in 2007, Democrats must point out that doing so would have cut off early childhood education for about 13,000 Iowa kids.

Yesterday the Iowa House State Government Committee voted down a Republican plan to cut state spending by $290 million in the coming year. State Representative and gubernatorial candidate Chris Rants offered the plan as an amendment to the government reorganization bill. He said his party was trying to “work in a bipartisan way” and make “tough decisions” to balance the budget for the coming year. All twelve Democrats on the House State Government Committee voted against the GOP amendment, while the nine Republicans voted for it. Later the same day, the committee approved the reorganization bill on a 20-1 vote, with only Rants opposed.

We are sure to hear more from Rants and other Republicans about how big, bad Democrats rejected their good ideas for spending cuts. A closer look reveals funny math in the Republican “plan.”

The biggest line item is “$92.3 million, end all state benefits to adult illegal immigrants.” The Iowa House Republican caucus claims this number comes from the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency. The implication is that the state of Iowa hands out $92.3 million in cash to illegal immigrants.

But that’s not the case. From a report by the Legislative Services Agency on “Undocumented Immigrants’ Cost to the State” (pdf file):

The only government services that illegal immigrants are eligible for are elementary and secondary public education and emergency health care.1 Most citizens do not gain direct benefits from a majority of government spending. Instead, government programs are intended to benefit society as a whole through maintenance of a healthy economy, satisfying public health and safety concerns, providing basic infrastructure, etc. Although undocumented immigrants do not receive most direct benefits, the total benefit of State spending is assumed to accrue to undocumented immigrants at the same rate as legal residents.

The LSA divides total spending from the state general fund by the state’s total population to calculate roughly how much in “benefits” each Iowa resident receives annually. This isn’t a cash payment from the state to residents; it represents each individual’s share of benefit from the state paying for schools, roads, and so on.

Iowa House Republicans arrived at the $92.3 million figure by dividing total general fund expenditures by the number of undocumented immigrants currently estimated to be living in Iowa. They call the remainder “benefits” that illegal immigrants receive. But there’s no magic wand we can wave to make immigrants stop benefiting indirectly from what state government does. The same LSA report noted:

Undocumented immigrants qualify for few services at the State level, and those for which they do qualify are largely mandated by federal law or the Courts. Therefore, decreasing undocumented immigrant eligibility for State spending does not appear to be a viable policy option. Additionally, if the assumption that undocumented immigrants accrue benefits even without receiving direct services is considered valid, attempting to reduce direct State expenditures on undocumented immigrants would have a minimal effect.

By the way, proof of citizenship and identification are already required for Iowans participating in Medicaid and HAWK-I (the children’s health insurance program).

Scoring points against undocumented immigrants may be good for Rants politically, but that won’t help the state of Iowa save $92.3 million in the coming year. That one item represents nearly a third of the Republican-proposed spending cuts.

I’ve posted the full list of cuts after the jump. Some ideas may have merit, but most of them reflect skewed Republican priorities for state government. GOP legislators want to save $45 million by reducing access to pre-school for four-year-olds. They also want to invest less in renewable energy production and energy efficiency measures by eliminating the Power Fund and the Office of Energy Independence, which would $25 million. Many Republicans never liked the core curriculum, so it’s no surprise they’d like to save some money by delaying its implications. The Des Moines Register’s Iowa poll in November indicated that Iowans support higher spending on renewable energy research and development and are divided over whether to cut funds for expanded free pre-school.

Some of the smaller Republican-backed cuts would please conservative interests. The religious right would love to eliminate the family planning waiver. Rants has always been a good friend to tobacco companies, who would love to see the state scrap the “Just Eliminate Lies” anti-smoking campaign. There’s also $4 million saved by cutting “taxpayer-funded lobbyists,” which sounds great until you realize that would leave corporate groups unchallenged as they lobby for bills that might counter the public interest. Anyway, last year taxpayer money for lobbying totaled about $1.8 million, and a lot of that didn’t come from the state general fund. Municipalities, county agencies and associations like the League of Cities hire lobbyists too.