Posted tagged ‘Mike Owen’

Building blocks of inequity

February 10, 2016

Iowa’s school funding process is broken.

Consider:

  • The Legislature repeatedly violates the law by failing to set state aid in time for districts to adequately plan their budgets.
  • The levels of funding lawmakers set — averaging less than 2 percent growth over the last six years — are routinely below the growth in costs that schools face.

As if those two things are not bad enough, inequities grandfathered into the school funding formula have not been corrected. While the four-decades-old formula was designed to reduce inequities between districts of higher and lower property values by augmenting property tax revenues with state aid, a gap persists.

Long and short: There is a $175 range in the “cost per pupil” that school districts must use as the building block of their annual budgets. While the minimum cost for this year is set at $6,446 per student, six districts are as high as $6,621.

The inequities have been known for some time. When combined with chronic underfunding, these inequities are magnified. In one case, Davenport school officials are defying state limits on use of their own resources to make sure their students have the same opportunity as students in other districts.

For example, as school budgets are based on enrollment, a district with 1,000 students and operating at the minimum — the state cost per pupil — is losing out on $175,000 per year in comparison with a district at the maximum. In a district the size of Davenport, that’s about $2.8 million a year.

What many Iowans might not realize is that their own school district may be in a similar situation to that of Davenport.

Few districts (only six) are at the maximum per pupil cost; most districts (84 percent) are $100 or more below the maximum per pupil cost. Nearly half of all districts (164 of 336) are at the minimum.*

Basic RGB

The more you look at this, you can see it is not a Davenport issue, but an Iowa issue, and a failure of public policy.

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

 

*Iowa Department of Management, www.dom.state.ia.us/local/schools/files/FY16/DistrictCostPerPupilAmountsAllFY2016.xls

State aid up 13 percent — for business breaks

January 27, 2016

What do you expect would be the outcry if Iowa’s public schools asked for 13 percent growth in state aid?

Yet few bat an eye when this happens with business tax breaks, as we can expect for FY2017.*

The early scorecard gives business tax breaks the big edge, a 13 percent increase, vs. between 2 and 4 percent for schools.

The Senate approved 4 percent for FY2017 (covering next school year), but the Iowa House on Monday approved 2 percent — even though schools have averaged less than 2 percent for six years, from FY2011-16.

In fact, the Iowa Association of School Boards this year did not even ask for a specific growth number, but rather, that it be set in a timely manner (it’s almost a year late already), and “at a rate that adequately supports local districts’ efforts to plan, create and sustain world-class schools.”

That hasn’t happened for some time. Over the last six budgets, per-pupil growth has been held to 2 percent or below in all but one year. Depending on enrollment trends, some districts even see less.

Basic RGB

Business tax breaks do not face the same budget constraints — ironic, since the cost of those breaks limits what lawmakers permit themselves to spend on services that their constituents demand, not the least of which is education. Other areas — environmental quality, child care, health care and public safety — also are constrained.

A much greater percentage increase in business tax breaks is set in place, as shown below. The total increase of $71 million from this budget year to the one lawmakers are working on now actually may be understated. The $35 million for a new sales-tax exemption for manufacturers is considered a conservative estimate. Even at $71 million overall, however, it represents a 13 percent increase.

160108-IFP-Budget-Fig2FB

Spending on business tax breaks is rarely burdened by the public scrutiny and debate that comes with spending on schools and water programs, which must be approved annually.

Most business tax breaks, once passed, are never touched again unless they are expanded. And as shown by the sales-tax break for manufacturers scheduled to begin this summer, a break may never receive legislative approval but still become law. The Governor is implementing this one on his own, with a split legislature unable to stop him.

Budget choices? Instead of that $35 million in FY2017 for the new sales-tax break, the Legislature could provide about 1 percent growth in per-pupil school funding. We can expect to find another 1 percent in what we’ll spend in checks to companies that do not pay any state income tax, but have more research tax credits than they owe in taxes.

Perhaps one day we will treat all spending the same, whether the spending comes before or after revenues reach the state treasury. Then the wealthy corporations can compete directly for their tax breaks against education for the skilled people they want to work for them.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project
Mike Owen is a member of the school board in the West Branch Community School District, first elected in 2006.
* For more about Iowa tax breaks for business, see Peter Fisher’s report for the Iowa Fiscal Partnership, “Here a tax break, there a tax break, everywhere a tax break.” http://www.iowafiscal.org/here-a-tax-break-there-a-tax-break-everywhere-a-tax-break/

Reading, ’Rithmetic & Politics

January 18, 2016

First, Governor Branstad challenged the bounds of basic math — miscounting jobs — and now it’s language arts.

The Governor reportedly got a little testy last week at a Des Moines Register editorial board meeting. Among his complaints: references to a “diversion” of revenue from a state sales tax for school infrastructure to support water-quality improvements. From the Register:

Branstad, in particular, took issue with the idea that his proposal diverts money away from schools.

“I can’t see how you can possibly call it a diversion when schools are going to get at least $10 million more guaranteed every year, plus a 20-year extension,” he said. “They’re sharing a small portion of the growth.”

Well, here’s how you call it a diversion:

diversion
[dih-vur-zhuh n, -shuh n, dahy-]
noun
1. the act of diverting or turning aside, as from a course or purpose: a diversion of industry into the war effort.
dictionary.com

Under the Governor’s plan, there is a “diverting or turning aside” a share of sales-tax revenues from their currently authorized “course or purpose,” school infrastructure, from FY2017 beginning July 1 this year, to FY2029. This is illustrated by Governor’s own handout on the plan. See the one-page document his office provided the media on Jan. 5.  The graph at the bottom of that page (reproduced below), shows the diversion shaded in blue, beginning with the black vertical line and running to the red dotted line.

160105-water-school-graph
Of course it’s a diversion. In fact, the diversion continues if the tax — which would not exist before or after FY2029 without voters’ intent for its use in funding school infrastructure — is extended to FY2049.

May future debate focus on whether the Governor’s proposed diversion is a good idea, not the fact that he has proposed it.

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

 

 

Time is right for minimum wage increase

January 12, 2016

It’s now been eight years since Iowa’s minimum wage has changed, and Governor Branstad stated in a newspaper interview that he would consider signing an increase if it were to reach his desk.

Getting there is a big “if” as the House has not permitted the issue to come to the floor. New House Speaker Linda Upmeyer, in the same Cedar Rapids Gazette news story in which the Governor left open the door to an increase, had this to say:

“I believe we really need to focus on how to get people into jobs with livable wages. I don’t think anybody has as their goal in life to have a job that pays minimum wage. People want to have a job that pays a livable wage.”

The Speaker’s comment merely deflects attention from a popular idea: raising the wage. The issue of course is not about making the minimum wage a “goal in life,” but facing up to the reality that it is low. It is holding down hundreds of thousands of Iowans in their quest to reach what are their life goals.

Furthermore, an interest in “livable wages” does not preclude action on a minimum wage. Nothing is stopping lawmakers from passing a “livable” minimum wage, or by boosting the minimum as part of a larger strategy to encourage better wages across the board in Iowa.

This is not some small slice of our population who could gain. Statewide, a minimum wage increase would give a raise to hundreds of thousands of Iowa workers. An increase from $7.25 to $10.10, for example, would help 306,000 Iowa workers; and a raise to $12, 436,000. Raise it to $15, closer to an actual cost of living, and it would help far more.

A new report by IPP’s Peter Fisher notes that in Linn County alone, a wage at $10.10 by 2017 would raise wages for 18,400 workers directly — over half of them full-time workers and a third of them supporting families.

Basic RGB

Speaker Upmeyer reportedly noted concerns about a “big patchwork” of minimum wages across the state in the wake or Johnson County stepping forward with a wage to be phased in to $10.10 by this time next year. She can fix that. The Speaker has the opportunity to put a popular issue on her agenda during an election year.

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

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
mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

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

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,656 other followers

%d bloggers like this: