Politicians like to talk in abstractions.

Come to think of it, they like to argue and obfuscate in abstractions, as well. They campaign in abstractions and make abstract pledges until those abstractions turn into something tangible, like a subprime lending crisis or a downgrade from a particular private rating agency.

We spend so much time wading through abstractions that we cannot get to the meat of the issues that face us today. Enough of that.

What really happens in a bad economy? And what is the public's role during these tough times?

If Iowa Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley believes the spin he serves up to journalists and the Republican Party faithful, he must have an active imagination.

I don’t know which is most detached from reality: McKinley’s take on Iowa’s finances, his views on “state sovereignty” or his election predictions.

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.

Republican candidate Terry Branstad claims he learned from his mistakes in handling the state budget and says he will “put the focus back on restoring fiscal responsibility and jobs and education” if elected to a fifth term as governor. Not only will he abide by generally accepted accounting principles, he promises, he will veto any bill that calls for spending more than 99 percent of state revenues collected.

Independent analysts have vouched for Iowa’s strong fiscal condition, but Branstad and other Republicans cry “overspending” because the balanced 2010 and 2011 budgets relied on some money from the federal government and from Iowa’s reserve funds. Never mind that supporting state budgets, thereby reducing the need for big service cuts, was one of the primary goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009 stimulus bill). Never mind that unprecedented flood damage in Iowa coincided with the sharpest drop in state revenues in 60 years because of the longest recession since World War II. Branstad claims Iowa should not spend more than 99 percent of state revenues collected in any fiscal year.

Last Friday Branstad used a story on teacher layoffs in Des Moines to score political points, ignoring the fact that education cuts would have claimed far more teachers’ jobs if not for the federal stimulus bill. Click here for more information on ARRA funds allocated to Iowa education programs for the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years.

It’s time for Branstad to put up or shut up. He has a well-staffed campaign and a policy director who served in the Iowa House for ten years. Taking the 2011 budget Governor Chet Culver signed as a starting point, Branstad’s team should figure out how to do without the $328 million in federal fiscal aid (ARRA funds) and the $267 million in reserve funds that budget incorporates.

Then Branstad should produce the budget he would have demanded for fiscal year 2011, which would spend no more than 99 percent of state revenues projected for the year. Let’s see how K-12 education, Medicaid, public safety and other services would fare under Branstad’s “responsible” Iowa budget.

Hint: the spending cuts Branstad endorsed during the primary campaign (ending the preschool program, family planning funding, and reducing administrative costs at Area Education Agencies) would not come close to bringing the budget into balance for 2011.

Also keep in mind that the spending cuts Iowa Republican legislators proposed during the 2010 session were padded with wildly inaccurate estimates of how much could be saved on services to undocumented immigrants.

Voters deserve more than platitudes about fiscal responsibility. Let us compare the 2011 budget Iowa Democrats adopted with the one Branstad would have demanded.

To hear Iowa Republicans tell it, our state has suffered terribly under the leadership of job-killing, overspending Democrats. The reality, as measured by the conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is quite different:

Iowa’s focus on entrepreneurship, innovation and exports has led to an eighth-place ranking on a list of top economic-performing states compiled by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Chamber Foundation.

Iowa ranked high overall as “a solid performer across most of our metrics,” according to the chamber’s newly released Enterprising States survey, largely because “Iowa’s strength is perhaps its stability. The state’s largest cluster, agribusiness, food processing and technology, grew at a 1 percent rate since 2002, significantly better performing than the same group of industries nationally.”

The business group also listed Iowa seventh under “top export performers” due to overseas trade offices that provide help to Iowa companies looking to tap international markets. According to the study, “efforts are paying off, as the state places fourth in growth of exports as a share of gross state product.”

Read more at the Des Moines Register’s site, or download the whole report here.

Governor Chet Culver’s office recapped some other favorable reports by outside analysts looking at Iowa’s economy:

[E]arlier this year, Forbes Magazine, the national economic and business journal, named Des Moines as the No. 1 city in America for businesses and careers, and ranked Cedar Rapids as the No. 1 city for projected job growth.

In 2008, Iowa had the eighth-fastest growing economy in the nation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. CNBC’s 2009 “Top States for Business” survey ranks Iowa the fourth best in the nation and No. 1 for low costs of doing business. Finally, last year MarketWatch, another national financial publication, named Des Moines No. 1 in the country for doing business.

Unemployment is too high as we come out of the worst recession since World War II, but Iowa’s unemployment rate is still low by national standards. Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, our state’s budget is balanced, and our per capita debt burden is low, which is why every major credit rating agency has given Iowa top marks in the past year.

So far I haven’t seen any Iowa Republican reaction to the Chamber of Commerce report. I’ll update this post with any relevant comments.

Terry Branstad’s campaign launched its third television ad today, about a month after his first commercials started running statewide in Iowa. The new commercial depicts Branstad as “the real conservative change we needed then… and now.”

Here’s the ad script:

The farm crisis … Budget deficits… Skyrocketing unemployment…

That’s what Terry Branstad faced when he was elected governor.

But this Winnebago County farm kid put his rural values right to work, recruiting thousands of jobs, cutting out half the state agencies and taxes $124 million – leaving us record employment, and a $900 million surplus.

Terry Branstad is the real conservative change we needed then… and NOW.

Time for a reality check.

Branstad was first elected governor near the bottom of one economic cycle (at that time the most severe recession since World War II) and was fortunate to retire near the peak of the Clinton boom years. However, job gains during Branstad’s tenure as governor did not fulfill promises he made during his campaigns.

Iowa reorganized state government in 1985, eliminating some agencies and merging others into larger departments. On the other hand, total state government employment increased from 53,342 in 1983 to 61,400 in 1999. Total receipts in the state’s general fund increased from $1.899 billion in 1983 to $4.881 billion in 1999. That 166 percent increase was more than the rate of inflation during the same period, and Iowa’s population was no larger when Branstad retired than it was when he was first elected.

The huge growth in the general fund budget would not have been possible without various tax increases Branstad signed into law. Increased revenue from two sales tax hikes dwarfed the $124 million in tax cuts highlighted in Branstad’s new commercial. Those cuts came primarily from reducing income and estate taxes, delivering most of the benefits to wealthier Iowa families. Unfortunately, Branstad’s sales tax increases disproportionately hit lower-income families, who spend a greater share of their money on essentials.

Branstad was far from reluctant to raise taxes. He asked the state legislature to increase the sales tax in his very first budget address, within days of being inaugurated in 1983.

I expect Branstad to win the Republican primary on June 8 despite his accountability problem. Bob Vander Plaats is a strong speaker but doesn’t have the financial resources to publicize his case against the former governor. Rod Roberts isn’t trying to make a case against Branstad, as far as I can tell. His function in the campaign seems to be to prevent Vander Plaats from consolidating the conservative vote in the primary.

However, during the general election campaign, Branstad will face an opponent with the resources to compare his record with his rhetoric. I wonder how many conservative Republicans will either stay home in November or check the Libertarian box in the governor’s race.

UPDATE: Kathie Obradovich says the $124 million figure “is the campaign’s calculation of the net result of all the tax changes enacted under Branstad – an overall reduction of $124 million, in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars.” I would like to see a calculation of all the Branstad-era sales and gas tax increases in 2008 dollars. Hint: it would work out to a lot more than $124 million.

SECOND UPDATE: Branstad “had an elective heart procedure” today to put a stent in a partially blocked artery. I hope he feels better soon. His campaign released a statement from his doctor saying, “Governor Branstad should be able to resume his normal campaign schedule within the next few days and should quickly return to his normal lifestyle without limitations. He should be fully capable of performing the activities of a candidate and a Governor.”  

The Libertarian Party of Iowa convened on April 24 to nominate several candidates for statewide offices. The Libertarian candidate for governor is Eric Cooper, a neuroscience expert in the Iowa State University Psychology department. In his speech to the delegates, Cooper said frankly that the Libertarian Party had not been effective in the past. He laid out a “10 percent strategy” for Libertarians to “get everything we want without ever winning an election.” You can watch Cooper’s whole speech here, but I posted a rough transcript of some interesting parts after the jump.

Three of the world’s leading bond rating agencies agree that Iowa deserves the highest possible credit rating. This month Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service increased their ratings for Iowa to AAA and Aaa, respectively. The ratings boost is related to decisions at both agencies to “recalibrate” the way they assess default risk for municipal bonds. A third leading agency, Standard and Poor’s, gave Iowa the AAA rating last summer.

State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald noted yesterday, “For the first time in our history, we have the highest ratings from all three rating agencies. Only seven other states have an across-the-board AAA rating.”

The credit ratings are important for two reasons. First, they represent a strong overall assessment of Iowa’s fiscal health. These agencies don’t care whether Governor Chet Culver is re-elected or whether Iowa Democrats retain majorities in the state House and Senate. Their analysts serve professional investors who need to know the risk of default on outstanding obligations. They look at a broad range of factors, including levels of revenues, spending, reserve funds and per capita debt load.

Second, the top-level credit rating means Iowa will be able to borrow at lower interest rates when the next batch of bonds for the I-JOBS infrastructure initiative are sold. When I-JOBS bonds hit the market last summer, strong investor demand drove down the interest rate and, consequently, reduced the state’s repayment costs by approximately $12 million per year for the life of the bonds.

One other point is worth noting: Moody’s gave Iowa a “stable” outlook rating. If professional market analysts believed Iowa legislators had approved unsustainable levels of debt or spending, as State Auditor David Vaudt and many other Republicans have claimed, we would be among the states that received a “negative” outlook from Moody’s.

As I recently discussed here, Republican candidates for governor keep talking about a so-called billion-dollar budget deficit projected for next year, even though the Iowa legislature approved a balanced budget for fiscal year 2011. Instead of acknowledging that fact, Republicans are shifting the goalposts, complaining that Iowa supposedly will have a huge budget gap for fiscal year 2012. Fitzgerald was pitch-perfect yesterday in response this doom-and-gloom talk:

Last week Vaudt criticized the Legislature and Culver for building a fiscal 2011 spending plan so heavily reliant on $736 million in one-time funding sources that it promises a budgetary “cliff” for the following year when state officials will face another projected funding gap exceeding $1 billion.

“The state auditor says that every year and the budget he’s talking about is a year from next July,” Fitzgerald said in an interview. “Well, my goodness gracious, volcanoes can blow up, meteors can hit the earth, who knows what’s going to happen. That’s just speculation.”

Economic and fiscal issues will be at the center of this fall’s election campaigns, creating a challenge for Iowa journalists. The “safe” way to report this issue would be the usual “he said, she said” format: [Republican’s name here] says Democrats are running deficits and driving us too deep in debt, while [Democrat’s name here] says the governor and legislature have kept Iowa in a strong fiscal position.

The alternative is to ask Republicans to defend their assertions in light of these facts:

*Independent analysts for the Pew Center on the States put Iowa in the group of states “least like California” in terms of budget problems.

*Moody’s, Fitch and Standard and Poor’s agree that Iowa deserves the highest possible credit rating.

*Iowa legislators approved balanced budgets year after year amid the biggest revenue collapse in six decades.

*Governor Culver made mid-year spending cuts when necessary in order to preserve our state’s fiscal health. He didn’t keep two sets of books like Terry Branstad, or fully deplete the state’s reserve funds like Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

Analysts who don’t have a dog in this fight say Iowa is in good shape coming out of the most severe recession since World War II.

P.S.-In case you missed this story last week, Forbes magazine has ranked Des Moines as “the No. 1 city in America for businesses and careers” and Cedar Rapids the “No. 1 city for projected job growth.”

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was in Iowa this weekend to headline an event organized by Iowans for Tax Relief. The crowd cheered the future presidential candidate after Pawlenty blasted the Obama administration and proposed one bad idea after another.

Pawlenty’s “economic bill of rights” includes requiring Congress to balance the budget every year. Freezing or reducing federal spending every time revenue drops is great if you like turning recessions into depressions, but basic economic facts won’t stop Pawlenty from pandering to the “Party of Hoover” set. I wonder whether Pawlenty’s proposed balanced budget amendment still includes “exceptions for war, natural disasters and other emergencies.”

Pawlenty also wants line-item veto powers for the president. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that unconstitutional at the federal level, and it’s unlikely Congress would ever approve a constitutional amendment on this matter.

In addition, Pawlenty favors extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Those tax cuts didn’t prevent the most severe economic recession since World War II, but they did manage to massively increase our national debt and deficit while delivering most of the benefits to the top few percent of the population.

But wait, there’s more to Pawlenty’s wish list: “He also called for requiring a supermajority of Congress to raise taxes or the debt ceiling.” Unfortunately, that would exacerbate our budget problems. When the Pew Center on the States examined state fiscal problems last year, a common feature of the states deemed “most like California” was a supermajority requirement for tax increases or budget decisions.

By the way, Iowa received higher overall marks than Minnesota in that Pew Center on the States report, which looked at six indicators to determine each state’s fiscal health.

Speaking to the Iowans for Tax Relief crowd, Pawlenty bragged about getting Minnesota out of the top 10 states for taxes but glossed over other aspects of his record as governor. Iowa Republicans have hammered Democrats for supposedly “overspending,” even though our state leaders have kept our budget balanced without depleting our state’s reserve accounts. What would they say if they knew about Pawlenty’s record?

During Pawlenty’s first year as governor, the state drew down its reserves and relied too heavily on one-time revenue to address its budget problem.  As a result, the state lost its Aaa bond rating from Moody’s Investors Service; the state has yet to regain its Aaa rating from Moody’s.

The 2009 report of the bi-partisan Minnesota Budget Trends Study Commission has recommended that the state build up its budget reserves and cash flow account in response to an increasingly unstable revenue outlook.  All members of the Commission, including the five appointed by Governor Pawlenty, endorsed this recommendation.

Pawlenty and state legislators couldn’t agree on an approach to balance the Minnesota budget. As a result, last year “Minnesota’s [projected] budget gap was the largest in the nation on a per capita basis.” Pawlenty can bash President Obama, but his state desperately needed the roughly $2.6 billion it received through the federal stimulus bill to help cover the shortfall. Even with the stimulus money, Minnesota was still billions of dollars short. So, in addition to some spending cuts, Pawlenty proposed “a bond issue that would be paid for by existing and forecast revenues from the tobacco settlement-a one-time fix disliked by some because it aimed to use long-term borrowing to pay for current state operations.”

To be clear: Pawlenty wanted the state of Minnesota to borrow money to pay its bills. In contrast, Iowa’s state borrowing program (I-JOBS) is funding capital investments in infrastructure. Last summer, Iowans for Tax Relief in effect ran the Republican campaign for a special election in Iowa House district 90. During that campaign, the Republican candidate made false and misleading claims about Iowa’s state budget and borrowing. How ironic that the Iowans for Tax Relief crowd gave a standing ovation to a panderer with a much worse record of fiscal management.

Not only did Pawlenty want Minnesota to borrow money to pay its bills, he also decided that underfunding local governments and forcing them to draw down their own reserves was a good way to control spending for the 2010-2011 budget period. Yes, Pawlenty decided in 2009 that cutting aid to local governments by hundreds of millions of dollars was a good way to balance the state budget:

“Many [cities], if not all, have reserve funds, or rainy day funds, and they should use them,” Pawlenty said.

He also talked of the option cities have of raising property taxes to make up for any LGA [local government aid] cuts.

One of the Republican talking points against Iowa Governor Chet Culver is that his midyear budget cuts supposedly forced local governments to raise property taxes. Yet Pawlenty gets a free pass from his Iowa Republican friends. Culver’s across-the-board budget cut last October wasn’t popular, but it did keep state government from overspending. In contrast, late last year Minnesota’s cash flow was so poor that state officials considered short-term borrowing to meet budget obligations.

“It’s a bad sign,” said former state Finance Commissioner Peggy Ingison, now chief financial officer with Minneapolis public schools. “It signals you didn’t have good fiscal discipline.”

Minnesota has muddled through without borrowing money to pay bills so far, but prospects for later this year are dicey:

State budget officials updated lawmakers [April 12] on Minnesota’s precarious cash-flow situation. They all but ruled out short-term borrowing for the 2010 budget year that ends June 30.

Budget director Jim Schowalter says “deep cash problems” loom for the 2011 fiscal year. Barring law changes, spending cuts and upticks in revenue, he says the state might have to take out short-term loans to meet its obligations.

The Minnesota Budget Bites blog takes a more detailed look at the state’s “troublesome” picture for fiscal year 2011. BulliedPulpit posted a good rebuttal of “TPawnomics” at MN Progressive Project.

The last thing our country needs is budget advice from Tim Pawlenty.  

At 1 pm today Terry Branstad, Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts will face off in the first of three debates before the gubernatorial primary in June. I won’t be able to watch the live stream at KTIV’s site, so I’ll have to catch the repeat on Iowa Public Television, whenever that will be shown. I wanted to put up this thread so Bleeding Heartland readers can chat about the debate. I will update this post later with early write-ups about the event. Rod Roberts seems to have the most to gain from this debate, since he is the least-known candidate in the field.

The Republicans will throw around lots of numbers about taxes and spending, and those will need a lot of fact-checking. The truth is that Iowa doesn’t have a budget deficit, and the independent analysts who have given our state the highest bond rating recognize our relatively strong fiscal position. Like every other state, Iowa experienced a steep drop in revenues because of the recession, but unlike most other states, we have not fully depleted our cash reserves.

Which Republican candidate will come across as the most fiscally responsible person today? Will it be:

Terry Branstad, whose mismanagement was so legendary that a number of elected Republicans favored his primary challenger in 1994?

Bob Vander Plaats, whose management skills don’t seem to have helped his non-profit thrive financially, and who did a 180-degree turn on tax credits between March 2009 and January 2010?

Or Rod Roberts, who is so very serious about the governor’s responsibilities that he thinks adopting a state budget is of secondary importance to stopping same-sex marriage?

The floor is yours.

UPDATE: I still haven’t had a chance to watch the debate, but fortunately, Iowa Public Television will air it tonight at 8 pm. Over at Iowa Independent, Jason Hancock thought Vander Plaats won but “never achieved the game-changing moment his campaign needed.” Todd Dorman didn’t see a lot of substance or new ideas on display and partly blamed the debate format.

Terry Branstad seems to have been around Iowa politics forever, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing new to learn about him. This week I learned that in 2007, Branstad joined former Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack to advocate for new health insurance mandates in Iowa. More on that and other Branstad news can be found after the jump.

The Iowa House and Senate adjourned for 2010 today, wrapping up the legislative session in just 79 days. In the coming weeks I will post about various bills that passed or failed to pass during the session. For now, you can read wrap-up posts at Iowa Independent, IowaPolitics.com, the Des Moines Register and Radio Iowa.

Democratic legislative leaders said the House and Senate “succeeded in responsibly balancing the budget without raising taxes while laying the groundwork for Iowa’s economic recovery.” Governor Chet Culver described the session as “a real victory for Iowans, particularly hardworking Iowa families.” He also hailed passage of an infrastructure bill including the final installment of the I-JOBS state bonding program. AFSCME Iowa Council 61 praised several bills that passed this year, such as the government reorganization bill, the early retirement program and a budget that saved many public employees’ jobs.

Republicans and their traditional interest-group allies saw things differently, of course. House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley and Iowans for Tax Relief all emphasized the use of one-time federal dollars to help cover state spending. Their talking points have made headway with Kathie Obradovich, but the reality is that much of the federal stimulus money was intended to backfill state budgets, and rightly so, because severe state spending cuts can deepen and prolong an economic recession.

Overall, I am not satisfied with the legislature’s work in 2010. Despite the massive costs of reconstruction after the 2008 floods, legislators lacked the political will to take any steps forward on floodplain management. Despite the film tax credit fiasco, not enough was done to rein in tax credits. Many other good ideas fell by the wayside for lack of time during the rushed session. (It strikes me as penny-wise and pound-foolish to save $800,000 by shortening the legislative calendar from 100 to 80 days.) Some other good proposals got bogged down in disagreements between the House and the Senate. Labor and environmental advocates once again saw no progress on their key legislative priorities, yet this Democratic-controlled legislature found the time to pass the top priority of the National Rifle Association. Pathetic.

On the plus side, the 2011 budget protected the right priorities, and most of the projects funded by the infrastructure spending bill, Senate File 2389, are worthwhile. Some good bills affecting public safety and veterans made it through. In addition, Democrats blocked a lot of bad Republican proposals. Credit must also go to the leaders who held their caucuses together against efforts to write discrimination into the Iowa Constitution.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Read Todd Dorman on the Iowa House’s “parting gift to local government officials who like to play secret agent on your dime.”

Governor Chet Culver submitted his draft budget to the Iowa legislature last Wednesday, but with the State of the Union and other news of the day, I didn’t have time to write up the story.

The complete budget document can be downloaded at the governor’s official website, and you can view Culver’s press conference on the budget here.

For more links, reactions and commentaries, follow me after the jump.

Not content to push for a balanced-budget constitutional amendment in his own state, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has endorsed the idea of a federal constitutional amendment to require Congress to pass balanced budgets every year. The Wall Street Journal’s Amy Merrick observes,

Previous efforts to pass a national balanced-budget amendment have foundered in Congress. Many lawmakers believe deficit spending can help boost the U.S. economy during downturns, and calls to balance the budget sometimes fade as other priorities surface.

It would be insane to restrict the federal government’s ability to run deficits during a recession. That’s not just something many members of Congress “believe,” it’s a consensus view among economists. But don’t worry, Pawlenty isn’t entirely rigid on the subject of deficit spending:

Mr. Pawlenty’s proposal for a federal amendment would include exceptions for war, natural disasters and other emergencies. The U.S. has been at war for most of the past decade.

No self-respecting Republican ever let spending worries stand in the way of a blank check for war.

Although it’s tempting to laugh at Pawlenty’s proposal, I think highlighting the budget amendment could boost his standing in the 2012 presidential race. His idea isn’t outside the GOP mainstream; leading Republicans proposed a federal spending freeze instead of the stimulus bill Congress passed in February. Republican politicians in Iowa have also embraced Hoovernomics.

The idea could prove popular with the GOP rank and file too. Mike Huckabee gained a lot of traction in Iowa during the summer of 2007 by being the only Republican to endorse the so-called “fair tax.” That idea is even wackier than a federal spending freeze during a recession, but many caucus-goers embraced it.

Any comments about Pawlenty’s prospects or the Republican presidential field are welcome in this thread.

The editors of the conservative Fort Dodge Messenger are ecstatic about Terry Branstad’s gubernatorial campaign, and they got a little carried away in this Sunday editorial:

Iowa must return to a pay-as-you-go approach to budgeting. Government spending should be carefully aligned with anticipated revenues. As governor, Branstad rigorously adhered to that philosophy. He pledged it will once again become central to state budgeting if he is elected.

Who are they kidding?

Branstad’s sleight of hand on the budget was so notorious that as a three-term incumbent, he almost lost the 1994 GOP primary to Fred Grandy. That campaign centered on “the Mastercard governor” and his record of fiscal mismanagement, including keeping two sets of books to hide deficits.

As State Representative Chris Rants has noted, Branstad likes to take credit for budget reforms that were not his idea and were intended to prevent future governors from repeating his mistakes.

That’s to be expected from a politician, but I expect more reality-based commentary from newspaper editors.

By the way, did you notice how the Messenger editors suggested that Iowa is no longer doing “pay as you go” budgeting? That Republican talking point is supposed to make people believe that Democrats have borrowed money to fund budget line items. In fact, the I-JOBS state bonding program was for capital investment projects. Investors understood that distinction. That’s why the bonds were sold at lower interest rates, and the Bond Buyer daily rated I-JOBS one of the country’s top 10 best financing deals for 2009.

Even after factoring in the I-JOBS program, Iowa’s state debt per capita is low by national standards.

Governor Chet Culver announced today that he is cutting spending 10 percent across the board in the 2010 budget. The move follows yesterday’s Revenue Estimating Conference report, which projected that revenue will drop by 8.4 percent this fiscal year, leaving state government with $414 million less to spend. Culver said he doesn’t support any tax hikes or increasing the amount drawn from the state’s cash reserves during the current fiscal year.

Republicans have hammered Democrats for allegedly overspending in the 2010 budget, but Culver rightly noted in a statement on Wednesday,

I proposed and the legislature approved a balanced budget for fiscal year 2010, which began on July 1. This budget was based on the official REC estimates from their March meeting last spring. The budget included a nearly $100 million ending balance, and $373 million in reserves.

During an economic recession, it is not prudent to slash government spending by more than is absolutely necessary. Government cuts themselves can become a drag on the economy, and demand for government social services goes up along with unemployment. The 2010 budget was based on the latest REC estimate during the legislative session, so Republicans are wrong to charge that Democrats overspent.

On the other hand, I agree with Republican critics who say Culver should have convened a special session of the legislature to make targeted cuts. An across-the-board cut is the governor’s only way to reduce spending without legislative approval. It’s faster and cleaner than a special session, but in my opinion an across-the-board cut this large will affect essential services at some agencies.

Culver said he will try to find money in December or January to beef up staffing at Iowa Workforce Development, which helps unemployed Iowans find new jobs. He will also try to backfill money for certain areas of public safety, he said.

This midyear cut is off the charts compared with what any governor in recent history has faced, and it will mean unprecedented turmoil for state employees and state agencies.

Part of the reason the cut is so deep is that Culver said he wants to leave a cushion of around $100 million. The current ending balance for this budget year is $97 million. […]

He will appoint Joni Klaassen, deputy chief of staff for aministration, to help unions to address reduction in the state government workforce.

And he will ask the Legislature to require school districts to spend money from their cash reserves rather than raise property taxes.

After spending 24 hours to think about his options, Culver chose an across-the-board cut option, rather than calling state lawmakers back for a special session.

It would have taken too long to bring the lawmakers back to the Capitol, then to secure 51 votes in the Iowa House and 26 votes in the Iowa Senate.

“We would’ve had 150 different opinions on where to cut. […] But the fact is we need to act. We need to move,” Culver said. I was concerned it would literally take weeks and weeks to reach an agreement.”

I understand the need to move quickly, but it seems unfair to make state employees bear almost all of the pain, instead of imposing a combination of spending cuts and reductions in tax breaks. In that context, I agree with yesterday’s statement from AFSCME Iowa Council 61, which I’ve posted after the jump.

Iowa Republican leaders say Culver’s move will lead to higher property taxes, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re right about that. What they don’t tell you is that the Republican-proposed spending cuts of $300 million also would likely lead to higher property taxes.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: I should have emphasized that Culver cut spending by more than the amount needed to take the Revenue Estimating Conference’s projections into account. That means that even though he didn’t call a special legislative session, lawmakers will have some wiggle room during the regular 2010 session to restore funding to certain agencies.

I am tired of reading about the “unsustainable” growth in state government spending (e.g. in Todd Dorman’s latest column) that doesn’t acknowledge the unsustainable growth in tax breaks for business in Iowa. Spending on tax credits has risen far more sharply than spending from the general fund.

Click here and scroll down to view the Iowa Policy Project’s report on Iowa’s real spending problem: “tax expenditures on autopilot.” Excerpt from that pdf file:

State business tax expenditures have been one of the fastest growing parts of the state budget. Business assistance tax credits, a major component of business tax expenditures, increased from $144.3 million in  FY2006 to $242.7 million in FY2008, alone. The Department of Revenue has projected that these credits will grow to $405.9 million in FY2010, a 181 percent growth in just four years.1 Once enacted, these business tax credits are not subject to annual reauthorization and can grow well beyond their intended size and for activities well beyond their intended purpose.

This report doesn’t even include the growth in Tax Increment Financing, which I believe accounted for more than $200 million statewide last year. Tax Increment Financing was intended to spur redevelopment of blighted urban areas but during the last decade was expanded to include lots of suburban sprawl development, including Glen Oaks and Jordan Creek Town Center in West Des Moines. The developers get a big tax break, and city and county governments need to collect more property taxes from individuals. I am hoping to get a guest diary posted here that explains this problem in more detail. My point is that the legislature needs to look beyond simply cutting spending and services to make up for the expected revenue shortfall.

In addition to being unfair, it’s not even wise to slash government spending more than you need to during a recession, because that can prolong and deepen the recession. You’ll never get the party of Hoover to acknowledge that, however.

UPDATE: Branstad did file papers to form an exploratory committee today.

The Iowa Republican blog reported today,

This morning, former Governor Terry Branstad will file paperwork with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board (IECDB), essentially launching his campaign for governor.

All state candidates are required to file with the IECDB once they spend or raise more than $750.00. While some candidates have claimed that filing this paperwork is like opening an exploratory committee, there are no special distinctions allowed under Iowa law for such committees, meaning that when you file with the IECDB, you are announcing that you are a candidate.

Branstad announced this summer that he would decide in October whether to run for governor again. It’s been clear he was planning to be a candidate since the Draft Branstad PAC started raising big money and running statewide radio ads last month, so why wait? Some people think Branstad, now president of Des Moines University, wanted to make his decision known to that university’s Board of Trustees at this month’s scheduled meeting before announcing his candidacy.

I have been wondering whether Branstad wanted to remain outside the campaign during September so that the Des Moines Register’s Iowa poll by Selzer and Co. would measure his support at the highest possible level. After he formally enters the race, his record will face tougher scrutiny, and his favorability ratings are likely to go down. The Register’s poll (released on September 20 and 21) showed that 70 percent of Iowans approved of his performance as governor, but only 48 percent thought it would be a good idea for him to run again. That poll did not include a head to head matchup against Governor Chet Culver. Republican firm Rasmussen conducted a one-day poll on September 22, which showed Branstad leading Culver by 20 points.

In the coming months, rival Republican candidates are likely to open three main lines of attack on Branstad:

1. During his first three terms as governor, Branstad kept two sets of books in order to run illegal deficits. His fiscal mismanagement was the main factor driving support for then Congressman Fred Grandy during the 1994 Republican primary. State Representative Chris Rants has already started hitting Branstad on this front. Last week he asserted,

“Culver’s repeating the mistakes Branstad made in the 80’s. He moved money on paper and delayed payments from one fiscal year to another until it finally caught up to him and he raised the sales tax to square the books. He could only hide his deficits for so long. It’s these kinds of accounting gimmicks that caused the fallout between Auditor Johnson and Branstad.”

“We Republicans need to be better than that if we expect to earn the trust of Iowans,” added Rants.

Richard Johnson, state auditor during most of Branstad’s tenure, is now co-chairing Bob Vander Plaats’ campaign. Expect to hear more from him in the future.

2. During his four terms as governor, Branstad didn’t deliver on various issues of importance to conservatives. Branstad selected a pro-choice lieutenant governor and didn’t get an abortion ban through the legislature even when it was under Republican control during his final term. Vander Plaats has already promised not to balance his ticket with a moderate, and if Branstad announces a pro-choice running mate, a lot of the Republican rank and file will be furious.

Branstad campaigned every four years on a promise to reinstate the death penalty, but he never got it done as governor.

Last week Rants promised to press for an amendment on gun rights to the Iowa Constitution. Perhaps we’ll hear more in the future about Branstad’s failure to do enough on this front.

3. Branstad raised sales taxes, the gas tax, and favored other tax increases as well.

Tax hikes are never popular with the GOP base, and Rants and Vander Plaats are certain to educate primary voters about Branstad’s record. If Christian Fong decides to stay in the race, we’ll be hearing from him about this issue too. Ed Failor, head of Iowans for Tax Relief, is one of Fong’s key political backers and fundraisers.

The Iowa Democratic Party has already started responding to the Draft Branstad PAC’s revisionist history, and will continue to call attention to how Branstad governed. I’ve posted the Iowa Democratic Party’s response to the first pro-Branstad radio ad after the jump. The IDP has also created the entertaining Iowa Knows Better website, with information about all of the GOP candidates for governor. Here is the page on Branstad, with details on Branstad’s two sets of books, tax increases, use of state bonding, and failure to pay state employees what they had earned.

Branstad will have more money and institutional support than the other Republican candidates and will be heavily favored to win the primary. But I doubt public approval for his work as governor will still be at 70 percent six months from now.

UPDATE: Swing State Project is now calling the Iowa governor’s race a tossup.

Talk about a bolt from the blue:

A memo from auditors investigating irregularities in a state tax-credit program for filmmaking paint a picture of movie producers and film executives taking personal advantage of the program and state administrators paying little attention.

The director of the Iowa Department of Economic Development, Mike Tramontina, abruptly resigned Friday after allegations of mismanagement of the program surfaced. The department oversees the Iowa Film Office. The manager of that office, Tom Wheeler, was placed on paid administrative leave.

The departure of Tramontina, who was appointed to the post by Gov. Chet Culver in 2007, came after preliminary findings from auditors looking into allegations that filmmakers had purchased luxury vehicles for themselves.

According to the memo obtained by The Des Moines Register, auditors found a long list of bookkeeping lapses and poor oversight in the program, which has spent $32 million on tax credits for 20 film projects since its inception in 2007. The program was aimed at promoting filmmaking in Iowa as a way to contribute to the local and state economy.

The governor’s office announced Tramontina’s resignation at 4:56 pm on Friday. Culver also suspended the tax credit program until auditors complete a review of it.

State Senator Tom Courtney, a Democrat from Burlington, told the Des Moines Register “he talked to state officials about problems with the movie tax credits about a month ago, when labor officials complained that few Iowans were getting hired to work on the movies.” Courtney raised those concerns again in a meeting with the Iowa Economic Development Board the day before Tramontina resigned:

“I’m hearing nothing but complaints that workers are being brought in from other states” during film productions in Iowa, Courtney said. “I don’t imagine we have a lot of Clint Eastwoods running around, but with a little training, we could be doing many of those jobs.”

Michael Tramontina, the state’s economic development leader, said he couldn’t put a number on how many jobs are created, since many are temporary – from contractors used to build sets to caterers and “extra” actors.

“Anecdotally from the film industry, it ranges from 20 to 60 percent Iowans” employed on films produced in Iowa, Tramontina said. […]

Tramontina said the agency is working to develop “employment thresholds” for a film, but hitting a number is complicated.

Employment requirements should depend on the kind of film being made – whether it’s a feature film being made over three to six months or a TV series that might run for years. […]

Courtney said lawmakers might need to address closing what he called “an open door” in film tax credits if Tramontina’s agency is unable to do it. He said most Iowa economic development incentives carry job-creation requirements. “Iowa has a bright future in the film industry, but we have to help the people who live here.”

While Republicans harp on the need to cut spending further, it’s equally important to subject every tax credit to scrutiny. The Iowa Policy Project has found that expenditures on tax credits for business have “skyrocketed” in recent years, far outstripping the rate of increase in spending from Iowa’s general fund. These tax credits should be on the table as legislators look for ways to balance the budget.

With the economic recession continuing to drag down tax revenues, the 2010 budget that the Iowa Legislature approved in April is likely to require significant adjustments.

In June the Legislative Council agreed to cut more than 10 percent from the Legislature’s budget in 2010. The cost-saving measures “include a pay freeze for all legislative employees, reducing travel budgets, and cutting back next year’s legislative session by 10 days.”

A State Government Reorganization Commission will look for other ways to cut spending next year. It will be interesting to compare that commission’s proposals with the kind of cuts Iowa Republicans have been advocating. During the last legislative session, Republicans called for $300 million in spending cuts, but I have been unable to find a link to a document with details about that proposal. (Note: I’ll have more to say in a future post about the state budget reforms Iowa Republicans proposed yesterday.)

After the jump I’ve posted some links and analysis related to the budget constraints facing Iowa and just about every other state right now.

The Republican Party of Iowa is celebrating its “rising stars” tonight at an event featuring Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. Judging by what we’ve heard lately from Iowa GOP leaders, they’re gonna party like it’s 1929.

Case in point: Iowa Senate Minority leader Paul McKinley. The possible gubernatorial candidate’s weekly memos continue to whine about spending and borrowing by Democrats (see also here). Republicans would rather slash government programs and provide “targeted” one-year tax credits.

The lessons of Herbert Hoover’s presidency are still lost on these people. I apologize for repeating myself, but excessive government spending cuts can turn an economic recession into a depression. Since state governments cannot run budget deficits, it makes sense for the federal government to help the states “backfill” their budgets. That was the express purpose of the state transfer funds in the stimulus package.

In addition, it is prudent to spend federal funds on projects with long-term benefits. Energy Secretary Steven Chu was in Des Moines on June 23 to highlight the first installment of what will be $41 million in stimulus funds for renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects in Iowa. Energy efficiency programs in particular will have huge collateral benefits, saving consumers money while helping the environment.

No matter how many times Republicans repeat their misleading talking points about the I-JOBS state bonding initiative Democrats passed this year, it is prudent to borrow money for worthwhile projects when interest rates are low. I don’t hear McKinley or other Republican leaders telling businesses not to borrow money to make capital improvements.

Share any thoughts about Republican ideas, rhetoric, or career lobbyist Haley Barbour in this thread.

Last week Jane Hamsher wrote a good piece at FireDogLake about Newt Gingrich’s big spending on private planes. She noted that Gingrich’s organization American Solutions paid $3,360,346 to Moby Dick Airways, which charters private planes, during 2008 alone. American Solutions raised a total of $25,489,668 last year, and donations below $200 made up $7,343,986 of that amount.

Hamsher asked a good question:

On their contributions page, it says “American Solutions is here to serve as your voice in the political process.” Did the people who gave this money think they were donating so Newt and Company could jet around on private planes?

I’m pretty sure they didn’t, because last night I received a fundraising call from American Solutions. As I always do when I am a respondent for any political survey, I grabbed a pen and took notes, which you’ll find after the jump.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved President Barack Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion 2010 budget on Thursday by a vote of 233 to 196. As you can see from the roll call, all three Democrats representing Iowa voted for the budget: Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03). Every House Republican voted against Obama’s budget, including Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05).

Twenty House Democrats joined Republicans in voting against the budget (Dennis Kucinich plus a minority of the Blue Dog caucus). But it’s notable that most Blue Dogs, like Boswell, supported this budget. Obama has met twice with the Blue Dog caucus this year, most recently on March 30.

House Republicans offered an alternative budget proposal with all kinds of crazy ideas in it, like privatizing Medicare, giving the wealthy more tax cuts, and freezing most non-defense discretionary federal spending. As you can see from the roll call, Tom Latham was among the 28 Republicans who joined House Democrats in voting down the GOP budget alternative. Steve King was among the 137 Republicans who voted yes.

