Iowans might be surprised to learn that sensible measures indicate Iowa government actually has declined.
Calls for smaller government carry a number of distortions. Our roads, schools and public health, to name just a few publicly financed services, often operate with the bare minimum financing as it is.
The primary distortion, however, involves concepts about the size of our state government.
Iowans might be surprised to learn that sensible measures indicate Iowa government actually has declined.
Iowa’s General Fund spending as a share of the economy has decreased by more than 26 percent since the early 1990s.
When measured by personal income — all the income generated each year by all Iowans — General Fund spending peaked in Fiscal Year 1997, at 6.4 percent. In FY10, General Fund spending was just 4.7 percent of Iowans’ personal income.
And that is not just a result of the recent Great Recession and the 10 percent across-the-board budget cut by Governor Culver. In FY09, spending as a share of personal income was 5.5 percent — nearly a full percentage point lower than the high-water mark of the late 1990s.
It’s easy to forget all the publicly funded services on which Iowa businesses, health and personal lives rely.
Funding for education — our public universities, community colleges, and state aid to local schools — consumes more than 60 percent of Iowa’s budget. Realistically, there simply is no way to reduce General Fund spending without touching education.
We expect and rely on safe, well-maintained roads and highways. We need water that is clean and drinkable. We enjoy parks that are kept neat and safe by public funds.
Budgeting requires tough choices, even when the economy is thriving. Balancing a budget in tough times — when needs are greater than usual — is even more difficult.
Iowa has cut quite a bit already. Further reductions would come at a price that might not be so apparent on a sheet of paper. But they would become clear as Iowans move about their daily lives.
The quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers that are applied to corn and soybean fields dwarfs that of lawns and golf courses.
How many of you have been in a conversation about Iowa’s water quality that went something like this?
Person 1: Iowa’s waters really are filthy.
Person 2: They sure are. I know a lot of that is because of our state’s agriculture and all the fertilizers that farmers use.
Person 1: That’s probably true, but you know what is really a problem? The fertilizers my neighbors are always putting on their grass. They put so much on all the time and sometimes even in the rain. Why? For a lawn that they never use?
Person 2: You’re probably right. I just drove across the river downtown and it was so gross. And I saw several lawn chemical companies out this morning.
If you’re anything like me you’ve probably heard people downplay the role of agriculture in degrading our waters and shift the focus to our urban areas. I recently had dinner with a small group of environmentally aware citizens and a conversation much like the above occurred.
I asked the group what percentage of the applied fertilizers in Iowa are put on farm fields and got responses ranging from 50 to 80 percent. It just so happened that I knew the real answer and it was way higher than the guesses I heard.
IPP’s latest report focuses only on the chemical fertilizers that are applied to the state’s farm fields, lawns and golf courses. It conclusively shows that the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers that are applied to corn and soybean fields dwarfs that of lawns and golf courses. It isn’t even close. Roughly 98% of the nitrogen and phosphorus applied in fertilizers goes on the state’s farm fields.
On average the pounds applied per acre of these fertilizers are higher on lawns and golf courses but the total area that receives treatments is so miniscule relative to the acres of corn and beans in this state. In addition, these fertilizers are applied to areas that have plants that can immediately use the nutrients, whereas many fertilizers are applied to crop fields that do not.
This is not to say that lawn fertilizers in urban areas are blameless. Indeed, in some urban watersheds they may be a significant source of the nutrient pollution entering Iowa’s waters, but overall it’s safe to say that agriculture is where the vast majority of the nutrients that start as applied fertilizers originate. Throw in manure applications and the relative contribution of agriculture gets even larger.
Can that be changed? With cover crops, perennial crops, better cropping practices, and improved nutrient management plans among other things, that gap can be narrowed. Narrowing that gap will bring with it improved water quality. That is something we can all celebrate.
Can we, with any scientific validity, directly attribute any flood, heat wave, snowfall, hurricane or drought to climate change? Not yet. But the fact remains that the sorts of rainfall patterns Iowa has seen recently, and many of the extreme weather events seen across the world are exactly what climate models predict, as noted by a recent report from Environment Iowa.
I’ve heard it said that climate change is “loading the dice” toward making certain extreme weather events more likely to occur. What this means for Iowa is that we now have to prepare for more frequent major floods, but also be ready for even larger floods.
What can we do? There are no simple answers and clearly the solution is going to involve a combination of things. Iowa is taking the right steps by developing some excellent resources for municipal officials and local residents. But does the political will exist to make the difficult choices? Should we allow development in flood plains? (The Cedar Falls city council has decided to say no.) Should we build more levies around cities to protect them (but push flooding on to communities downstream)? Should we prohibit a net increase in runoff from any development site? Should we require or even pay farmers to reduce runoff from their fields?
In both rural and urban areas, healthy soil is the first line of defense against flooding as it can slow, store and clean prodigious amounts of rainfall and runoff. Unfortunately, as outgoing DNR Director Rich Leopold noted in an excellent and sobering editorial, our soils are not healthy. We’ve lost, and continue to lose, huge amounts of topsoil from our croplands and the soils in our urban developments aren’t really much better than concrete at holding onto water.
Healthy soil means cleaner water, less flooding, excellent crops and — quite possibly — dice that are a little less loaded. That’s a win-win-win-win for everyone.
If you have health insurance through work, consider thanking union members this Labor Day.
It’s not a surprise that labor union employees benefit from their union membership. Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, found that while 94 percent of union workers have health insurance through their employer, compared to just 76 percent of nonunion workers (see page 15 of this EBRI report).
That’s what unions do — help workers negotiate better wages, benefits, and working conditions.
In the latest installment of their annual Employer Health Benefits Survey, KFF and HRET found that the presence of “some union workers” increases the likelihood that an employer offers health insurance benefits. Among firms with some union employees, 94 percent offer health insurance benefits. Conversely, just 67 percent of firms with no union employees offered health insurance to their employees.
So if you have health insurance through your work and you have union colleagues consider thanking them this Labor Day weekend.
Many numbers reflect more than one obvious trend — sometimes even its exact opposite.
In the last couple of years, many Americans have turned into consumers of figures that tell us how the economy is doing, and many of us can quote figures of unemployment, foreclosures and home sales. But numbers are never simple, and reducing some economic trends into a single figure may be misleading.
Let’s take, for example, earnings data. Should we assume that the economy is getting stronger if weekly earnings go up? Interestingly enough, that could be the wrong assumption. As struggling employers choose to lay off more workers, they usually opt to dismiss workers on the low end of the earnings scale, resulting with the earnings average and median going up. Thus, a rise in earnings is more likely to reflect an economic weakening than an economic strength.
Hourly earnings data may be misleading as well, as it does not account for the impact of the recession on weekly work hours. Throughout recessions, employers cut down on hours, and the labor market share of part-time workers goes up. In this case, 40 states are showing a drop in the average number of weekly work hours between 2007 and 2009. When looking only at hourly earnings, though, a very different picture emerges: the average hourly pay rose in 48 states between 2007 and 2009. Which one is it then? The bleak work hours figure, or the encouraging hourly pay figure?
This is a puzzle we should keep in mind whenever we consume, and then recite, workforce figures. Many numbers have the potential to reflect more than one obvious trend – sometimes even its exact opposite.
We can’t continue to follow the practices and policies that have created flooding problems, or create new policies that pose greater risk.
In 2008 it was Iowa City and Cedar Rapids. This year Ames is getting a turn. Oh, and throw in some serious flooding around Oskaloosa, Manchester, Colfax and elsewhere, not to mention the dam failure at Lake Delhi.
What’s going on? Why are towns, universities, farmers, the wealthy and the poor in Iowa all suffering from flood damage with frequencies far exceeding statistical expectations?
Point your finger at what you want: more development in flood plains and pavement everywhere, fewer functioning wetlands, degraded soil, more agricultural drainage tile, more row crops, and increasing frequency of heavy rains as a result of climate change. All play a role in causing havoc in Iowans’ lives and generating steep bills that have to be paid by someone, somehow.
What can be done? There are lots of things that need to be done, but a guiding principle that must be adhered to is a simple one: first, do no harm. We can’t continue to follow the practices and policies that have created the problems in the first place, or worse yet, create new policies or programs that create even greater flooding risk. Should we continue to build in flood plains? Should we continue to pave over agricultural land to build sprawling surface parking lots? Should we continue to follow agricultural cropping practices that degrade soil quality and reduce the natural ability of the soil to hold on to water? Should we “improve” field drainage so that water flows into rivers and streams even faster? The simple answer to all of these questions is no. Of course nothing, including finding policies that will address these issues while not causing harm elsewhere, is ever simple.
Stay tuned as IPP will be looking at some of these issues in encouraging policies that improve the management and quality of Iowa’s waters in ways that benefit all Iowans.