Putting a price on greenhouse gas pollution would create a bigger market for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Challenged by a down economy, two wars, and the need to fix our health care system, Congress might want to push other issues to the wayside. But Congress doesn’t have that luxury. Another very critical issue needs our attention: our action plan to address climate change.
Crafting legislation to reduce our contribution to climate change would also play a role in addressing today’s other immediate needs. Putting a price on greenhouse gas pollution would create a bigger market for renewable energy and energy efficiency. The jobs and industries created for developing clean energy technologies would help get the U.S. and Iowa economy back on track.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy recently estimated the climate-change legislation passed by the House would net Iowa 4,000 new jobs in 2020 and nearly 6,000 jobs by 2030.
Likewise, the Center for Rural Affairs looked at the job creation potential of requiring that 20 percent of electricity be generated by renewable energy before 2030. That research found that the wind energy developed in Iowa to meet this standard could create over 9,000 permanent jobs and over 60,000 temporary construction jobs in Iowa.
The benefits reach beyond job creation. Reducing our reliance on foreign fossil fuel sources is critical to national security and preventing future conflicts over energy and those that would result from the human tragedy associated with the worldwide impacts of climate change.
Furthermore, preventing the more frequent occurrence of catastrophic heat waves, flooding and drought anticipated for Iowa — if we continue emitting large amounts of greenhouse gas pollution — would go along way toward improving our health.
Addressing climate change is urgent work and must it stay on Congress’ long to-do list. We can’t continue business as usual for our economy, security or health. We can do better, and responding to the challenge of climate change is the way forward.
Hopefully the coming attractions will hold the attention of Iowa policymakers and the public as much as the feature now playing.
As the Iowa Fiscal Partnership (IFP) notes in a statement today, Iowans must follow more than the investigation of the state’s film-credit program and a report from a consultant about its operation over about six weeks.
Iowa’s entire tax-credit buffet for businesses demands scrutiny — especially when the Governor is anticipating budget cuts. Any considertion of spending cuts must put all spending on the table, including spending through the tax code. According to IFP:
These are terribly difficult budget times for the state of Iowa. Everything needs to be on the table, including indirect spending through the tax code. The film credit program needs every bit as much scrutiny as other spending, but so do all tax preferences to businesses. We have been heartened by the call of Governor Culver and others, including some of the state’s leading newspapers to seek a full review of more than just the film tax credit. The governor and state legislators must follow through to assure taxpayers are getting a good deal when we tell some firms that they need not pay taxes.
Iowa policy makers must recognize the problems with accountability that this investigation has exposed. We just don’t know enough about what state tax money is being used for, and that’s a problem with more than the film credit. As we have shown, and as Department of Revenue research has confirmed, Iowa hands millions of dollars every year to big corporations through the research activities credit. But the recipients, and the use of the money, have not received scrutiny from the legislators who have allowed this to happen.
We must not miss the overarching policy questions by limiting new oversight only to the film credit. All Iowa tax credits should be on the table with other spending choices, not just the film credit program.
“Follow-through” is the operative concept in the IFP statement. The Governor and the General Assembly took two important steps at the end of the last legislative session to promote better transparency and accountability for tax credits. They approved legislation to (1) cap a package of certain tax credits managed by the Department of Economic Development, including the film credit, at $185 million; and (2) to assure a public report on recipients of Research Activities Credit subsidies of more than $500,000, and amounts, to provide scrutiny while not hindering competitiveness for those recipients.
Taxpayers deserve to know how public money is being spent. Plans for a full review of tax credits is essential for sound fiscal decisionmaking.
A critical problem with Iowa tax credits is a lack of transparency.
Governor Culver acted responsibly Friday by ordering a suspension of the state’s film tax-credit program pending further investigation of irregularities in the management of the program.
A critical problem with the film credit and many other economic development tax advantages offered to industry by the state of Iowa is a lack of transparency. State lawmakers and the public for the most part have no idea whether current tax breaks — which are typically granted as corporate entitlements — are actually performing as intended.
The initial investigation has exposed the film credits, as currently in place, as a boondoggle that is draining our state treasury. Further, this is coming at a time when our state leaders are anticipating budget cuts. All spending — including spending through the tax code — needs to be on the table when considering cuts to the budget.
Those taking advantage of apparent lax management of the film-credits program may indeed be ruining it for other filmmakers who have not done so. Nevertheless, there is no justification for continuing this program while all the problems with it are being sorted out, and while education and fundamental human services are threatened with budget cuts.
[The Iowa Fiscal Partnership is a joint budget and tax policy analysis initiative of two Iowa-based nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations, the Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City and the Child & Family Policy Center in Des Moines.]
It’s a familiar refrain in the office each month when we put together our analysis of Iowa’s latest job numbers: There sure are a lot of numbers!
That’s an understandable reaction. Too many numbers can obscure the message, something we consider in our analysis of public policy issues at the Iowa Policy Project.
So, we try to strike the right balance. How many numbers do we need to tell the story — accurately and in context?
Goodness knows these days, too many people out there will torture numbers to extremes if it helps their message. We prefer to review the numbers and then figure out what the message should be.
This month, as IPP Executive Director David Osterberg noted in his comments in our news release, “Good news is hard to find in these numbers.” There was only a 200-job loss in nonfarm jobs in August — but even that good news came with a major downward revision in the previous month’s numbers. July’s job loss, previously reported at 2,400, is now recorded at 4,400.