White House officials were right to mock the GOP’s budget alternative as a “joke.” Freezing federal spending is a good way to turn a severe economic recession into a depression.

Soon after the House budget vote, I received press releases from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee slamming Latham and King for voting against a wide range of tax cuts contained in the budget resolution. I’ve posted those after the jump.

I suspect that the the DCCC is not putting out statements attacking the House Democrats who voted against the budget, and I’m seeking a comment from their communications staff about whether my hunch is correct. DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen warned on Thursday that liberal groups supporting primary challengers against unreliable House Democrats could cost the party seats in 2010. I wonder why we are supposed to look the other way when members of our own party take positions that the DCCC finds atrocious in House Republicans.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate approved a 2010 budget resolution late on Thursday after a nearly 12-hour marathon of votes on various amendments. David Waldman (formerly known as Kagro X) gives you the play-by-play from yesterday’s Senate action at Congress Matters. The final vote in the Senate was 55-43 (roll call here). Iowa’s Tom Harkin voted yes, along with all Senate Democrats except for Evan Bayh of Indiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who voted with Republicans, and Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who did not vote. The 41 Senate Republicans, including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, voted no.

CNN went over the key similarities and differences between the House and Senate budget resolutions. Most important difference, in my opinion:

[House Democrats] also included language that allows for the controversial procedure called “budget reconciliation” for health care, a tool that would limit debate on major policy legislation.

Senate Democrats did not include reconciliation in their version of the budget. The matter is guaranteed to be a major partisan sticking point when the two chambers meet to hammer out a final version of next year’s spending plan. If it passes, it would allow the Senate to pass Obama’s proposed health care reform without the threat of a Republican-led Senate filibuster.

Notably, both the House and Senate budget bills “do away with Obama’s request for an additional $250 billion, if needed, in financial-sector bailout money.” Thank goodness for that.

Any comments or speculation regarding federal tax or spending policies are welcome in this thread.

Sorry to bring you down on a Friday afternoon, but the Iowa Revenue Estimating Conference released new estimates today, and it ain’t pretty:

The conference estimated that the current year’s revenues will sink by $129.7 million compared to its December estimate. Revenue for the budget year that begins July 1 will drop by $269.9 million.

The drop is in addition to December’s estimates, which cut $99.5 million in the current year and $132.6 million in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

Charlie Krogmeier, Gov. Chet Culver’s chief of staff and a member of the conference, said federal stimulus money may help offset the blow but that the dramatically lower estimates will leave lawmakers with tough options.

It would be difficult to find enough job cuts and furloughs in the current fiscal year to fill the gap. The fiscal year ends June 30, in roughly 10 weeks. […]

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy […] and other Democratic leaders noted on Thursday that they were already planning a budget that was $130 million less than Culver’s in the upcoming fiscal year. It’s unclear how they will make up the additional $270 million loss for the current and upcoming year.

Clearly difficult choices lie ahead. I urge Iowa leaders not to implement spending cuts alone, because cutting government spending too much during a recession can make things worse.

I was encouraged to read recently that legislators are looking carefully at all of the tax incentives Iowa provides. The combined effect of all these tax incentives is larger than all state spending:

There are at least 191 tax breaks for income and sales taxes that cost or prevent Iowa from collecting almost $7.2 billion, according to a 2005 review by the Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance.

That’s more than total state spending, which is projected to be $7.1 billion next year.

Not all of these tax breaks provide good value for the lost revenue, and not all of them can be preserved with the budget shortfall we’re facing.

In other unpleasant news this Friday, the Principal Financial Group, one of Iowa’s largest employers, announced pay cuts between 2 and 10 percent, which will affect all employees, management and the board of directors. Some benefits will also be reduced.

Principal already imposed a large layoff in December, and I think they are doing the right thing by reducing pay rather than cutting more jobs now. Labor market specialists differ on whether it’s better for companies to cut pay or lay off more workers in lean times. Click here to read some arguments for reducing pay, or click here for the pro-layoff argument.

Yesterday I posted here that Representative Tom Latham (IA-04) has been taking credit for earmarks in the 2009 omnibus spending bill that he voted against.

Alert Bleeding Heartland user frogmanjim informed me that Representative Steve King (IA-05) has been playing the same game. King’s office issued an upbeat statement about $570,000 included in the economic stimulus bill that will go toward widening U.S. Highway 20 in a rural area of northwest Iowa. Of course, the statement did not mention that King voted against the stimulus. Nor did the brief news item in the Sioux City Journal.

I had a feeling that King would take credit for stimulus spending. During last year’s campaign he repeatedly misled voters about his role in securing money to widen Highway 20 (see here and here).

Time for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to add Steve King’s name to the Republican Hypocrisy Hall of Fame. More than 30 House Republicans have already been inducted.

Ever notice how Republicans love to complain about “wasteful government spending” but never do anything about it when they’re in power?

Less than 100 days into his new job, President Barack Obama is taking a big step in the right direction:

Obama today issued a memorandum to the heads of all the executive departments agencies directing them to restrict no-bid contracts; to rein in outsourcing of “inherently governmental activities”; and to, if necessary, cancel wasteful contracts outright. The crucial paragraph, even if it’s written in bureaucratese, particularly calls out the Defense Department […]

Clearly, this has applications far beyond the Pentagon. But the list of big-ticket defense items that have experienced huge cost overruns is a long one. Future Combat Systems in the Army; the Littoral Combat Ship in the Navy; the Joint Strike Fighter in the Air Force – all of these programs, near and dear to the services, have run massively over budget. If I was a lobbyist for Lockheed or Boeing, I’d be dialing my contacts in the Pentagon and the Hill to figure out what the prospective damage to my company was. And then I’d come up with a strategy to fight this forthcoming Office of Management and Budget review.

Obama went further in remarks at the White House, calling it a “false choice” to say that protecting the country requires acquiescence to Pentagon waste. “In this time of great challenges,” he said, “I recognize the real choice between investments that are designed to keep the American people safe and those that are designed to make a defense contractor rich.” He also lent support to Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and former presidential rival John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) legislation to create new procurement oversight positions at the Pentagon. “The days of giving defense contractors a blank check are over,” Obama said.

Music to my ears: no more blank checks for crooked defense contractors.

The White House estimates that changing the way the government does business will save about $40 billion a year.

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, the total cost of approximately 11,610 earmarks in fiscal year 2008 was $17.2 billion. In fiscal year 2007, earmarks cost American taxpayers an estimated $13.2 billion. Republicans howl about earmarks (when they’re not busy getting them for their own constituents), but will they get behind Obama’s new effort to reduce huge cost overruns and no-bid contracts?

Obama could save even more money by cutting obsolete Cold War-era weapons systems, but I don’t expect him to take on that battle anytime soon.

State Auditor David Vaudt’s a pretty good bean-counter, but he did not read the fine print of the stimulus bill Congress recently passed. (In fairness, the document was more than 1,000 pages long.) Vaudt told the Iowa Political Alert blog that

the state should consider the nearly $1.9 billion expected to flow to Iowa through the package in cafeteria style – taking millions here but potentially leaving money on the table elsewhere if he thinks the short-term gain would give birth to unwieldy bureaucracy down the road.

“I would sort through each piece of the stimulus package and try and say ‘where does it fit Iowa the most,’” he said.

(Hat tip to Iowa Independent.)

But Senator Charles Schumer of New York has bad news for Republican governors (or in this case a would-be governor) advocating an a la carte approach to the stimulus:

As you know, Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation. It would also undermine the overall success of the bill, as the components most singled out for criticism by these governors are among the most productive measures in terms of stimulating the economy.

Vaudt may run for governor in 2010, but I don’t give him much chance of winning a Republican primary. A few days ago he dared to suggest that Iowans may have to pay higher gas taxes in order to adequately fund road projects. That will rile up the base in the wrong way.

Speaking to Iowa Political Alert, Vaudt acknowledged that he hasn’t focused much on social issues in the past. He added that on abortion he’s a “pro-life person” who would make exceptions in the case of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Republican Congressional candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks had exactly the same stance on abortion and was consequently attacked by Iowa Right to Life. Amazingly, the State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Iowa barely had the votes to censure RNC committeewoman Kim Lehman for failing to support Miller-Meeks during her campaign against Congressman Dave Loebsack last fall.

I don’t think Vaudt will satisfy the social conservatives who dominate GOP primaries in Iowa unless several candidates of the Bob Vander Plaats variety split those votes.  

Jill Richardson’s post on extremely low food stamp participation rates in San Diego got me wondering how well Iowa does in getting eligible people enrolled in this program.

Bleeding-heart liberal that I am, I’d like to see 100 percent of people who qualify for food stamps get them, just for the sake of reducing hunger in our communities.

But let’s leave ethical concerns aside for now. Economic researchers, most recently Moody’s Economy.com, have calculated that expanding the food-stamp program produces more economic stimulus than any other kind of government spending, and much more than any form of tax cuts.  Every additional dollar spent on food stamps translates into $1.73 circulating in the economy.

This page on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website contains links to many studies comparing the state participation rates for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (the official name for the food stamp program). All of the recent annual reports are pdf files you can download.

The report for 2004 put Iowa in 22nd place for food stamp participation and estimated that 61 percent of the 286,000 people eligible for food stamps were receiving them.

The report for 2005 ranked Iowa 24th and estimated that 66 percent of the 307,000 people eligible for food stamps were receiving them.

The report for 2006 ranked Iowa 20th and estimated that 71 percent of the 309,000 people eligible for food stamps were receiving them. Data for 2007 and 2008 are not yet available on the USDA site.

As you can see, Iowa is doing a little better at getting food stamps to the people who qualify for them, but we have a long way to go to match the states near the top. In the top three states, more than 90 percent of people eligible for food stamps are getting them. That figure is above 80 percent for the next five states.

Increasing Iowa’s food stamp enrollment rate from 71 percent to 80 percent would translate to nearly 30,000 more people receiving food stamps in our state. If we could get food stamp participation above 90 percent, roughly 60,000 more Iowans would be receiving food stamps. Those people would consequently have more to spend on other goods and services. Many retailers would benefit as the money flowed through the economy.

I don’t know exactly what needs to be done to further improve Iowa’s food stamp participation rate. There’s a lot of research on the USDA site on factors that affect enrollment. I would welcome comments or a diary from someone with expertise in this area about what Iowa’s doing well already and what we need to do better.

Given the multiplier effect of food stamp benefits on economic activity, this program merits attention from policy-makers looking to stimulate the economy. Government spending on infrastructure projects is worthwhile (as long as we fix what we have first), but let’s not ignore other efficient ways of sparking more economic activity.

To my conservative readers who start hyperventilating at the thought of more people receiving government assistance: don’t think of it as extra food for families struggling to get by. Think of it as a fast way to save jobs in the retail sector–with a lot more bang for the buck than tax cuts.  

Although GOP leaders are boasting that zero House Republicans voted for the stimulus bill, I have a sneaking suspicion that once this so-called “wasteful spending” starts working its way through the economy, Republican members of Congress will find a way to take credit for it.

We saw last fall that Steve “10 worst” King used his first television commercial to take credit for progress toward widening Iowa Highway 20. The TIME-21 plan approved by the state legislature last spring–not King’s work in Congress–made that project possible. Nevertheless, King continued to mislead voters about his role in moving the Highway 20 project forward.

At least two House Republicans are already playing this game with respect to the stimulus. David Waldman/Kagro X predicts,

Standard operating procedure, of course. Oppose the bill viciously, vote against it, then show up at every ribbon cutting in the district paid for by federal funds, and cry “Politicization!” if they’re not invited.

Paul Rosenberg’s take on this story is also worth a read.

Democrats need to be on the lookout for this kind of weaselry over the next couple of years. Help from Iowans living in the fourth and fifth Congressional districts would be most appreciated.

If you see Steve King or Tom Latham taking credit for stimulus spending they voted against, either in an official press release or in a local newspaper, radio or television news story, please post a diary about it at Bleeding Heartland, or e-mail me with the details (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

UPDATE: More Republicans are touting wonderful provisions in the stimulus bill they voted against.

It didn’t take long for representatives and senators to reach a compromise on a $790 billion stimulus bill. Chris Bowers posted a good summary of the bill at Open Left. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s selling point is that the bill that came out of conference creates more jobs than the original Senate bill while spending less money than the original House bill.

I don’t believe the bill is large enough to do the job it’s supposed to do, especially since it still contains costly measures that won’t stimulate the economy much (such as fixing the alternative minimum tax, which hits high-income Americans).

I hope President Barack Obama will take a tougher line in future negotiations with Congress. He did too much pre-compromising with Republicans, to the detriment of the final bill. His original suggestion of an $800 billion price tag for the stimulus, seen by some as a “floor” that would increase when Congress got to work, became a “ceiling” above which any bill was viewed as too expensive.

He also included too many non-stimulative tax cuts in his original proposal to Congress. Predictably, Republicans demanded (and got) even more concessions, even though none of them voted for the bill in the House and only three voted for it in the Senate.

Bowers noticed one Q and A from Obama’s prime-time press conference the other night, which hints that the president learned a lesson about negotiating from this experience.

Bowers believes that “The deal isn’t perfect, but it is still probably the best piece of legislation to pass Congress in, oh, 15 or 16 years.”

David Sirota is also mostly pleased:

I’m not happy that the stimulus bill was made less stimulative by reactionary Republicans and embarrassingly incoherent Democrats. I’m also not happy that direct spending on infrastructure/social programs comprises a miniscule 4.6% of all the government funds spent to deal with this economic crisis. However, considering how far progressives have pushed the debate, I’d say the deal on the economic stimulus package is a huge victory.

Remember, only months ago, the incoming administration and the Congress were talking about passing a stimulus bill at around $350 billion. Remember, too, that Obama started out pushing a stimulus package chock full of odious tax cuts. Now, we’ve got a bill that’s $790 billion (including a sizable downpayment for major progressive priorities) and stripped of the worst tax cuts.

Your opinion of the stimulus may depend on which issues you care about most. Open Left user WI Dem noticed that the compromise bill included more funding for high-speed rail but less for urban public transit, which “has a far greater effect on CO2 [emissions] and on people’s daily lives.”

Via the twitter feed of Daily Iowan opinion writers, I found this piece by Climate Progress on “what’s green” in the stimulus compromise.

The Republican Party is already planning to run ads against 30 Democrats who will vote for the stimulus. It makes sense for the GOP to bet against the stimulus, because they won’t get credit if it succeeds, and their best hope for a comeback in the next election cycle is for Democrats to fail. The main risk for them is that if the stimulus package succeeds, the upcoming advertising campaign people could make more people remember that Republicans tried to stand in its way.

Speaking of Republican propaganda, contrary to what your wingnut friends may tell you, the stimulus bill does not earmark $30 million to save “Nancy Pelosi’s mouse.” It does include some funding for federal wetlands restoration, however.

UPDATE: TPM’s Elana Schor provides surprising proof that no politician is wrong 100 percent of the time. Apparently Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma got a $2 billion “clean coal” earmark out of the stimulus bill.

Greg Sargent explains how “Pelosi’s mouse” went from fabrication to talking point for right-wing television pundits.

I learned at Iowa Independent that Senator Chuck Grassley told reporters on Wednesday that he would vote for the economic stimulus “regardless of what else is in the bill” if the Senate approved an amendment providing for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages at 4 percent interest.

He remained critical of the spending in the bill:

“People at the grassroots see it as a lot of spending and not very much stimulus,” Grassley said. “Somebody thinks they’re fooling the people of this country with this package, but they aren’t.”

Senator Tom Harkin’s office put out a statement on Tuesday listing some of the proposed spending that would benefit Iowans:

February 3, 2009

HARKIN: $1.5 BILLION INCLUDED FOR IOWA IN SENATE STIMULUS PACKAGE

Washington,  D.C. – U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today announced that there are more than $1.5 billion in critical investments for  Iowa included in the Senate version of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These investments will create and save jobs; help with budget shortfalls to prevent deep cuts in basic services such as health, education, and law enforcement; cut taxes for working families and invest in the long-term health of our economy.

“The economy is now shedding an average of 17,000 jobs a day, and new foreclosures average 9,000 a day.  We are facing what could be the deepest, longest recession since the Great Depression.  We must act quickly and boldly,”  said Harkin.  “This bill will create jobs now while also laying the foundation for a stronger economy that works for all Americans in the future.”

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $888 billion in investments and tax cuts.  Of this total, $694 billion will enter the economy by the end of Fiscal year 2010, meaning that 78 percent of the monies allocated will reach the American people by September 30, 2010, providing an immediate boost to the overall economy and creating an estimated four million jobs nationwide.

Below are the approximate investments Iowa could see if the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by the president.  These amounts only include major accounts that are allocated by formula, and do not include the considerable funds that will be allocated competitively by the executive branch.

Nutrition Programs

·         $2.3 million for School Lunch Programs

·         $109 million for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

·         $776,000 for the Emergency Food Assistance Program

Homeland Security Programs

·         $639,000 for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program

Clean Water Programs

·         $24 million for the Drinking Water Fund

·         $54 million for the Clean Water Fund

Transportation Funding

·         $389 million for  Iowa ‘s Highway fund

·         $46 million for Transit Funding

Housing Programs

·         $7.6 million for public housing capital

·         $14.8 million for HOME funding

·         $16.8 million for homelessness prevention

Law Enforcement / Crime funding

·         $14 million for Byrne/JAG funding

·         $978,000 for crime victim programs

·         $1 million to protect children against internet crimes

·         $3.2 million to assist women who are victims of violence

Energy Programs

·         $6.6 million for  Iowa ‘s energy program

·         $48.6 million for weatherization programs

Labor, Health and Human Service and Education Programs

·         $18.1 million for Child Care and Development Block Grants

·         $5.2 million for Head Start

·         $625.6 million for the state stabilization fund

·         $65.4 million for Title 1 programs

·         $140.1 million for Special Education Part B Grants

·         $46.1 million for Higher Education Facilities

·         $1.6 million for Adult Employment and Training

·         $78.7 million for School modernization

·         $5 million for education technology

·         $2.2 million for Community Service Block Grants

·         $441,000 for Senior Meals

·         $3.9 million for Employment Service Grants

·         $5 million for Dislocated Worker Grants

·         $5.4 million for vocational rehabilitation programs

·         $7.2 million for immunization programs

 

Some of these programs yield more “bang for the buck” than others, and there’s an argument to be made that the stimulus bill has too much of a grab-bag quality. Yesterday Daily Kos user TocqueDeville lamented the fact that Democrats put together a spending bill instead of “a big, unifying vision for the future – a Rebuilding America Act.” I agree with much of the critique and would have liked to see some different spending priorities.

That said, even an imperfect spending bill will do more to stimulate the economy than the tax cuts favored by Republicans.

I don’t know the specifics of the amendment Grassley supports, but in general making low-rate mortgages more accessible would be good. It was stupid as well as unethical for Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and other wise men of Wall Street to encourage so many Americans to buy adjustable-rate mortgages.

I was surprised to see Grassley say that the low-rate mortgage provision would be enough to win his vote for the stimulus. Senator Judd Gregg got a post in Barack Obama’s cabinet and still won’t vote for the bill.

If Grassley ends up voting yes on the stimulus, the wingnuts will go ballistic, but what can they do other than add a line to Grassley’s entry on the Iowa Defense Alliance “Wall of Shame”?

