Archive for the ‘Organization’ category

Bad math, good math — and Iowa jobs

October 22, 2014

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

October 2, 2014

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.

Stop politicizing water quality

August 26, 2014

Water quality in Iowa is so bad that any new initiative to improve our waters is probably a good thing. That said, Iowa farm groups’ new initiative to take action on agricultural pollution of our waters comes with a troubling rollout.

Making the announcement with Governor Branstad not only politicizes water quality, something that should be above politics, but masks the governor’s own decision this year to delay action.

The Governor’s veto of $11 million for water quality — funding passed by a divided legislature — makes an important statement about water quality. In addition, the governor also vetoed $9 million in funding for the REAP program, which is used by counties and cities to acquire and protect natural areas and to preserve Iowa’s environment.

Twenty percent of REAP goes to farmers to improve soil and water practices. If you are promoting a voluntary system to reduce nutrient runoff, shouldn’t you make sure farmers have resources to put sensible measures into practice?

The new group established to improve water quality needs to be taken seriously by the environmental community and by all Iowans. But this rollout does not engender trust.

The Iowa Policy Project recently released a report on water quality in Iowa. [See A Threat Unmet: Why Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy Falls Short Against Water Pollution] We showed that the addition of six new policies to the state’s new Nutrient Reduction Strategy would make it possible for the strategy to succeed.

One of those policies is the kind of effort the new farm group plans to push — bringing attention to the problem. A second policy is more funding, and farm group muscle could improve the chances in the Legislature. However, even if the Legislature acts, as in the 2014 session, legislation still has to get by a governor’s veto.

Maybe the best starting place to build broad support would be to invite an environmental group to the table, rather than a politician in the middle of a heated campaign. We know plenty who could help.

IPP-osterberg-75 Posted by David Osterberg, co-founder of the Iowa Policy Project

Beware the “business climateers”

August 18, 2014

Fisher-GradingPlacesIowa’s business lobby appears to be preparing a new assault on the ability of our state to provide public services.

It would be the latest in a long campaign, in which lobbyists target one tax at a time under a general — and inaccurate — message about taxes that we will not repeat here.

Suffice to say, Iowa taxes on business are low already. Many breaks provided to businesses are rarely reviewed in any meaningful way to make sure that taxpayers are getting value for those dollars spent, ostensibly, to encourage economic growth. Rarely can success be demonstrated.

The Iowa Taxpayers Association is holding a “policy summit” this week and promoting a new report by the Tax Foundation to recycle old arguments that are no better now than they have been for the last decade.

Fortunately in Iowa, we know where to turn to understand claims from the Tax Foundation, and that resource is Peter Fisher, our research director at the Iowa Policy Project. Fisher has written two books on the so-called “business climate” rankings by the Tax Foundation and others, and is a widely acknowledged authority on the faults in various measures of supposed “business climates” in the states.

Fisher, in this guest opinion in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, noted weaknesses in the Tax Foundation’s claims, not the least of which is that the anti-tax messages are not supported by the foundation’s own report. Fisher notes this about the Tax Foundation’s “State Business Tax Climate Index”:

It is a mish-mash of 118 tax features … weighted arbitrarily and combined into a single number for the index.

This number has no real meaning. It produces wacky results because it gives great weight to some minor tax features (such as the number of tax brackets) while leaving out completely two things that have a huge impact on corporate income taxes in Iowa: single sales factor, and federal deductibility.

This past spring, this Iowa Fiscal Partnership two-pager noted:

A variety of factors influence the decisions businesses make about whether they want to locate or expand within a given state. These factors include available infrastructure, the proximity to materials and customers, the skill of its workforce, and whether the state has good schools, roads, hospitals, and public safety. As we have shown elsewhere, state taxes play at best a minor role.

In Iowa, we constantly hear the same old argument … used to enact large tax cuts for commercial and industrial property this past year and continues to be an excuse used to justify giving away large tax credits to businesses throughout the state.

But this argument just isn’t true…

Whether we are looking at the entire range of taxes that fall on businesses or just the corporate income tax, the fact is that business taxes in Iowa are low.

Only if Iowa policy makers and the public ignore the reality on Iowa business taxes will these special interests get their way again.

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

*View Peter Fisher’s reports for Good Jobs First on business climate rankings:

 

What I learned on the Great March for Climate Action

August 13, 2014
photo of Ed Fallon, turbine

Climate March organizer Ed Fallon in wind country.

After a hard day of marching along gravel roads in Iowa, I set up my tent in the city park in Cumberland and walked a few more blocks to see what the small town had to offer.

I met a guy in the town bar with a Siemens logo stitched on his shirt and cap. That company makes wind turbine blades in Fort Madison, Iowa, and also does maintenance on some of the wind farms in the state.

Not only did I find out the size of the turbines in the nearby 193-turbine wind farm (2.3 Megawatts each) and how high they stood from the ground (260 feet up), but also the salary of guys who have to climb nearly 30 stories up inside the steel tubular towers to do maintenance. A technician salary starts at $24.50 per hour, which is very good money in rural Iowa. Crew members work hard and they get pretty well compensated.

Wind energy is helping to mitigate climate disruption. Close to 30 percent of all electricity generated in the state comes from wind power plants like the ones we passed by. The industry also supports a number of families in rural Iowa.

[To learn more about the Great March for Climate Action, click here]

IPP-osterberg-75Posted by David Osterberg, founder of the Iowa Policy Project

 

[See Des Moines Register story, August 8]

osterberg-walk-01

On the Climate March, other lessons

August 7, 2014

140807-DO-walk-222640IPP co-founder David Osterberg this week is on the Great March for Climate Action.

On the March, which is currently proceeding through western Iowa, Osterberg is seeing good examples of another issue he’s passionate about: care for the land, and controlling water pollution. Or not, as in the photos in this post.

140807-walk-195651

Whether it’s a dirty stream, as at left, or crops planted where a stream should be, above, the picture is one of what happens when our public policy expectations are low. We can see examples around us, if we just look.

For more about issues of water pollution caused by ag runoff, and better approaches to reduce it, see several reports on our Iowa Policy Project website.

In particular, see our recent report on Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy, which relies heavily on voluntary measures instead of enforcement of public standards.

 

Bargain, schmargain

July 30, 2014

It’s back again: Iowa’s SALES TAX HOLIDAY.

What a charade. Retailers love it, because it’s a gimmick to lure people into their stores to buy things at full price, instead of waiting for a back-to-school sale.

The happy-talk label disguises its real impact: to throw away revenue while pretending to, as one report put it, “help boost the economy and give consumers a break.” It does neither.

Iowa’s policymakers are selling you a pig in a poke. You’re told you’re saving money, but you’re buying dirty water, underfunded schools and fees for amenities such as parks. The cost is estimated at over $4 million.

For two days, Iowans will spend money on the same things they would have spent money on anyway, in those two days or others, so it doesn’t boost the economy. Sales taxes do hit low-income folks hardest, but those families would be better served by a break that went all year. They still have only so much to spend in these upcoming two days.

Let’s also recognize that consumers won’t save all that much, if at all — and may in fact pay more. How many times have you rushed off to a “6 Percent Off” or “7 Percent Off” sale? Who’s to say a retailer, with this officially sanctioned “holiday” marketing, won’t bump prices by 10 percent or call off a 20 Percent Off sale that might have been in place?

But it is a deal for politicians who like to brag about cutting taxes, while pointing fingers at others when they cut teachers and police officers because budgets are tight.

If we were honest with ourselves, we would welcome Tax Day and loathe the first weekend of August.

2010-PF-sqPosted by Peter Fisher, IPP Research Director

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,677 other followers

%d bloggers like this: