Tax Foundation’s Waste of Time Index

All of the same problems remain with the Tax Foundation’s unreliable comparison of state business tax “climates.”

Biz-tax rankings unworthy of attention

The Tax Foundation today released its 2018 State Business Tax Climate Index (SBTCI). All the same problems with this unreliable measure remain:

  1. The State Business Tax Climate Index purports to measure a state’s “tax competitiveness” but the index turns out to bear very little relationship to what businesses actually pay in taxes in one state vs. another. Read more.
  2. Scoring well on the SBTCI does not mean a state will experience more growth; the Tax Foundation provides no evidence that its index actually predicts growth and research has generally found that it does not. Read more.
  3. The index is a combination of over 100 components of state tax systems, giving substantial emphasis to some components that cannot plausibly affect tax competitiveness, while ignoring features that have a large impact on business taxes (single-factor apportionment and deduction of federal corporate income taxes). Read more.

The methodology is unchanged from the 2017 edition, with only slight changes in the weights applied to the five sub-indexes and a couple of tweaks to specific taxes that affect a handful of states.

Peter Fisher, research director of the Iowa Policy Project.

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

See IPP’s Grading the States website for more insightful analysis of business tax rankings — www.gradingstates.org

Turning drainage districts into a solution

Drainage districts exist not to support polluters’ “health, convenience or welfare,” but are grounded in a principle of public good, the common good.

It is disappointing but perhaps not surprising that those charged with operating drainage districts in the state are rebelling at the thought that someone might expect them to act on behalf of the public.

A new Iowa Policy Project paper suggests answers to nitrate contamination of Iowa waters and the Mississippi River Basin exist within drainage districts that currently are part of the problem.

Our paper notes that drainage districts “short-circuit” natural conditions that can remove nitrates before water moves on. From the paper:

“It is clear from years of research and observations that nitrate contamination of our waterways is a direct response to the cultivation of annual row crops and it is exacerbated by artificial drainage. The infrastructure of drainage districts, in particular, creates conditions for mass collection and rapid transport of nitrate pollution into our waterways.”

In a Cedar Rapids Gazette story today, John Torbert of the Iowa Drainage District Association, says that drainage districts’ “sole purpose of existing is to drain excess water from the land.” That is a very incomplete understanding of their role.

What Torbert leaving out is the law’s requirement that districts will be set up (and other county-inspired actions taken on drainage) that are “conducive to the public health, convenience or welfare.” (Chapter 468.1) In fact, ironically, even his association quotes similar language from the next section of the state law on the front page of its own website (below),

That subsection, also cited and quoted in the IPP paper (page 4) puts a responsibility on drainage districts to be set up for the public good.

Note the language is not that these districts exist to support polluters’ health, convenience or welfare. Their existence is grounded in a principle of public good, the common good.

 

David Osterberg, founder of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project

dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org

About those 10 reasons, Senator …

At stake is health care access for millions, including people with pre-existing conditions. Surely these would be at the top of any list of concerns about Cassidy-Graham.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has made the point himself: The Cassidy-Graham bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has many deficiencies.

“I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill should not be considered,” he told Iowa reporters.

So, let’s look at some of the reasons, on the merits, why people might have concerns about Cassidy-Graham.

  1. People with pre-existing conditions would lose access to health care. Protection of these people assured now under the ACA would be left to state decisions, with states already cash-strapped.
  2. Many who became eligible for coverage through the Medicaid expansion of the ACA would lose it. In Iowa, about 150,000 people gained coverage by this expansion.
  3. It would change Medicaid expansion to a block-grant program that provides states no flexibility to deal with recessions or prescription drug price increases.
  4. Medicaid for seniors, people with disabilities, and families with children would be capped on a per-person basis. Anything higher would be left to the states to provide. There is neither any assurance states would want to do that, or even be financially able to do so.
  5. Iowa would be marched to a $1.8 billion cliff in 2027 under this bill, with federal support dropping sharply. For context, that is the equivalent of about one-fourth of the current state budget.
  6. Millions would lose insurance coverage. While we’re still waiting for the estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, past repeal proposals show this. And, since this bill offers nothing beyond 2027 for the Medicaid expansion, via block grant or otherwise, the prospect of 32 million people losing coverage (as demonstrated in estimates in previous ACA repeal legislation) is very real.

In Iowa? The graph below shows how Iowa’s uninsured population has dropped with the advent of the ACA, or Obamacare. Census data show uninsurance in Iowa dropped by nearly half in just three years, by about 116,000 — from 8.1 percent uninsured in 2013 to 4.3 percent in 2016.

So, this is a good start on why Iowans might be concerned about Cassidy-Graham — a last-ditch effort to rush into law radical changes in the way millions nationally and over 100,000 in Iowa gained access to health care in just three years.

We invite Senator Grassley to add to the list and get us to the full 10 reasons he suggested that might cause concerns about this bill.

Or better yet, maybe together in a deliberative process that involves everyone, we can come up with a list of 10 things that any health care policy should address.

Surely the list would include insuring more people, assuring more with practical access to health care when they need it, improving public health and reducing costs. We invite Senator Grassley to that discussion.

Mike Owen, Executive Director of the  Iowa Policy Project
mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Labor Day 2017: Disappointing trends for Iowa working families

A higher minimum wage, union representation and investments in education produce growth and productivity in local and state economies that tax cuts never deliver.

Editor’s Note: This piece by Colin Gordon, senior research consultant at the Iowa Policy Project, ran as a guest opinion in The Des Moines Register.

Hear Colin Gordon’s Sept. 7 interview on Michael Devine’s “Devine Intervention program on KVFD-AM 1400 Fort Dodge.

Labor Day is always a good time to take stock of the state of working Iowa. Patterns of employment, job creation, and wage and income growth across the Iowa economy are telling — and disappointing.

This long-term economic pattern combines with the most disheartening legislative changes for working families in the lifetimes of most Iowans. The year 2017 poses great challenges to Iowans’ economic security, let alone opportunity for those coming to, serving in or retiring from the job market.

The Iowa Policy Project’s upcoming State of Working Iowa review finds the following:

•   Recovery is elusive. The Great Recession is over, but the national and Iowa economies are still struggling to recover. While Iowa regained its pre-recession threshold of jobs in June 2013, our economy and population have continued to grow — leaving us a jobs deficit of 34,000 jobs as of July.

While the unemployment rate has come back down to a healthy 3.2 percent, the labor force participation rate is still well below its peak and rates of underemployment and long-term unemployment are still higher than they were before the financial crisis hit in 2007.

•   Despite job gains, we have fewer good jobs. Counting jobs lost or added is important, but so is the quality of those jobs. Since the 1970s, Iowa has shed many good jobs in sectors like manufacturing, and replaced too many of them with lower-wage service jobs.

But the real damage has been done by the collapse of security and job quality within sectors and occupations. We have traded good jobs for bad jobs, due to economic shifts, loss of union representation, lax enforcement of labor standards, and alarming growth in contingent work relationships.

•   We are treading water. Wage growth is anemic for all but the highest earners, underscoring both low job quality. In Iowa, the median wage in inflation adjusted dollars inched up less than 1 percent, across the last generation (since 1979).

The constraints on wage growth are mostly political: a weak commitment to full employment, the declining real value of the minimum wage, and loss of voice and bargaining power with the loss of union representation.

•   We are choosing the wrong policies at the wrong time. The last year in state and national politics has only made things worse. The Trump Administration has moved to roll back both the substance and enforcement of key labor standards, and trade, tax, and financial policies have lavished the economy’s rewards on the highest earners. In Iowa, the legislative fusillade of the last session took aim at precisely the policies — including public sector collective bargaining and local minimum wage initiatives — that were helping to contain the damage.

Recent experience across the states offers us a good sense of what works and what doesn’t. A higher minimum wage lifts families out of poverty with no decrease in employment or economic growth. Union representation and collective bargaining offer a robust defense against income inequality and the erosion of job quality. Investments in education produce growth and productivity in local and state economies that tax cuts never deliver.

When states ignore these facts — as Kansas and Wisconsin have — they undermine the prosperity, security and mobility of their citizens.

The high road to economic growth and worker security is the better course for Iowa.

Colin Gordon is a professor of history at the University of Iowa and senior research consultant at the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City. He is the author of reports in IPP’s “State of Working Iowa” series. Contact: cgordonipp@gmail.com.

 

Protect Iowa taxpayers from bad spin

Let’s protect taxpayers from thumb-on-the-scale rules that give a minority viewpoint a decided and sometimes insurmountable advantage over the majority.

“Protecting Iowa’s taxpayers,” reads the headline on the newspaper column, but the column contradicts that.

On the pages of major state newspapers this week, Iowans for Tax Relief (ITR) is offering its predictable and tired promotion of tax and spending limitations that are neither necessary nor fair.

Instead of protecting taxpayers who live in Iowa and do business here, these gimmicky limitations promote an ideological agenda that fails to offer prosperity — ask Kansas — and is a poor solution to imagined problems invented by its authors.

The limits advocated by ITR never are necessary or fair, but this is especially so where we see K-12 school spending held below needs, where higher-education spending is cut and tuitions raised, and where worldwide corporate giants are taking bites out of Iowa millions of dollars at a time — over $200 million in the case of Apple last week.

By all means, let’s protect taxpayers from thumb-on-the-scale rules that give a minority viewpoint a decided and sometimes insurmountable advantage over the majority. The big money put behind these ideas make elections less meaningful, and erode Iowans’ ability to govern themselves.

The real path to prosperity for Iowa is a high-road path that rests upon sensible investments in education and public infrastructure that accommodates commerce and sets a level playing field for business and individuals. It means promoting better pay to keep and attract workers who want to raise their families here, and sustaining critical services.

Time and time again, we and others have shown irrefutably that Iowa is a low-tax and low-wage state. We already are “competitive” to the small degree that taxes play a role in business location decisions; even conservative analysts such as Anderson Economic Group and Ernst & Young put Iowa in the middle of the pack on business taxes.

Suffice it to say, you are being peddled a load of garbage by the far right and the privileged, who take what they can from our public structures and policies, and attempt to deny others not only public services, but also a say in the funding of programs that promote opportunity and prosperity for all.

The same suppression mindset prevailed in the Iowa Legislature in 2017 as a majority bullied public workers and decimated workers’ rights. Now they are taking on tax policy in 2018, plus the possibility of new assaults on retirement security and renewed neglect of our natural assets of air and water.

Shake your head at the headlines, throw a shoe through the TV if you must, but only by engaging these issues at every step of the political process will we turn Iowa back from our low-road course.

This is the battle of the 21st century. We are living it. May we survive it.

Mike Owen, executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

The Matrix: What if we told you it doesn’t work?

Proposed large hog operations have to show little to get what they want. “Right now it’s almost not possible to not pass,” says IPP’s David Osterberg.

Several Iowa counties are dissatisfied with the so-called “Master Matrix” designed to put standards for locations where large hog operations may be built. The Matrix keeps state requirements ahead of local concerns on this one type of industry.

A state panel soon will hear arguments for a stronger system to protect environmental quality and public health.

IPP’s David Osterberg and Fort Dodge radio host Michael Devine discussed the issues on the “Devine Intervention” program on KVFD 1400-AM.

Osterberg noted the low bar for approval under the Matrix means proposed large hog operations have to show little to get what they want.

“Right now it’s almost not possible to not pass,” says Osterberg, who asks for a “little bit of reasonableness” that will not harm the industry but will satisfy neighbors.

Devine noted the political landscape poses challenges to change on the Matrix or efforts to achieve local control.

“There is a blind defense of pork production in the state of Iowa,” said Devine.

Hear the conversation. Click here.

Alternative license plates — your choice?

The state of Iowa wants to redecorate Iowans’ vehicles with a new license plate design. And Iowans get a say in it — a public vote is underway on three options at the State Fair and online, here.

Nothing against the proposed designs that you can find at the links above, but we might want to consider alternatives that deal with critical issues facing our state:

Basic RGB

Basic RGB

LICENSE-ALT2-03.jpg

Basic RGB

Basic RGB

Basic RGB

OK, so the last one is a shameless plug. But we have to find a way to work on the issues on the plates above it, so don’t be too hard on us. And, you can donate here, or by clicking on the license plate above.

 

2017-owen5464Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org