Furthermore, those numbers show Iowa:
has lost payroll jobs in 11 of the last 12 months. (See graph at right.)
has shown a net loss of 49,400 nonfarm jobs in that same period — 28,000 of them in manufacturing.
has seen its unemployment rate jump to 6.8 percent in August from 4.2 percent a year earlier (an increase of over 60 percent).
And we could go on, with lots more numbers. And as long as they help to tell the story, we will do that.
But they will only tell the story if we always keep in mind that those numbers represent people — Iowans, our friends and neighbors — and the places they can go to work and support their families.
We can’t wait until those numbers start looking better, month after month. That will make it a little easier when we look at our first draft and say, There sure are a lot of numbers!
As I begin my final year at the University of Iowa’s graduate program for Urban and Regional Planning, I have been fortunate to join the Iowa Policy Project as a part-time research assistant. This opportunity allows me to integrate my interest and experience in public policy with fact-based research and analysis. Given public confusion and misperception regarding such critical issues as health care, taxes and the environment, objective research is vital to ensure government accountability and citizen engagement. I am very pleased to be able to assist in this important work.
As a volunteer at the Iowa Policy Project last spring, I helped former research associate Beth Pearson to determine the benefits of home weatherization for low-income Iowans. Additionally, I helped to compare how alternative versions of climate change legislation could promote or harm public welfare. The research skills I gained from this experience have been invaluable, and I hope to build upon them throughout the coming year.
Under the guidance of Peter Fisher and other members of the wonderful IPP staff, I will look at the effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Iowa’s economy. I also plan to take a hard look at Iowa’s budget allocations throughout the year and the rising cost of living within our state. It is my hope that this research will help to spark good ideas and influence important public policy. As the challenges and prospects facing Iowans evolve during this time of economic uncertainty, the Iowa Policy Project’s work is more important than ever. I am both honored and excited to be a part of the IPP at such an exciting time, and I look forward to my year here.
Vigorous debate between proponents and opponents on the merits of congressional health reform proposals has, in recent weeks, descended into shouting matches. Unfortunately, understanding of the proposed reform has not always been as deep as the passion on the topic.
Recent discussions have brought attention to a provision deep within the proposal regarding end-of-life counseling for Medicare recipients. Opponents have suggested that the provision opens the door to euthanasia.
A closer look at the actual provision, however, shows that these concerns are overblown. The critical language in the proposal produced by the House Energy and Labor, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means committees reads:
“[T]he term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner … regarding advance care planning … Such consultation shall include the following:
“(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
“(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney and their uses.
“(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibility of a health care proxy.
“(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning …
“(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title. …”
The provision would allow Medicare to reimburse medical professionals for voluntary end-of-life consultations with Medicare patients. Such consultations would allow Medicare enrollees to make medical decisions before being incapacitated by an illness, or allow the patient to transfer the medical decision-making power to a loved one (a “health care proxy”).
As Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, pointed out, this provision actually protects Medicare enrollees and their families:
“[T]he most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that’s because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia ‘durable power of attorney,’ you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you’re unable to make those decisions.”
The “practitioner” described in the legislation is carefully defined and limited as being only a physician, a nurse practitioner, or a physician’s assistant. The relationship between a patient and his or her care provider is in no way disrupted by government officials or an anonymous “panel.”
The provision would block reimbursement for counseling promoting euthanasia as an option. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide remain illegal in the majority of states, including Iowa, and this provision does nothing to alter that.
Though the recent discussion of the end-of-life counseling provision in the health reform proposal has brought a considerable amount of disinformation and heated rhetoric, it has brought attention to a service that has been long overlooked.
Jon Radulovic of the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization told Kaiser Health News that that the discussion is “providing the end-of-life care community with an opportunity to talk about what good care is and the services that are available.”
Back in January, Governor Culver asked lawmakers to “agree that everything’s on the table with respect to balancing the budget and finding cost savings in state government.”
Today, on Ryan Schlader’s WMT-AM radio talk show, State Rep. Nick Wagner, responding to a question about state employee retirement benefits, opined that “I don’t think we should just write anything off the table.”
Both quotes sound good. Do they mean it?
The evidence may come during the next legislative session. Budget policy fell short of the concept in 2009. Otherwise, abuses of Iowa’s tax code would not have been allowed to continue when lawmakers were choosing among services to be cut as revenues declined.
This is not a partisan thing — or it should not be.
Can’t all Iowans agree that any spending by state and local government should (1) carry a demonstrable public benefit, and (2) be subject to regular scrutiny to allow legislators and the public to determine that it does have that benefit?
The Legislature took a small but important first step in 2009 by passing legislation toward the transparency that would allow scrutiny of one of Iowa’s most wasteful programs: the Research Activities Credit (RAC). The RAC is a virtually open-ended business entitlement that results in multimillion-dollar secret checks being sent to big companies that don’t pay any income tax in Iowa.
Ultimately, the law passed this year may begin that process toward better scrutiny.
That’s why the Big Business lobby in Iowa will continue to fight transparency and protect its sweetheart tax breaks while lawmakers make other budget choices that will cut teachers in classrooms, drive up tuitions in community colleges and state universities, and continue to shortchange public safety, environmental quality and recreational assets.
If everything is on the table, it has to include wasteful spending on special-interest tax breaks for companies that don’t pay income taxes.