Recent editorials published in Iowa newspapers

Des Moines Register. May 4, 2018

Gov. Kim Reynolds should veto cut to energy-efficiency programs

Short-term thinking can lead to decisions that offer immediate gratification but carry a heavy price in the future. That’s the myopic approach behind the Iowa Legislature’s decision to slash energy-efficiency programs for investor-owned utilities.

Republicans who voted for the bill will go out and tell voters they saved them $100 million on their utility bills. The legislation caps spending on utility-company rebates for energy-efficient home or business improvements such as insulation, new windows, weather-proofing and new appliances. Energy consumers pay for those programs, so they’ll see the savings on their utility bills.

Meanwhile, Democrats who voted against Senate File 2311 will soon be on the campaign trail telling Iowans it will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in higher energy costs, as well as thousands of jobs in their communities.

Both sides are correct. But the savings to consumers are in the short term, while the even greater cost increases will come down the road.

That’s because every dollar spent on energy efficiency saves about $2 by delaying the need to build new power plants due to increasing demand. The net savings to consumers of Iowa’s current energy-efficiency programs since 1990 has been about $400 million a year, according to the Iowa Utilities Board.

This is a decision that affects most Iowans. But it appears the lawmakers who supported this bill were listening mostly to the utility companies and cooperatives that were the only interest groups to register in favor of the bill. The Iowa House approved a rewritten version of the bill about an hour before sunrise last Friday after working all night. The lack of transparency is shameful.

Consumer advocate Mark Schuling, who represents ratepayers in utility regulation matters, had this to say about the bill: “We were disappointed that we were not consulted in the drafting of SF 2311 and that it was not drafted as a win-win utility bill, good for utilities and good for customers. As passed by the House, SF 2311 is a utility bill good for utilities that will result ultimately in higher rates for customers.”

The legislation also runs counter to long-term state goals related to energy and jobs. There are about 20,000 jobs associated with energy-efficiency programs. The programs would be cut about 45 percent when the legislation takes effect, so it stands to reason that some of those jobs would be lost.

The bill also works against the Iowa Energy Plan, which calls for increasing energy efficiency and decreasing the operating costs of new and existing Iowa buildings. Gov. Kim Reynolds spearheaded the creation of this plan as lieutenant governor. She should protect these worthwhile goals now by vetoing this assault on Iowa’s energy future.

Lawmakers aren’t known for their long-term vision. This bill looks no further than the utility-company donations at stake in the upcoming election.

____

Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier. May 2, 2018

Is Iowa listening to other states’ tax cut woes?

While it sounds good in theory, attempts to achieve “smarter, smaller government” with lower tax rates and business incentives frequently have put fundamental services at risk - notably education - while not realizing the promised growth.

As Iowa Republicans carve out a new state income tax code - an undertaking prompted, in part, by changes at the federal level - we are wary that mistaken assumptions that have driven past tax reform efforts will be repeated.

Iowa is one of the few states allowing federal taxes to be deducted on state returns. Consequently, as it stands, the new lower federal tax rates would result in Iowa taxpayers having a higher state bill. In February, the Iowa Department of Revenue estimated the federal tax code revisions would result in Iowans paying nearly $148 million more in state taxes during the 2019 budget year and $192 million in 2020.

Gov. Kim Reynolds and Republicans controlling the Senate and House have vowed they won’t penalize Iowa taxpayers while devising comprehensive state tax reform. Yet the scope of that tax overhaul is cause for concern.

Since 2010, exemptions on sales and use taxes, various corporate tax credits and changes to the commercial property tax valuation were supposed to create an economic renaissance and boost state revenues.

Instead, the state has dealt with midyear budget adjustments at the expense of universities and community colleges, the courts, prisons and human services, while shortchanging K-12 education. To make ends meet, money has been borrowed from reserves.

The federal government doesn’t have to balance its budget. In the aftermath of federal tax reform, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently warned the federal deficit could exceed $1 trillion in fiscal year 2020.

Regarding the 2017 tax-cut legislation, it stated, “Laws enacted since June 2017 are estimated to make deficits $2.7 trillion larger than previously projected between 2018 and 2027, an effect that results from reducing revenues by $1.7 trillion (or 4 percent) and increasing outlays by $1.0 trillion (or 2 percent).”

The CBO disputes Republican claims that economic growth will surpass 3 percent annually, instead predicting 3.3 percent this year, followed by 2.4 percent and slowing thereafter.

The predicted deficits are not sustainable with the federal debt having surpassed $21 trillion.

If the CBO is right, then entitlement programs could be on the chopping block. Social Security and Medicare alone accounted for 40 percent of federal spending, $1.6 trillion, in FY 2017.

Tax-cut initiatives have been tried and frequently gone awry in the states.

In Kansas in 2012, Republican Gov. Sam Brownback pushed a reduction in the top income tax rate from 6.45 percent to 4.6 percent along with tax exemptions for 330,000 businesses and farmers.

Economic growth didn’t materialize. State revenues in FY 2014 were $700 million less than FY 2013. After school years ended early because of inadequate aid, the state Supreme Court stepped in, ordering a $293 million increase in K-12 funding over two years.

The situation at state prisons was so dire that stab vests for guards were lacking. At one maximum-security facility without air conditioning, the sweaty vests were passed from shift to shift. At another prison, cells designed for one person held three or four. The minimum age for guards was lowered from 21 to 18 to fill vacancies.

Newly elected moderate Republicans and Democrats overrode a Brownback veto to raise $1.2 billion in revenues over the next two years, hiking the top income tax rate to 5.7 percent.

A Democratic governor and Republican Legislature initiated tax cuts in Oklahoma during the past decade that reduced state revenues by 35 percent, according to the Oklahoma Policy Institute. The primary beneficiaries were the wealthiest 20 percent, earning more than $246,000 with a benefit averaging $15,519. The average household got $228.

Growth faltered, albeit amid falling energy prices. Oklahoma led the nation in cutting per-student funding by an inflation-adjusted 28 percent. Some schools resorted to four-day weeks. Teachers ranked No. 49 in pay until a recent statewide walkout resulted in a boost to No. 44.

West Virginia, also with a Democratic governor and Republican Legislature at the time, reduced its corporate tax rate from 9 to 6.5 percent and eliminated its business franchise tax. Growth didn’t occur. Education was gutted. Teachers recently went on a statewide strike demanding raises - and got a 5 percent increase.

Democratic-controlled legislatures have had problems, too. Oregon is a high-tax state with a booming economy, but facing a huge deficit due to rising Medicaid costs and union-driven pensions.

Likewise, Illinois has huge pension obligations, even after its Democratic Legislature passed a tax increase that Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner wants to roll back.

Whatever the culprit may be, fiscal prudence too often is being ignored, endangering public education and other vital government services. We’re wary that these aren’t lessons learned during Iowa’s tax deliberations.

____

Quad-City Times. May 4, 2018

Reynolds has only herself to blame

Gov. Kim Reynolds spent the past two weeks dousing her credibility with gas. And, on Tuesday, she lit a match and torched it.

It was an uncharacteristically clumsy display from a governor who, until now, governed with a distinct aura of calm self-assurance.

Last week’s self-inflicted burn was the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) sexual harassment scandal, where the Reynolds administration assumed “take our word for it” could pinch hit for compliance with state transparency laws. Then, on Tuesday, Iowa’s freshman Republican governor appointed her father to a state panel tasked with selecting judges. And her administration didn’t even disclose the conflict of interest until, yet again, a pesky journalist started asking questions.

Ah yes, brash nepotism was clearly the best way to re-establish trust and an air of authority. As if the questionable patronage wasn’t bad enough, the intentional failure to disclose only exacerbates questions about this administration’s commitment to being forthright.

Just like the IFA mess, basic transparency - or ethical precepts - were merely an annoyance.

In the past two weeks, Reynolds herself has achieved something that Democrats have so far struggled to do: She’s exposed her administration to legitimate questions about its ethical failings and basic functionality. And yet, Reynolds wants to blame those same feeble Democrats for “politicizing” an issue that arose only thanks to the her administration’s flailing response.

Two weeks ago, even Reynolds’ most vehement detractors would struggle to argue that hers is a dysfunctional or unethical administration. Sure, they could gripe about policy decisions. But using terms such as “chaotic” or “tone deaf” to describe the Reynolds administration were, until now, off the table.

The Reynolds administration - perched on a foundation poured by former Gov. Terry Branstad - isn’t the well oiled machine it likes to pretend to be. It’s choking on its own fumes.

The own-goaling of the past two weeks were completely unnecessary. It was nothing short of shear arrogance that Reynolds opted to name her father - without disclosure - to a state board, especially as the dumpster fire at Iowa Finance Authority still smoldered.

At the very least, the Reynolds administration has shown itself lacking any sense of optics. And, throughout this brash flouting of all that’s considered standard political procedure, runs a thread of conceit.

Reynolds is correct to presume herself the front-runner in November’s election. She enjoys quasi-incumbent status and statewide name recognition. She’s uncontested for the GOP’s nomination. She’s skilled at working a room and impressive from the stump. She’s emerging from a legislative cycle that will play well with the GOP’s conservative base. And Democrats are locked in a six-way race that will ultimately leave the victor bruised and with a fractured party.

Reynolds enjoyed a seven-point lead over whomever emerges from the June 5 Democratic primary, according to a poll released last month. But that margin had slipped from 15 points just a few months prior.

Even so, as of right now, November’s general election looks like Reynolds’ to lose, even in a national cycle that should favor Democrats.

But over the past two weeks, the perception that Reynolds runs a steady, drama-free shop has evaporated. And the unnecessary, self-inflicted wounds might accomplish what questions concerning tax cuts, privatized Medicaid and under-funded schools have so far failed to do.

For the first time, Reynolds finds herself politically exposed. And she has no one to blame but herself.

___

Fort Dodge Messenger. May 1, 2018

Don’t provide alcohol to minors

The consequence of doing so can be an avoidable tragedy

Too often, adults laugh it off when they hear about minors consuming alcohol. Hey, kids will be kids, right?

Jason A. Bartley Jr. was a kid, just 17 years old. He never made it to adulthood.

Bartley lived in Chillicothe, Ohio. There, last October, he drank too much vodka. He died from acute alcohol poisoning, according to the Ross County coroner, who also listed “benzodiazepines abuse” as a cause of death.

Ross County authorities have arrested Sandy L. France, 33, of Chilicothe. They say France, the mother of one of Bartley’s friends, gave the boy the bottle of vodka that killed him. She has been charged with involuntary manslaughter.

In the vast majority of cases involving adults who furnish alcohol to juveniles, they are charged with relatively minor crimes. They pay fines and that is an end to it. Sometimes, law enforcement officers merely give the offenders a good talking-to.

Furnishing alcohol to a minor puts that boy or girl - yes, children - at great risk. That ought to be obvious.

Adults caught illegally providing beer, wine or liquor to minors in our area should be punished as severely as the law allows, with no exceptions for any reason.

Otherwise, it is entirely possible prosecutors in our area will find themselves in the same position as their counterpart in Ross County - pursuing a manslaughter case involving a kid who was just being a kid but who never had a chance to grow up.

____