In other stimulus-related news, Obama published an op-ed in the Washington Post making the case for this package. Excerpt:

This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending — it’s a strategy for America’s long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it’s a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We’ve seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

It’s a start, but I agree with early Obama supporter Theda Skocpol. Obama mishandled this effort by making bipartisanship (instead of saving the economy) his measure of success. He can undo some of the damage by going directly to the people to make the case for the stimulus. But unfortunately, the Republicans still have the upper hand if they vote against the bill and blame the president for not giving them enough input.

Paul Rosenberg has an outstanding post up at Open Left on a report by Mark Zandi, the chief economist and co-founder of Moody’s Economy.com. Zandi analyzed different types of tax cuts and government spending in terms of “fiscal stimulus bang for the buck.”

Click here to view the chart showing his conclusions. Various types of government spending all delivered much more stimulus to the economy than even the most effective tax cuts.

Temporary increases in food stamps carried the most “bang for the buck,” $1.73 for every federal dollar spent. That’s because food stamp money goes into the hands of people who will spend it right away. Not far behind was extending unemployment benefits (which also helps people likely to spend money quickly) and government spending on infrastructure (which creates jobs).

Zandi found that even the government spending that delivered the least bang for the buck, general aid to state governments, still generated $1.38 for every federal dollar spent.

On the other hand, most tax cuts generated far below $1 for the economy for every dollar they cost the federal government. That’s particularly true for the tax cuts Republicans tend to favor, which mainly benefit high-income Americans or businesses. These generate between 25 and 50 cents for the economy for every dollar they cost the federal government.

By far the best tax cut for stimulating the  economy, according to Zandi, was a payroll tax holiday, which generates $1.28 for every dollar it costs. However, a payroll tax holiday still ranked significantly below various types of spending in terms of “bang for the buck.”

Rosenberg created a second chart combining Zandi’s figures with job creation numbers from the Center for Economic Policy and Research. It shows that millions more jobs would be created by $850 billion in spending compared to $850 billion in tax cuts.

Not only does government spending create more jobs and stimulate more consumer spending, it can also accomplish tasks that benefit the community as a whole. For instance, everyone who uses a bridge benefits from maintenance that prevents that bridge from collapsing. Thousands of travelers could take advantage of improved passenger rail service, which would also reduce greenhouse-gas emissions compared to driving or flying. For those reasons, I agree with the Iowa legislators who have advocated more rail funding in the stimulus bill.

Yesterday the Iowa Environmental Council provided another excellent example of how stimulus spending could produce both jobs and cleaner water in many Iowa communities:

IOWA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL

For Immediate Release

February 2, 2009

More money needed in stimulus for clean water infrastructure

The Iowa Environmental Council is encouraging U.S. lawmakers to increase clean water infrastructure funding in the economic stimulus plan, now under consideration in Congress. The House version of the stimulus package currently includes $8 billion and the Senate bill $4 billion for clean water infrastructure. The EPA estimated the cost of meeting our clean water infrastructure needs at $580 billion during the last assessment in 2004, according to a GAO report.

In Iowa alone, the Department of Natural Resources estimates water infrastructure needs to be over $618 million over the next two to three years.

According to Susan Heathcote, water program director for the Iowa Environmental Council, 87 of these projects, with a total cost of $306 million, could be underway in three to four months if the necessary funding were made available.

Sixty-six communities in Iowa do not have a public sewer system and 21 communities need help to upgrade their drinking water systems says Heathcote.

“These needs combined with the fact that we could have shovels in the ground as soon as funding becomes available make them perfect candidates for funding under the nation’s economic stimulus package,” said Heathcote.

In letters to Iowa Representative Boswell and Senators Harkin and Grassley, Heathcote outlined Iowa projects that could proceed immediately with available funding:

·         25 communities with sewage treatment plant projects, with estimated needed loan amounts of $165 million.

·         41 small unsewered communities, with estimated total cost of $72 million.

·         21 communities with need for upgrades to their drinking water systems, with an estimated total cost of $69 million.

Heathcote says, in addition to the new water projects outlined above, Iowa communities also need help to address ongoing efforts to separate outdated combined sewer systems and to repair or replace aging sanitary sewer system pipes. Until this work is completed, Iowa communities must continue to deal with the public health threat from frequent failure of sanitary sewer systems that result in discharges of untreated sewage into Iowa rivers.

“While we are addressing our ailing economy, why not make a real investment in clean water?” said Heathcote.

### End ###

Maybe Senator Chuck Grassley, who derides the stimulus spending as “porkulus,” needs to hear from Iowans living in communities with substandard sewage systems and drinking water that could be a lot cleaner. You can reach his office by calling (202) 224-3121.

President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress need to do a better job explaining to the public that the spending in the stimulus bill would directly boost the economy much more than tax cuts.  

It’s easy to complain about “wasteful government spending” in the stimulus bill when you’re in the Congressional minority. Voting against the stimulus may even be a smart political play for Congressional Republicans.

However, Republican governors who have to balance state budgets in this shrinking economy view the prospect of massive federal government spending differently:

Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama’s economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.

Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama’s spending priorities.

The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, planned to meet in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state’s share of the package.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist worked the phones last week with members of his state’s congressional delegation, including House Republicans. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, the Republican vice chairman of the National Governors Association, planned to be in Washington on Monday to urge the Senate to approve the plan. […]

This past week the bipartisan National Governors Association called on Congress to quickly pass the plan.

“States are facing fiscal conditions not seen since the Great Depression _ anticipated budget shortfalls are expected in excess of $200 billion,” the NGA statement said. “Governors … support several key elements of the bill critical to states-increased federal support for Medicaid and K-12 and higher education; investment in the nation’s infrastructure; and tax provisions to spur investment.”

Will the GOP base become disenchanted with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin because of her public support for the stimulus? I suspect Markos is right:

It complicates matters for the anti-stimulus ideologues who see starbursts in the presence of Palin.

Then again, Palin had no trouble lying about her support for the Bridge to Nowhere. Nothing will stop her from trying to rewrite history three years from now.

Speaking of Palin, I learned from Jeff Angelo that she’s created SarahPAC. Something tells me that a lot of Iowa Republican candidates in will receive generous contributions from this political action committee during the next two election cycles.

The Des Moines Register ran a piece on New Year’s Day called Culver resolves to leave as premier Iowa governor:

Gov. Chet Culver, who plans to run for re-election in 2010, gave himself overall high marks for his first two years in office during an exclusive, year-end interview with The Des Moines Register this week.

Some of the accomplishments he touted include improvements to health care coverage for children, expanded preschool, alternative energy incentives and efforts to help Iowa in flood recovery.

Culver has a picture of former Iowa Gov. Horace Boies on the wall of his office at the Capitol, which he uses as inspiration.

“Some people say he’s the best governor we ever had and that’s my goal: To try to be the best governor we ever had, and I’ve got a lot of work to do to achieve that goal,” Culver said.

I don’t know a thing about Horace Boies, but the piece got me thinking about what Culver would have to do to go down in history as the best governor Iowa ever had.

What makes a governor, or any elected official, memorable in a good way for decades after leaving office?

Some politicians make history instantly by being the first something-or-other to reach a particular position. Whether Barack Obama turns out to be a great president or achieves as little as Millard Fillmore, he’ll be remembered for centuries as the first black man elected president.

Culver’s not going to be remembered for being the first of anything.

Some politicians are good at winning elections but don’t leave much of a legacy. Terry Branstad never lost an election and served four terms as governor of Iowa, but he’s not going to make anybody’s “best governors ever” list.

Bob Ray was a good man and had a lot of crossover appeal. He was re-elected by big margins. (He was the only Republican who ever got my mother’s vote, as far as I know.) He was tolerant and even encouraged foreign immigrants to move here, which may be hard to believe if you’ve only ever known Republicans since 1990. I don’t know whether Ray had any big accomplishments historians will be talking about far into the future, though.

If Culver does an adequate job governing Iowa through a difficult economic stretch, he should be able to win re-election. But if he wants to be remembered 50 or 100 years from now, he’s going to have to do something big to change business as usual in this state.

On January 1 former Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island passed away at age 90. He’s been out of the Senate for more than a decade, he represented a small state, and according to his obituary he was a weak chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Nevertheless, people remember him because Pell Grants have helped thousands and thousands of Americans go to college. Millions of Americans have a friend or relative who received a Pell Grant. The grants may not be large enough to meet the need and have not increased at the same rate as college tuition, but they have improved people’s lives in a tangible way.

Lots of people serve in Congress for decades without ever achieving anything as significant as establishing the Pell Grant program. They may be more politically skilled than Claiborne Pell, but they won’t be remembered in the same way. He was passionate about expanding opportunities for children of modest means, and he made lasting change toward that end.

I don’t know what issues are particularly important to Culver. From my perspective, he needs to be ambitious about achieving some goal that benefits large numbers of Iowans. He’s more fortunate than Tom Vilsack, because the Republicans are not in a position to block his agenda in the legislature. He may need to spend political capital to get the Democratic leaders in the statehouse to back him, but he’s got a better chance than Vilsack to make big changes.

I haven’t seen Culver take a lot of political risks during his first two years. He’s done good things, like raising the minimum wage, making health care accessible for more children and allocating more money to the Main Street program. He’s tried to do other good things, like expand the bottle bill to include juice, water and sports drinks (the legislature did not approve that measure).

But Culver is not out there on any controversial issue. He said he was for local control over siting of large hog lots (CAFOs) when he was running for governor, but he hasn’t done anything to get the legislature to pass agricultural zoning. I don’t expect that to change, even though the Iowa Democratic and Republican party platforms ostensibly support “local control.”

When the legislature debated the TIME-21 proposal to increase transportation funding, Culver did not get behind efforts to increase the share of funds devoted to freight and passenger rail, public transit or maintaining existing roads. As a result, it’s possible that new road construction will consume all of the extra money allocated to transportation.

Culver supports renewable energy, but he hasn’t taken a position on the new coal-fired power plants proposed for Waterloo and Marshalltown. Nor has he leaned on the legislature to pass an ambitious renewable electricity standard (for instance, requiring that 20 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2020). That kind of mandate would require utilities to ramp up clean energy production more quickly.

Faced with a major revenue shortfall, Culver took the relatively safe path of imposing a hiring freeze, reducing out-of-state travel, and then cutting spending across the board by 1.5 percent.

Perhaps the Popular Progressive blog was right, and Culver should have spared some state agencies from cuts while imposing deeper cuts on the agencies that are not performing as well.

Depending on what Culver cares about most, and what he views as achievable, he could secure his legacy in any number of ways.

He could become the governor who made sure Iowa’s water was cleaner when he left office than when he arrived. But that would require addressing some conventional agricultural practices that cause runoff problems. Obviously, the groups backing the status quo in agriculture are quite powerful.

Culver could become the governor who took the climate change problem seriously and put us on track to reduce our carbon-dioxide emissions. That means getting behind the recommendations of the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council and making sure budget constraints don’t become an excuse for doing little to promote clean, renewable energy.

Culver could become the leader who helped solve our budget problems by restructuring government to save taxpayers money without reducing essential services. That might require treading on politically dangerous territory. Maybe Iowa needs to take radical steps to save money, like reducing the number of counties.

My list is not exhaustive, so feel free to add your ideas in the comments.

I’ll wager that anything big enough to put Culver on the all-time great governors list would be risky for him to pursue. He might fail to secure the legislature’s backing and come out looking ineffective. Also, some policies with long-term benefits may be unpopular in the short term, either with the public or with well-funded interest groups.

Playing it safe may give Culver a better chance of being re-elected, but at a cost to his potential legacy.

What do you think?

Iowa voters handed Democrats the keys to run the state in 2006 and expanded the Democratic majority in the legislature this year. Now we have to prove that we are capable of governing well. Like almost every other state, Iowa is facing a deteriorating revenue base while demands for government services rise in a tough economy. Governor Chet Culver has already imposed two rounds of budget cuts, and more difficult choices will need to be made during the upcoming legislative session.

There is no perfect solution to the budget problem, but some proposals are so bad that they should be ruled out immediately.

Selling the Iowa Lottery is a terrible idea on every level.

I don’t often agree with Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen, but he is right about this:

Why would anyone want to sell their seed corn? And why would Iowa want to do something that may lead to expanded gambling? […]

We should privatize those governmental functions that cost the taxpayers, not the ones that make them a profit. […]

Since 1985, the Iowa lottery has netted state government $1 billion. Why would we turn some of those profits over to the gambling industry? It’s short-term thinking to give up $50 million in annual lottery profits for a lump sum now.

Also, this idea breaks faith with the promise made to Iowans when we started down the path of expanded gambling: If Iowa was going to get into legalized gambling, it was going to be heavily regulated.

Now we’re going to invite casino owners and others in the gambling industry to run our lottery? I’m sorry; the history of the gaming industry is just too checkered to put people from it in charge.

I have never bought a lottery ticket, and I hate to see the state encouraging people to throw their money away on the lottery. But now that Iowa has a lottery, we should keep the profits in state hands. Selling the lottery would bring in cash this year, but we’d need to replace the lost revenue in future budgets. It wouldn’t solve the problem, and it would make Democrats look incompetent.

By the way, State Auditor David Vaudt described the idea as “a very short-term Band-Aid approach.” The plan he described would involve

a lease of the lottery for up to 50 years in exchange for a lump sum payment of $200 million and some annual lease fee.

The lottery generates more than $50 million a year in profits for the state’s budget, and Vaudt predicted the lump sum would quickly evaporate.

Of course it would.

Vaudt may be the Republican nominee for governor in 2010, and he was warning about budget problems long before Culver and the Democratic leadership in the legislature started talking about budget cuts. Do we want to hand him another talking point on Democrats’ alleged fiscal irresponsibility?

If selling the lottery is bad policy and bad politics, why would anyone consider it? Here is Yepsen’s theory:

[T]he fact that Culver is entertaining sale of the lottery is an example of how big gambling money and influence slosh around Iowa politics.

The delegation that called on him to promote the idea included former Iowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell, who is a longtime friend, adviser and donor of Culver’s, and Jeff Link, a leading Democratic campaign strategist who also runs referenda campaigns for gambling interests.

Culver will need to show how selling the lottery is a good deal for taxpayers and not just his cronies and campaign contributors on the gambling industry’s payroll. Watch to see how much gambling money starts showing up in Culver’s re-election warchest – and in those of Democratic legislative leaders.

Democrats helped gambling interests last session by putting an unjustified exemption for casino floors into the smoking ban bill. If we care about workers’ health, why should casino employees be less protected than those who work in restaurants and bars?

Handing over the lottery would play right into Republican talking points about “special interests” controlling the Democratic Party.

Culver, House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal should nip this speculation in the bud by ruling out any plan to sell the lottery for short-term gain.

What else, if anything, should be “off the table” in the context of balancing the budget? I agree with Culver that going into debt should be considered.

I also believe that shared sacrifice requires some kind of action on the revenue side, such as closing tax loopholes that primarily benefit the well-off. When middle-income and lower-income Iowans bear the brunt of cuts in services, wealthier Iowans should also be asked to help bring the budget into balance. Some economists have shown that during an economic downturn, raising taxes on the wealthy does less harm to the economy than cutting government spending.

I understand the political arguments against raising taxes in any form now. There will be plenty of time to debate that later. For now, Democrat leaders should make the easy call: keep the Iowa Lottery in state hands.

Ouch:

Gov. Chet Culver announced an across-the-board budget cut today and said education and Medicaid won’t escape unscathed.

Culver announced a 1.5 percent across-the board reduction in an attempt to deal with the state’s declining revenues.

The governor said staff reductions and employee furloughs are likely, which will be determined by each department. “It’s going to be painful,” he said.

The cuts announced today amount to $91.4 million and will have an effect on services, Culver acknowledged. In addition, Culver ordered a transfer of $10 million of unused money into the general budget. Most of that transfer money will come from an underground storage tank account, which is used to investigate and clean up any past petroleum contamination from underground storage tanks.

A week ago, Culver announced $40 million in cuts, largely through a hiring freeze and limiting out-of-state travel. In addition, Culver said he will ask the Legislature to withdraw plans for a $37 million new office building.

Combined with cuts announced Dec. 9, the total is $178.4 million in reduced expenses in the current budget year that ends June 30.

Clearly spending cuts in the current year are unavoidable because of the decline in projected revenues.

When state legislators draft next year’s budget, though, I hope they will not rely only on spending cuts to make up for projected lower revenues. David Sirota explains why:

Almost every single economist agrees, the last thing we want to do in a recession is slash government spending. We want, in fact, to increase that spending so that it is a counter-cyclical force to a deteriorating economy. So the question, then, is how to most safely generate the revenue to maintain or increase that spending. By  “most safely” I mean how to raise the revenue in a way that will minimize any negative economic impact. And the answer comes from Joseph Stiglitz:

 

“[T]ax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families.”

So, first and foremost, you don’t want dramatic spending cuts (beyond the usual rooting out of waste/fraud) and you don’t want to raise taxes on middle- and lower-income citizens who both need the money for necessities, and are the demographics that will most quickly spend money in a stimulative way. That leaves taxes on the super-rich, and Stiglitz – unlike anti-tax ideologues – has actual data to make his case.

For more information, see Budget Cuts or Tax Increases at the State Level:

Which is Preferable During an Economic Downturn?

Will Democrats dare to raise taxes, knowing that Republican candidates and interest groups will hammer them for it in 2010?

I have no idea, but if drastic spending cuts send the economy further into recession, 2010 isn’t going to be a picnic for Democrats anyway. I doubt they’ll rally the troops with “At least we didn’t raise your taxes” as a campaign message.

When analyzing the new Iowa House Democratic committee assignments, Chase Martyn noticed,

Almost all vulnerable Democratic incumbents have been kept off the Ways and Means committee.  In a year of budget shortfalls, Ways and Means will likely have to send some tax-increasing bills to the floor.

Post any thoughts about the budget/spending/taxes debate in this thread.

UPDATE: The press release from Culver’s office is after the jump.

SECOND UPDATE: If you think Iowa’s budget outlook is grim, read this short piece about the situation in California.

THIRD UPDATE: Nancy Sebring, the superintendent of the Des Moines Public Schools, announced plans to cut $3.3 million from the current-year budget (about 1 percent) in light of the state budget cuts. Presumably most if not all school districts in Iowa will need to take similar action. I wouldn’t be surprised if fiscal constraints force more of our small school districts to merge.

The topic of earmarks is one that has been frquently chatted about on many of the Republican blog posts. I hear a lot of Democrat so and so did this and Liberal So and So did that, so I thought I should share a few facts about Pork Barrel Spending and our Representatives here in Iowa.

Fact 1: The leader among senators in earmarks?

Republican Thad Cochran Mississippi, with $837,000,000+!!!!!!

Fact: 2: The leader among Senators in Iowa?

Republican Chuck Grassley with  $323,000,000+!!!

 Fact 3: The Leader among Iowa congressmen?

Republican Tom Latham with $69,000,000+!!!

Fact 4: Notable Legislatures that have less ear marks than Latham's 63

Democratic Sen. Obama 55

Democratic Sen. Feingold 0

Democratic Sen. McCaskill 0

Democratic Rep. Boswell (IA) 26

Democratic Rep. Braley (IA) 27

Democratic Rep. Loebsack (IA) 25

Here is to hoping Latham's hypocrasy doesnt go unnoticed.

Happy Easter!