Posted tagged ‘Terry Branstad’

REAP: Long on Promise, Short on Support

July 30, 2015

When Iowa’s Resource Enhancement and Protection program (REAP) was established in 1989, the Legislature set its spending authority at $30 million, but funded it at only half that — $15 million. The next year, funding (FY1991) was set at $20 million, an amount we thought was sustainable.

It never again reached that level — though lawmakers attempted to set it at $25 million for the 25th anniversary of the program in the just-completed fiscal year. Governor Branstad vetoed $9 million that year, leaving REAP at $16 million for FY2015, where it stands for FY2016 as well.

Ironically, the 2014 veto came as the state was promoting its voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Twenty percent of REAP goes to these programs. The veto reduced funds available to help farmers implement new nutrient runoff reduction and filtration measures that could contribute to the goals of the nutrient strategy. Actions like these contributed to a long-term REAP shortfall of more than $220 million.

Basic RGB

Basic RGB

See our new Iowa Policy Project report, REAP: A Case Study of Stewardship. With a more clear understanding of how REAP can make a difference in our quality of life, all Iowans may evaluate how it should be funded. In practice, REAP is kept well short of the $20 million annual support that had been envisioned — a nearly 25-year trend that keeps REAP well short of its potential.

IPP-osterberg-75Posted by David Osterberg, IPP co-founder and environmental researcher

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

The case for Governor Branstad’s minimum wage increase

November 14, 2014

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

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

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

Let’s be done with Iowa’s fake job number

March 18, 2014

For some time now, the Iowa Policy Project and others have noted a bogus statistic that has been inserted into official jobs data provided by Iowa Workforce Development (IWD).

It just keeps getting better — the fake statistic — because it is designed to work that way.

“Gross Over-the-month Employment Gains” is an extra line that has been added to IWD’s seasonally adjusted, nonfarm jobs spreadsheet, which provides month-by-month data by job sector, back to January 2008.

Basic RGB

Below the standard table of rows and columns is the special line, with numbers reflecting the gains-only count since January 2011, when Governor Branstad took office. Construction up 200 but manufacturing down 400? No problem. Ignore the manufacturing losses and call it a gain of 200. That is exactly how this method treats job counts.

And now there’s a new wrinkle. Previously, IWD only showed what the count looked like for each month, with no overall total. You had to add the numbers yourself.

Beginning with the latest report, the ever-helpful IWD now takes care of that for you, or for whomever would want the meaningless number. With the latest report, IWD makes it a cumulative count.

Our experience with IWD staff is that they are professionals. No doubt they cringe every time that number comes out of the agency — whoever ordered them to compile it.

But no doubt the Governor is pleased. While the number is a total distortion of reality, it shows him close to the pace he would need after three years (120,000) to get to his magic goal of 200,000 jobs in five years. Kind of like winning a basketball game by shutting off the opponent’s side of the scoreboard, but, whatever it takes, right?

So, in case you’re interested, Iowa’s economy has created a net increase of just under 61,000 jobs since the Governor took office — about half of what he’d need to be on pace toward his goal. For a real analysis of Iowa’s job picture, see IPP’s monthly Iowa JobWatch report, or our annual report on The State of Working Iowa.

140318-jobsat36months2Now it’s one thing if the Governor’s campaign wants to peddle silly job numbers under its own letterhead. But it is wrong — flat out wrong — for official data to be presented by IWD with what amounts to a political campaign line for the Governor.

For those of us engaged in nonpartisan research and analysis, the political tainting of IWD reports is a great disappointment. Like us, IWD should be trying to determine and illustrate the actual job picture facing our state, so policy makers can make decisions in that light.

IWD and all state agencies must be neutral players if their mission is to serve all Iowans — not someone’s political agenda.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director

The problem with political goals on jobs

July 26, 2013
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

This week we were treated (?) to the latest bizarre count provided by Governor Branstad’s administration on how many jobs he has created.

The Governor is claiming 160,600 jobs already created since he took office, and it’s nowhere close to reality, if for no reason other than the fact that he’s only wanted to count job gains and ignore the losses.* But even then, the number is inflated.

So, class, let’s all take out our abacus and our slide rule and try to come up with the same number. On second thought, let’s not. Let’s get past the politics on job numbers and just count ’em ourselves. A pencil will do.

As you’ll recall, the Governor promoted a goal of creating 200,000 jobs in five years. He took office in January 2011.

We start with 1,475,900 — the number of nonfarm jobs in Iowa in January 2011, according to Iowa Workforce Development. (Find IWD’s spreadsheet here.) The latest data, which are preliminary and might be adjusted, put that number at 1,530,300 as of June 2013. That’s a net increase of 54,400 jobs.

To reach 200,000 jobs by January 2016, the Governor’s goal, Iowa would have to add 4,700 jobs per month for the next 31 months.

130719-NF-goalsIPP’s latest JobWatch report shows we have not kept that kind of pace in Iowa over the last decade. In 2013 the average net gain has been 2,400 a month, which is higher than usual.

Why not get rid of the political goal and focus on a realistic economic goal: the job growth we would need to bring down unemployment and keep pace with the growth of the labor market. As of June, we are still 55,100 jobs short of this basic threshold. But that’s a more manageable number than the 145,600 left to meet the Governor’s goal, and probably a more meaningful one.

Governors and state legislators have only so much impact on the overall health of a state economy to influence its job performance; there are much greater forces at work.

In the end, the issue for Iowa families is not as much a Governor’s goal as it is whether the economy is producing the number — and quality — of jobs necessary to maintain and improve all Iowans’ standard of living.

But we didn’t raise the issue about the job count. Others have. So as long as Iowans are going to be looking at it, we’ll help them to monitor it accurately.

* The Governor’s count of jobs already produced, 160,600, is far above even the number you’d accurately compute if you avoided counting job losses. Iowa Workforce Development has added a line on its nonfarm jobs spreadsheet leaving out the job losses and counting only gross jobs added, month by month, since January 2011. For what it’s worth, that number is 112,700 — about 48,000 behind what the Governor’s office was claiming Wednesday, and more than twice the actual net increase of 54,400.

Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,452 other followers

%d bloggers like this: