Where have you gone, Henry A. Wallace?

Posted November 25, 2014 by iowapolicypoints
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , ,

A call to leadership on climate change

437px-Henry_A._WallaceRepublican Henry A. Wallace was Secretary of Agriculture in Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt’s cabinet. In a Sunday column in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Wallace’s grandson makes the case that his grandfather — an Iowan and a crop researcher — would put science ahead of politics to respond to climate change. He would recognize climate change endangers all of us — farmers included.

Solutions are more important than politics, but right now politics is blocking what science is teaching us. With climate change upon us, the oil industry still is able to set — or block — policy that could turn back this frightening attack on our economy and environment.

As an Iowan, a scientist and a political leader, Wallace would point out that Iowa exports include renewable fuels and wind power as well as corn and hogs. Climate science also fits with Iowa economic advantage.

Each new scientific study warns us that a policy of more digging of coal, more fracking for oil will be lead us to more problems. A recent letter signed by 180 researchers and teachers at 36 Iowa colleges and universities make that point that climate change is already adversely affecting the state.

Iowa and national leaders should follow Wallace’s example, and confront climate change just as Wallace and and other leaders of his day overcame the Dust Bowl and Depression of the 1930s. Let’s put science over politics.

Posted by David Osterberg

IPP-osterberg-75Osterberg, co-founder of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project, is a professor of occupational and environmental health at the University of Iowa. He is one of 180 scientists and teachers who signed the Iowa Climate statement, available here.

Also see his recent blog: Climate change impacts showing up now

And see the Cedar Rapids Gazette column by Henry Scott Wallace: What would Henry A. Wallace do?

The case for Governor Branstad’s minimum wage increase

Posted November 14, 2014 by iowapolicypoints
Categories: Economic Opportunity, Organization

Tags: , , , ,

Election Night 2014 — the hours that established why Governor Terry Branstad should push for an increase in the state minimum wage.

At first blush, this might not seem obvious. It was a big Republican night, and support of the minimum wage is not a marquee issue for Republicans.

On Election Night, a minimum-wage critic won the U.S. Senate seat of one of the nation’s most high-profile and ardent supporters of a minimum-wage increase, Iowa’s Tom Harkin, and Republicans took control of that chamber. Over in the House, Republicans flipped one seat and now hold three of Iowa’s four, along with a historically overwhelming majority that makes the minimum-wage increase sought by President Obama highly unlikely.

This turns the focus to the Iowa Statehouse, where the power structure remains effectively the same: Republican governor, narrowly Democratic Senate, slightly stronger Republican majority in the House.

With little change in Des Moines, why would passage be more likely now?

For one thing, we have gone one more year without an increase. It has been almost seven years now at $7.25; it is only a matter of time — and we may be there — when Iowa reaches a tipping point where inertia succumbs to an increase in the minimum wage.

For another, the near-certainty that it will not pass in Washington erodes pleas to wait for the feds. Recall that Iowa stopped waiting in 2007, passing the $7.25 wage that took effect in January 2008, almost 19 months ahead of the federal $7.25.

Finally, the tipping point noted above may be signaled in state referendum victories on Election Night for minimum-wage forces in two neighboring “red” states — Nebraska and South Dakota — indicating the time is right politically. Of the states bordering Iowa, only Wisconsin is stuck with us at $7.25.

State minimum wages higher than U.S. minimum on Jan. 1, 2015

State minimum wages higher than U.S. minimum on Jan. 1, 2015 (National Conference of State Legislatures)

An increase would be popular in Iowa. A recent poll showed 53 percent support for an increase to $10.10 an hour.[i] No politician in either party will be disadvantaged in 2016 having supported a minimum wage increase.

On the merits, it is well established that a minimum-wage increase is overdue. It comes nowhere close to a family-supporting income, and it has not kept pace with rising costs for almost seven years. Families depending on minimum-wage income have not seen lower costs of food, fuel, housing, clothing and health care in those years. Passing it now would mean:

  • Fewer Iowans in poverty.
  • A boost to local and state economies as families have more to spend.
  • A fiscal benefit to the state as less is needed to support extremely low-income working families.
  • More resources to support stronger work-support programs to point low-wage workers on a path to the middle class.

In the past, Governor Branstad has made it clear the issue was not his priority but he has not ruled it out.[ii]

For all of these reasons, the time is right for Governor Branstad to move ahead. It’s the right thing to do, and the ball is in his court.

[i] http://globegazette.com/news/iowa/poll-majority-of-iowans-favor-raising-minimum-wage/article_1b688a49-214b-5688-bfff-9e74ead757bd.html

[ii] http://whotv.com/2014/01/31/minimum-wage-branstad-hasnt-ruled-out-increase/

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

Real issues, bogus commentary

Posted November 11, 2014 by iowapolicypoints
Categories: Economic Opportunity, Organization

Tags: , ,

An Eastern Iowa radio host recently ran a recording of Senator Tom Harkin noting — correctly — that people at the minimum wage work “essential and often difficult jobs.”

Alone on the air and safe from any retort by the senator or a minimum-wage worker, the host countered: “There is not a minimum wage job in the world that is a, quote, difficult job.”

Said the host: “There’s a reason they are minimum wage jobs. They are easy.” Strong emphasis on the “easy.”

The facts say otherwise. The Department of Labor provides information about people working at or below the minimum wage, now frozen at $7.25 in Iowa for almost seven years.

Look specifically at the “leisure and hospitality” sector — which includes low-wage restaurant and hotel/motel jobs.

  • Over half (55 percent) of all workers in hourly jobs at or below the minimum wage are in the leisure and hospitality sector.
  • About 1 in 5 hourly workers in that sector (19 percent) are at or below the minimum wage.

These are not jobs of “leisure and hospitality,” as a cavalier dismissal of their being “easy” might imply. They are jobs that provide “leisure and hospitality” to others, and they’re hard work: in kitchens, and laundries, and cleaning restrooms, and hustling meals and drinks for customers who might or might not leave a decent tip. In fact, these jobs are arguably harder than gabbing for a couple of hours on a radio show.

According to those official numbers, some 3.3 million workers in the United States toil at jobs paying at or below the minimum wage. Note: This figure does not include those who would be affected by an increase because they make more than $7.25 an hour but less than the proposed $10.10.

Probably a better observation about the issue is that our wage structure in this country does not necessarily value work, and when we have an artificially low minimum wage, neither does public policy.

So, whatever you say about raising the minimum wage, start with the facts. Click here for an IPP fact sheet on the issue.

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

 

Job 1 for Day 1 — putting Iowa families first

Posted November 6, 2014 by iowapolicypoints
Categories: Budget and Tax, Economic Opportunity, Energy & Environment, Organization

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

As election dust settles, priorities remain clear for Iowa families

Now that the votes are counted, the real work begins. Job 1? It could be any of a number of areas where solid research and analysis have shown better public policy could make a difference for a more prosperous, healthier Iowa. Take a step back from the TV ads and “gotcha” politics and these issues come clearly in focus.

In Iowa, research shows solid approaches to economic prosperity for working families include:

In Iowa, research shows a fiscally responsible approach to both find revenues and do better with what we have includes:

  • Stopping tax giveaways to companies that pay no income tax — which occurs at a cost of between $32 million and $45 million a year through one research subsidy program alone, even though there is nothing to show this spending boosts the Iowa economy or produces activity that would not occur anyway. http://www.iowafiscal.org/big-money-big-companies-whose-benefit/
  • Reining in unnecessary “tax expenditures” — tax breaks, tax credits and other spending done through the tax code — could bring in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for public services. A five-year sunset on all tax credits would force lawmakers to review and formally pass renewals of this kind of spending, now on autopilot. The last attempt at real reform fell woefully short. http://www.iowafiscal.org/tax-credit-reform-glass-half-full-maybe-some-moisture/
  • Plugging tax loopholes — a $60 to $100 million problem — would pay for a 2 or 3 percent annual increase in state per-pupil funding of K-12 schools. Twenty-three states, including 4 of 6 Iowa neighbors, don’t permit multistate corporations to shift profits out of state to avoid Iowa income tax and contribute their fair share to local education and other state services. http://iowapolicypoints.org/2013/05/22/will-outrage-translate-into-policy/
  • Reforming TIF — tax-increment financing, which is overused and often abused by cities around the state, has caught lawmakers’ attention in the past and should again. Like many tools that provide subsidies to private companies and developers, it should be redesigned to assure subsidies only go to projects with a public benefit and only where the project could not otherwise occur. Further, it should be designed to assure that only the taxpayers who benefit are the ones footing the bill, which is a problem with current TIF practice. http://www.iowafiscal.org/category/research/taxes/tax-increment-financing-tif/

In Iowa, research shows a healthy environment and smart energy choices for Iowa’s future includes:

  • Putting teeth into pollution law — which means reforms in Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy to eliminate pollution in waterways. http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2014Research/140717-nutrient.html
  • Allowing local government to regulate frac sand mining — When it comes to cigarettes, guns and large hog facilities the Iowa Legislature took away the right of local government to listen to citizen desires. The General Assembly and the Governor should let democracy thrive and not take away local control of sand mining.
  • Encouraging more use of solar electricity in Iowa — Jobs are created while we confront climate change if we build better solar policy in Iowa. http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/110325-solar-release.html
  • Promoting local food and good food choices with school gardens — and a pilot project to offer stipends to Iowa school districts could encourage both learning and better nutrition. http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2014Research/140514-school_gardens.html

None of these issues are new and it’s not an exhaustive list. But these were big issues for our state before the election and remain so, no matter who is in charge.

Together, we can build on the solid research cited above and lay the foundation for better public policy to support those priorities.

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

Climate change impacts showing up now

Posted October 30, 2014 by iowapolicypoints
Categories: Energy & Environment, Organization

Tags: , , , ,

This month marks the fourth October in a row that scientists from across Iowa have penned an Iowa Climate Statement, a brief overview of climate change and its impacts to our state. Since I teach at the University of Iowa as well as work here as an environmental researcher, I am one of the 180 signers of the statement. The theme of this year’s statement was public health.

Health effects of climate change include:

  • The consequences of heavy rainfall — increased exposure to toxic chemicals and raw sewage mobilized and spread by flood waters and mold growing in flooded buildings.
  • Warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxide levels cause plants to produce not only more pollen, but also pollen with a higher allergen content.
  • New species of mosquitos and ticks in Iowa capable of transmitting diseases have arrived and blue green algae capable of producing toxins has become a bigger problem.

These and other climate-related health effects are documented in the statement.

A free seminar by several Iowa authors of the statement will take place on Friday, October 31, 2014, from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. at the state Hygienic Laboratory in Coralville.

As the Iowa Climate Statement 2014 states, action is required:

“ Adopting strong climate‐change policies will play a vital role in diminishing human suffering and illness now and for generations to come.”

IPP-osterberg-75   Posted by David Osterberg, co-founder of the Iowa Policy Project. Osterberg is a professor of environmental health in the University of Iowa College of Public Health. dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org

Bad math, good math — and Iowa jobs

Posted October 22, 2014 by iowapolicypoints
Categories: Economic Opportunity, Organization

Tags: , , , , ,

Those 31 points the Iowa Hawkeyes scored last Saturday were something, huh?

It sure feels better when you don’t include Maryland’s 38 points. And that’s the way Governor Branstad counts jobs.

Enough with the bad math, and let’s talk about those Iowa jobs.

The actual job performance of Iowa’s economy is pretty simple to compute from the state’s official spreadsheet, which shows seasonally adjusted, nonfarm jobs, month by month and sector by sector, back to January 2008. You can find that sheet here.

Doing it wrong

As we have pointed out in the past on this blog, the Branstad administration chose to edit the official spreadsheet by adding a special line that only shows increases. No job losses are counted. Ask anyone who’s lost a job whether that sounds reasonable. But when you’ve promised 200,000 jobs in five years, you have to get there somehow.

A snapshot of the key but distorted line is highlighted in the photo at right. Basic RGBThat line, “Gross Over-the-month Employment Gains,” ignores the monthly performance of any job sector showing a decrease. Instead, the increases in the other job sectors each month are added, and the total inserted into the “Gross Gains” total compiled from previous months during the Governor’s current term. Twisting the numbers this way, the Governor has reached 156,500 — almost twice the actual increase since he took office.

In September, the Governor’s math turns a 1,300-increase month into 4,900. A happy result, but false.

Doing it right

The Iowa Policy Project has put out a monthly analysis of state job numbers for 11 years now. And as we point out in our latest Iowa JobWatch, not only is the Governor’s number exaggerated, but there is a better approach that does not tie him to his ambitious and apparently unreachable goal.

If you want to measure progress, you measure everything. And that’s simple: How many jobs were there in the base month, and how many are there in the latest one?

So, for the real math as of September 2014:
— Since the Governor took office in January 2011, Iowa has added 80,000 jobs.
— The pace of job growth in those 44 months has been about 1,800 jobs per month.
— To reach the Governor’s goal of 200,000 by January 2016, the next 16 months would have to show an average monthly increase of 7,500.

More importantly, the best way to look at job growth is to remove the artificial political frame and examine it the way economists would. The Economic Policy Institute came up with a sensible measure, from a relevant starting place: the start of the last recession. Look at the job change from the start of the last recession and compute what would be needed to (1) make up lost jobs and (2) keep up with increased population, which for Iowa is about a 5 percent increase.

In this approach, we can see that as of September 2014:
— Iowa showed a net gain of 31,300 net jobs since December 2007.
— To keep up with population growth, Iowa needed a net gain of 76,800 jobs from the December 2007 level of 1,524,900.
— Iowa has a jobs deficit of 45,500.

Basic RGB

The Governor will do what the Governor wants to do. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the state or its policymakers should take their eye off what’s really happening in our economy.
Owen-2013-57
Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director

Issues in Waiting: Tax-Increment Financing Reform

Posted October 2, 2014 by iowapolicypoints
Categories: Budget and Tax, Economic Opportunity, Organization

Tags: , , , , ,

Basic RGBThis is an excerpt from an interview with IPP’s Peter Fisher on “The Devine Intervention,” KVFD-AM 1400, Fort Dodge. Host Michael Devine discussed tax-increment financing, or TIF, with Fisher, whose reports on this issue have prompted many to call for reform. TIF is one of Iowa’s “Issues in Waiting” — issues discussed year after year, but not resolved. The quotes below are actual quotes from the interview; the questions are paraphrased.

What was the idea behind tax-increment financing, or TIF?

It was originally a tool to help cities redevelop blighted or declining areas and what it did was allowed a city to capture more of the tax revenue from redevelopment when the city undertook some project to try to turn around a declining neighborhood. If they were successful, businesses would come in, the tax base would go up.

And what TIF did was allow the city to use not just the city taxes on all that growth, but the county and school taxes as well for some period of time to pay the city back for their expenses for this project, for redevelopment. And in the long run the county and school districts were better off. The cities got their money back, they got more tax base. That was the idea.

How did the implementation of TIF look?

It worked that way for quite a while. And then about 20 years ago we opened the door to just about anything cities wanted to do by saying well it doesn’t have to be a blighted area, it doesn’t have to be a redevelopment. It just has to be “economic development.” And just about anything cities do it turns out they can call “economic development” and finance with TIF.

Is there a consequence if TIF is abused?

Not really — as long as they are doing something within the law. The county and the school district don’t have any say on whether the city is going to divert their taxes to the city’s TIF fund. And there’s no state regulation either, other than the court system.

To hear the full interview, click here.

For more resources from Peter Fisher and the Iowa Fiscal Partnership about TIF, click here.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,703 other followers

%d bloggers like this: