Speaker of the Iowa House Kraig Paulsen sent an e-mail to Republican contacts last week which was a copy of an op-ed he sent to papers throughout the state “outlining the House Republican’s perspective regarding school funding in relation to the school budget”. The e-mail was titled what can we afford. It is set forth in italics below, with points we want to respond to in bold. Our prose is set forth in purple.
(from Speaker Paulsen)
Every session the question facing the legislature is how to fit Iowans’ priorities within the constraints of state revenue.
For years, state government in Iowa operated much like it does in Washington, D.C. – spend more than they have, send taxpayers into debt, and pass hard decisions off to future lawmakers. Each year another legislature came to Des Moines, spent every last dime of taxpayer money – even money they KNEW wouldn’t be there the following year. The breaking point came when Gov. Culver and legislative Democrats not only had spent more than the state had, they leveraged the state into debt…and then the economy dropped out. Scrambling, Gov. Culver took an ax to the budget – indiscriminately slashing it by 10 percent. By far the biggest casualties of this action were Iowa’s schools.
There may be an unexpressed nuance or distinction in the statement but we are under the impression spending more than the state has is “leveraging into debt.” Oh well.
As a result of this gross mismanagement, Iowans changed leadership in the governor’s office and the House. Since that day House Republicans outlined simple, commonsense budgeting principles. Republicans made a commitment to pass a budget which spends less than the state collects, doesn’t use one-time money to fund on-going needs, doesn’t balance the budget by intentionally underfunding programs, and returns unused tax dollars to taxpayers. This isn’t rocket science – it’s exactly how Iowa families and businesses operate.
At a low-level of scrutiny such words sound conservative but in parsing them, as one must do with politicians, they hardly represent a commitment to reduce growth in state government or taxes for that matter. Speaker Paulsen probably didn’t want to bring the latter up because of the session’s 45% – billion-dollar-over-five-years increase in gas taxes (already signed into law). The first operative comment of the sentence, “spends less than the state collects,” hardly controls the government getting more than it needs.
We are also not sure of any applicability of the demurral “(not to) use one-time money to fund on-going needs”. Perhaps it means not spending a windfall on normal expenses of state government. But does that include infrastructure repair or improvements? Does it mean not getting caught up on deficiencies somewhere or paying off debt? No doubt it is left vague so politicians can decide as needed.
The phrase “doesn’t balance the budget by intentionally underfunding programs” is pure hokum. Pressure groups will claim all of their projects are underfunded. It is what they do. And the squeakiest wheel will get more funding. It will then be a free wheeling decision not constrained one iota by such phraseology.
As far as the “commitment” (worth as much as the spittle I just coughed up writing that) to “return(s) unused tax dollars to taxpayers” again there is no objective determinant as they determine what is “unused”. It is of course a loophole. It binds Republicans to no action whatsoever.
There is nothing in any of it to hang ones hat on. It all smacks us as rather contrived language to fit the game plan of more spending, including raising taxes that they embarked on this session.
Under Speaker Paulsen and Governor Branstad many Republicans have already negated the spirit of the 2014 Iowa Republican Platform (as rather pathetic as it is). That platform enshrines in item 6.3 of the State & Local Government section “We support amending the Iowa Constitution to require a 2/3 vote of both Houses of the Iowa General Assembly to pass any bill that has the effect of raising individual or corporate income taxes or sales tax.”
While the gas tax increase was not a general sales tax increase it is a retail sales tax increase and a significant one. To use the dodge that they didn’t increase all sales taxes as a defense is to open the door to all manner of piecemeal retail sales tax increases accumulating the same impact.
The Revenue Estimating Committee (REC) outlined a specific revenue projection at their meeting on March 19th. The legislature is required to use that estimate which is now $7.175 billion for Fiscal Year 2016. Last year (FY 15) the state spent $6.995 billion. Simple math tells us there’s $180.9 million of revenue above what was spent last year. While the state budget is complicated, the constraints legislators must operate within isn’t.
This is the defense of “our hands are tied as far as spending more because we chose to spend money elsewhere.” Unless it is a constitutional provision , which we will check on, we are not sure we are happy they believe or pretend that their hands were really tied by another legislature having passed the REC. However if it provides any excuse to be responsible and not give in to endless demands we will be grateful for that.
The first decision House Republicans’ made was to make K-12 education the top funding priority. The first bill approved by the House in 2015 was a 1.25% increase in money for schools. Combined with previous education commitments, that’s a $100 million. And remember, the state has $180.9 million in new revenue, meaning Republicans committed over half of new revenue to K-12 schools.
The rest of Iowans’ priorities like Medicaid, economic development and public safety have to fit within the remaining $80.9 million in new revenue. The increase in Medicaid alone is projected at over $200 million. It’s easy to see the problem.
Not when higher education is considered, which is also part of the overall expence mix, but conveniently not mentioned. But it is so typical of politicians to raise the specter of cutting back on public safety in order to avoid responsibility for better budgeting and hard decisions.
Legislative Democrats have suggested a 4 percent increase in funding ($210 million), with no regard for the state’s projected revenue numbers. House Republicans have a history of passing 4 percent allowable growth, but only when revenue is there to fulfil that commitment. Democrats’ short-term thinking with no regard for what the state can afford is the same type of haphazard budgeting that led to the decimation of school funding in the Culver era.
House Republicans have ensured K-12 funding is getting the first (and biggest) bite of the apple. The problem is the apple isn’t as big as we’d hoped. Our plan balances the needs of Iowa’s schools with the needs of Iowa taxpayers, in a responsible and pragmatic way.
There is a lot of room to increase educational efficiency, and certainly performance, as Iowa’s elementary grade test scores are declining. Fine tuning of restrictions on local school funding may be in order to accommodate school districts with particular problems. Nevertheless we find it hard to believe that 1% or 2 % cannot be found in any closely managed school funding formulations at any level.
For more information on Iowa budget performance visit this useful link: http://ballotpedia.org/Iowa_state_budget
R Mall
ok, state level…fed. level, the GOPs always outspend Dems > look at Reagan, Bush II. look at the debt they left.