Posted tagged ‘Mike Owen’

Privatizing Medicaid: ‘Why?’ ‘What?’ and ‘How?’ not yet answered

November 3, 2015

060426-capitol-swwWhy do we have Medicaid? It’s a simple question with a simple answer. We have Medicaid because if we don’t, there are millions of Americans, and nearly 600,000 Iowans, who will not be able to get health care. Private industry will not provide it.

Why, we must ask, would we turn over to private industry a critical part of our public safety net to business interests that operate with a principal purpose of making money?

How do we assure that services are provided, that our responsibilities are met, if the people running the operation are not answerable to us?

As the legislative Health Policy Oversight Committee meets today about the Governor’s privatization edict on Medicaid, we need to remind ourselves of these basic questions.

When the Governor cannot detail the purported savings and our common sense tells us otherwise, we need an assurance that data will be available — and publicly available — to monitor what is happening with a service that has been accountable and efficient in expanding health-care access to Iowans who need it. We need to know Iowa is not setting itself to repeat problems that have been demonstrated in other states.

What will pass for public oversight after we’ve turned over the keys to private industry?

Over three dozen people and organizations filed comments (available here) with the oversight committee for today’s meeting at the Statehouse. Many have a firsthand understanding of the purpose and practice of Medicaid as we know it, and serious questions of their own about the uncertain world where the Governor is taking us, on his own.

Clearly, many fundamental questions have not been fully vetted through the legislative process, nor given a hearing before the decision was made within the Governor’s Office.

How we assure health care access to low-income Iowans needs to be the central issue here, not an afterthought.

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

About those jobs …

October 22, 2015

To read the headlines, you might not know we actually lost jobs the last two months. In fact, we’ve lost jobs in three of the last six months.

Basic RGB

Our monthly Iowa JobWatch report offers context you don’t get from official news releases.

Overall, we continue to have stubbornly and staggeringly slow job growth in Iowa. We are only about halfway to the ambitious job goal set by Governor Branstad when he sought Terrace Hill in 2010 — 200,000 jobs in five years. Through 56 of those 60 months, Iowa’s economy has added only 97,400 jobs.

That we don’t have a chance of reaching his goal is not surprising, as the long-term trend of 2,000 or fewer jobs added per month, which has held through his term, is far too slow a pace for the job growth that the Governor promised.

This has been going on for many years, and we have not fully recovered from a recession that ended six years ago. We have a 37,800-job deficit from the number of jobs we need — accounting for population growth — to be where we were at the start of the recession in 2007. (See graph below)

Basic RGB

For the state to be trumpeting a sixth-lowest unemployment rate really misses the job picture in Iowa — which is neither one of sweetness and light nor of gloom and doom, but one that demands a little more critical thinking about the challenges that face us.

How do we encourage more, and better, jobs in Iowa with sensible public policies that do not squander our state revenues on subsidies for companies to do what they would do anyway?

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

New rule! Governor wants to make laws himself

October 14, 2015

We all know the drill: The Legislature passes bills and the Governor signs or vetoes them, whereupon they become either laws, or nothing.

Not anymore, apparently.

The move by the Branstad administration to implement a new sales tax break worth an estimated $40 million a year — possibly more — is taking place outside the legislative session. If it succeeds, we have entered a new world of executive authority in Iowa.

Business lobbyists wanted the change, it could not pass the Legislature, and the administration thinks it has found a short cut: Change the longstanding interpretation of the existing law. Presto, tens of millions of dollars will be available for manufacturers. And those same tens of millions of dollars will not be available for schools.*

Consider a Des Moines Register guest opinion by Mike Ralston of the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, a lobbying group representing manufacturers who would benefit from the change:

Part of the change affects Iowa’s existing sales and use tax exemption for machinery and equipment used in the manufacturing process.  The change is sound policy.

If that’s the case Mr. Ralston wants to make, let him make it during the legislative session. This rules change skirts the legislative process, and Iowans are noticing. Jon Muller writes in an insightful piece on the Bleeding Heartland blog:

It’s easy to look at political discourse today and conclude everything is a battle between Democrats and Republicans, the left and the right, liberals and conservatives. But far more is going on with this issue. … A Democrat will surely be Governor again someday, and it would be a mistake to set a precedent that allows the Executive Branch to so drastically change the tax climate. If Republicans in the Legislature do not stand up against this unprecedented over-reach of power, they will almost certainly live to regret it.

James Larew, an Iowa City attorney who was general counsel to former Governor Chet Culver, served for four years as Culver’s appointee on the Administrative Rules Review Committee, a panel of legislators who have the authority to delay the rule change from taking effect. He advised the panel: “This is new territory. What is sauce for the goose eventually becomes sauce for the gander, too.” Larew went on:

The balance of political power changes from one election to the next.

The balance of constitutional power — the relationship between the Iowa General Assembly and executive departments of government — is more serious and more lasting.

Broad interpretive powers given up by the Legislature, in one moment of time, concerning one issue, are not easily, later recovered.

As the Cedar Rapids Gazette opined in an editorial, the change “breaks the rules of good government.” The Gazette wrote:

The Branstad administration should drop its rule change bid and make its case to the General Assembly, which is elected to craft a budget and write tax policy. If it’s truly a great idea that will create jobs, as the department contends, surely the sales job won’t be that difficult.

Many businesses, we often note at IPP and the Iowa Fiscal Partnership, already pay no income tax in Iowa, and they just had their property taxes slashed. The corporate appetite for tax cuts is insatiable. Guess who pays?

*  Note: The Department of Revenue estimate of the cost of this tax break to both the state and local governments is over $40 million for each of the first four full years of implementation, according to a document provided the Administrative Rules Review Committee. The Legislative Services Agency has told ARRC that it does not have enough information to determine the accuracy of that estimate. We have revised the initial version of this blog post to reflect this uncertainty, until state officials agree on an estimate.
Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project


Careful with the comments, Council Members

September 16, 2015

As the Solon City Council decides whether to back out of a Johnson County minimum wage increase, good information is available for comparison to recent comments by council members.

Peter Fisher of the Iowa Policy Project took a look recently at what a larger increase — to $15 — would do in Johnson and Linn counties. That report is here.

Separately, we have an Iowa Policy Project fact sheet available here on how Iowans statewide would be affected by an increase to $10.10, which is the level recently established by Johnson County supervisors to be phased in by 2017.

Findings of that research contradicts many comments by council members in Solon. For example, the minimum wage clearly is not, as one suggests, “for kids to go out and have some pocket money, that sort of stuff.”

In fact, the wage has been held so low for so long that it has become is part of a larger low-wage climate in our state, so that parents account for 1 in 5 of those who would be helped by a $10.10 minimum statewide. And almost half — 46 percent — of total family income in homes with a worker making less than $10.10 an hour comes from that job.

One council member ignores a lot of people in Iowa, very likely many of his own neighbors, when he suggests this is all about part-time work. More than 4 in 10 — 43 percent — of the workers who would benefit from an increase to $10.10 in Iowa are working full time.

Finally, an observation by a third council member is particularly noteworthy — that local restaurants are having trouble finding help. Wonder why that would be? Something about low pay, perhaps? How many more would be willing to work if pay were increased? How many more would be patronizing local businesses because they could afford to do so?

It is certainly up to the good people of Solon and their leaders to decide whether to go along with the new Johnson County ordinance, and by doing so to put pressure on the state to raise the state minimum. The latter, by the way, is what some council members are quoted that what they want to see: a statewide increase. Yet with no local pressure, is that really the message they send to state lawmakers who are holding Iowa’s minimum below that of 29 other states?

Whichever way they decide, however, they should be making the decision with good information, not discredited myths.

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

On big issues, Iowa leaders emerging locally

July 23, 2015

If state leaders won’t lead, local leaders in Iowa are showing they will take up the job.

On three big issues in the last several months, we have seen this:

I don’t know about you, but I’m beginning to see a trend.

Public policy matters in Iowans’ lives, in critical ways. We elect people who can take care of it in a way that works for all Iowans, but not enough who will. In the absence of state-level leadership, it’s inevitable, perhaps, that local officials who also are hired to work for their constituents will find a way to help them.

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

Big ‘Oops’ for tax-cutters in school vetoes

July 15, 2015

Governor Branstad’s vetoes of “one-time” funding pose “ongoing” and “recurring” problems for a major and ill-advised proposal by his allies to restructure personal income taxes in Iowa.

And they should.

During the last session, while lawmakers and the Governor were telling schools the state could not afford more than a 1.25 percent increase in per-pupil school aid, a group in the House was pushing a plan to let individuals choose a “flat” income tax rate option. In other words, figure your taxes under the current rate structure, then compare it to the flat rate, and choose which one costs you less.

It benefits primarily the wealthy, and it costs big money. There is no upside.

We have seen such a proposal in the past, and we are virtually guaranteed to see it again in some form in 2016. Not only does it compound fairness issues in Iowa’s tax structure, but it loses hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, year after year, that Iowa legislators and the Governor have been telling us we cannot afford to lose.

Its supporters cannot avoid that contradiction, given their obsession this year about not letting a surplus — and a sustained one at that — be used for “ongoing” or “recurring” expenses on grounds they were not “sustainable.” Those are the grounds for the Governor’s vetoes of one-time funds for local schools, community colleges and state universities.

For good analysis of the 2015 alternative flat-tax proposal, which was not presented on the House floor as some of these messaging contradictions quickly became clear, see this Iowa Fiscal Partnership backgrounder by Peter Fisher. As Fisher noted, the projected revenue loss was projected at nearly half a billion dollars — $482 million — for the new fiscal year and around $400 million for each of the next three.

In short, the flat-tax idea is not “sustainable.” No need to discuss in the 2016 session.

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

New expectations on minimum wage

May 4, 2015

What, you won’t give us $10.10? OK, we’ll take $12.

Now, we’re talkin’!

At a time when progressive positions are compromised before they are given a chance to help the economy, boost family prosperity and lessen growing inequities, minimum-wage proponents have drawn the line at an unusual place in the sand: ahead of the one before.

It’s a bold stroke when the House and Senate leaders are against any increase in the current minimum of $7.25 an hour. The national minimum wage has been stuck there since July 2009 — and in Iowa even longer, since the state minimum rose and stopped there in January 2008.

Seven-plus years later, inflation has put minimum-wage workers in Iowa behind where they were in 2007 and 2008.

In 2013, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and Congressman George Miller of California teamed up to promote $10.10, calling $7.25 “unconscionably low.” But it has not happened.

Last week, Senator Patty Murray of Washington and Congressman Bobby Scott of Virginia introduced legislation to raise the minimum to $12 by 2020, in five steps. It also would eliminate the $2.13 tipped wage and index the new minimum to inflation.

Here’s an Iowa fact sheet, and here are reports from the Economic Policy Institute and National Employment Law Project.


For some a $12 minimum wage will still sound too low. For some it will sound too high — which is why the debate retreated to $8.75 in Iowa this year, and that cannot even get a vote in the Iowa House.

Pushing the debate ahead to a place where it will affect more workers — 436,000 in Iowa, or 42 percent more than the 306,000 affected with a minimum at $10.10 — is where this needs to go. It may increase pressure to the point where we see more candidates taking a stand and votes taken in Washington and more state capitols.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, executive director of the Iowa Policy Project
Basic RGBThe Iowa Policy Project is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. IPP is a 501(c)3 organization and contributions to IPP are tax-deductible as permitted by law.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,559 other followers

%d bloggers like this: