I was really trying to stay fairly positive this session but today has gotten the best of me.  It may be the winter weather or the white knuckle drive coming to Des Moines last night while missing the Super bowl.   In any case, for today, I am done being fair and balanced.

SSB 3119 is a bill from the DNR that was presented in sub-committee today. It does a myriad of different things.  Buried deep in the bill is several paragraphs that state; “a penalty will be assessed to anyone who feeds wild animals.  A person cannot feed wildlife for view or observation within 50-yards of a residence.”  In the bill, wild animals include; birds, mammals, reptiles, and fish. 

I don’t think the governors agency thought through this piece of legislation.  It would mean you couldn’t fish with live bait, couldn’t feed the ducks, and so much for the bird and squirrel feeders on your property. 

Now, I realize that they were trying to get to the idea of not feeding deer; however, a poor thought out bill makes a person wonder who is in charge of our natural resources.

We are spending time on an issue like this rather than coming up with policy that creates more jobs, and balancing the budget.  Although other bills are doing the direct opposite, including eliminating federal deductibility and removing Iowa as a right to work state.  I can only hope, in the future, the DNR develops some reasonable thought when it comes to well written legislation.

The Governor and Senate Democrats have been talking all session about reorganizing government with the express purpose of saving taxpayer’s money and shrinking the size of government.

Republicans have always supported limited government and have proposed legislation and amendments to increase government efficiencies and limit the expansion of programs.  As we have seen with the Democrats control of the legislature and the governor’s office the last three years, we have a billion dollar budget shortfall.

Governor Culver’s rhetoric and the rhetoric of Senate Democrats have led us to legislation that sounds like true re-organization but is smoke and mirrors.

In the State Government committee on Wednesday these same Democrats attempted to run a bill that would create an Iowa Public Information Board that could employ as many employees as needed and cost the state $600,000 in FY 2011. 

Republicans support open meetings and open records, but is this the time to create another bureaucracy when we are trying to shrink the size of government?  Once again, Democrats provide no leadership in the Iowa Senate.

I sat on a Senate sub-committee this morning that dealt with a bill that would create mandatory combined tax reporting for Iowa businesses.

This issue has been around for many years, the idea is very complex but the outcome is clear, it raises taxes on business.  Since we have a vast black hole in the budget this becomes another idea of generating more tax revenue. 

It was noted in the study prepared for COST by Ernst & Young LLP, “Understanding the Revenue and Competitive Effects of Mandatory Unitary Combined Reporting” One of the most controversial business tax policy issues currently debated by state legislators, tax administrators, and corporate taxpayers is how a State should determine the corporate income tax base for multistate corporations with multiple businesses and entities. One possible system—MUCR—arbitrarily assigns income to a State, negatively impacts the real economy, has an unpredictable affect on State revenue and imposes significant administrative burdens on both the taxpayer and State.

“A Maryland Business Tax Reform Commission subcommittee on February 1 discussed nitty-gritty details of a recent study that showed combined reporting would have netted the state between $109 million and $170 million in additional revenue in 2006.” (For the study, see Doc 2009-21865 or 2009 STT 190-19.)  *Iowa Department of Revenue stated it could increase state revenues from $42-109 million*

Closer analysis of the data shows that retail businesses would have seen the biggest tax increases under combined reporting, revenue officials told the commission’s business tax reporting subcommittee.” (Maryland Business Tax Panel Analyzes Combined Reporting Study by Nicola M. White)

It was stated in the sub-committee that this would only increase the taxes on large corporations, Wal-Mart, 3M, John Deere, Well Fargo.  It was made clear by one democrat, that this would actually help small business by making these larger corporations pay more taxes.  I adamantly disagree!  These larger businesses funnel down work to the smaller businesses or provide low interest loans or product to help them exist.

Iowa’s economy is struggling, unemployment is 6.7%.  Rather than creating more ways to kill business, the majority party should be focusing on ways to create more jobs, helping the business climate, and lower the tax burden on all taxing bodies.

Private School Bill (Senate File 2058)

This bill was approved in committee today.  It’s a bill allowing non-public schools to use their textbook money to buy laptop computers.  The bill gives some latitude to private schools on the spending of government money.

The Iowa State Education Association was against this bill as they stated it violated the separation of church and state.  They also were worried that down the road, this could create more funding for private schools.  

 I support this bill; the money is already going to these schools, so the separation argument is invalid. Also, someone needs to clue in the Iowa State Education Association that private schools save the state well over $300 million. (40,000 students go to private schools) They should be advocating for private schools, the more kids that attend private schools, the less financial burden to public school. 

Education Mandate Bill (Senate File 2034)

The bill requires the Dept of Ed to develop and distribute a model dating violence policy to all school districts to be incorporated in a school’s health curriculum and standards.  All administrators, teachers, nurses, and mental health staff must be trained in the basic principles of dating violence, the warning signs of dating violence, and the school district’s dating violence policy.  This bill involves school accreditation. The bill will take effect upon enactment.

I fully understand the importance of this topic; however, it is in the same vein as the anti-bullying bill that was past a few years ago.  We need to tread lightly on these social issues.  As a parent, I want to teach my children about this issue. I think each local school board should decide if they want to incorporate these policies in their curriculum.

I fully support budget savings and streamlining government, making it more effective and efficient.  However, The Big Government Reorganization bill voted on today, created short-term savings with long term problems.  The bill  produced temporary quick fixes to a budget.

It is riddled with severe consequences for many Iowans.

• It affects the mentally handicapped
• It affects the organizations that provides services to these people
• It creates 23 more government employees.
• It creates another layer of bureaucracy
• It hurts property tax payers

Senate Republican tried to amend the bill by:

Government reorganization starts by changing the culture of reckless spending.  True reform in government starts with basic parameters that hold down spending.  The Republicans had the following amendment that started this process.

• Sunsets all government programs over a 4-year period.  This will allow the legislature and agencies to see whether each program is producing results. Decisions can be made on whether we cut or continue each program.
• Creates a 2/3rds vote on the passage of all bonds. In the past few years it’s been the bond spending that has created a deep financial hole.  This will stop the thought of whimsically spending Iowa’s future revenues.
• Propose that the legislature pass a Constitutionally 99% spending limit
• Creating a government wage system that pays employees like the private sector.  It also gets government wages in-line with the private sector.
• Ends taxpayer funded lobbying
• Requires state employees to share in the cost of health insurance.  This allows for a strong partnership between the government and its employees.

Bi-partisanship works by talking and working together.  If this would have occurred last year, we could have already saved 25 million this year! We offered the Phantom employees amendment but, the amendment had an “R” behind it last year and it was not taken.

As you can see again this year, since we were cut out of the process by the governor, we again offered an opportunity to work together by making this a better bill, but it was refused!!! Every amendment was refused!!!!  So much for bi-partisanship! I guess the executive and legislative branches are one in the same.   Very disappointing.  I can only hope the House uses better reasoning, and this bill comes back as better policy.  We owe that to the taxpayers of Iowa.

 Final Bill vote:  35 yes votes 15 no votes

Governor Culver proposed his budget yesterday afternoon.  Going into the session, it was noted that Iowa had a budget deficit of about $500 million.   The Governor fills this hole in the following manner.

                -Uses $48 million of Federal bailout funds

               -Reduces the tax credits by $52.5 million

               -Cash Reserve Spending – $207.5 million

               – Government reorganization savings – $352 million

Total proposed savings of: $660 million

The Governor had several positive budget increases:

                        -Education $60 million for allowable growth

                        -Education $100 million for K-12 cash reserves

                        -Iowa tuition grant increase of $3.3 million

                        -Nonpublic school textbook increase of $62,500

                        -Community College increase of $6 million

After dissecting the proposed budget, it seems there is no rationale on how it will be a balanced budget.  The government reorganization savings will be about half of what the governor has anticipated.  Also, the governor doesn’t spell out any tax credits he wants to cut.  It’s interesting to hear all sides saying that this document is so flawed that it cannot even be used as a starting point.  

The pressure will be on the legislature to craft a budget that will actually be balanced yet create sound fiscal policy for the state.

Final comment for the week:  We did NO bills on the floor this week.  It seems several of the fast track bills, like Government reorganization, have had enough opposition to put them on hold.  Transparency is always a good thing!

I have a real heart for people that are physically or mentally challenged.  I am amazed by those that give their time to help these people.  The care and concern they have really makes you believe that there is still a lot of good in society.

This past summer Gov. Culver did a 10% across the board cut on every program.  It had direct affects at the Village in Sheldon and Hope Haven. Iowa vocational rehab program that is used by both of these organizations gets 80% funding from the federal government and 20% from the state.  However, it’s a match, whatever the state puts in, the federal gives back at 80%.

This program is very important to these organizations, but with the across the board cut minus the matching dollars, it has nearly ended the program.  It give a quality of life and a purpose to each of these special clients. Many of these clients work for pay by doing jobs that help benefit government and society.  They sort cans, make blankets, machine parts, etc.  It give each person a reason to wake up and be a part of society.

The small saving that is being accumulated by the state is actually costing us millions in federal matching dollars.  The reckless across the board cut impacted 4,400 rehab workers.

I understand government has major budget problems. However, rather than playing politics, the governor needs to do what’s is best for ALL Iowans, especially those that have no voice! It pains me to see this ill-will.

Yesterday, I received a letter that came from Governors Culvers top aid telling all the department heads that they must follow the governor’s directives that were put together in the government re-organization bill.  It was noted that they MUST support the full enactment of the budget and the government reorganization bill.

The bill isn’t passed and there is a lot of discussion on how we can make the bill better.  However, Culver wants it in the form he sent it to the legislature, and no matter what changes are made, he will implement his plan, not the legislatures plan. 

The letter tells the agencies heads “be open and honest and clear” but “thoroughly support” Culvers plan.  The Des Moines Register noted; “lawmakers said Monday that they interpreted Frew’s e-mail as an attempt by Culver to muzzle department leaders who might disagree with his reorganization plan or who want to offer different ideas for what’s best for Iowans.”

It seems that several agency heads had grave concerns about the bill and they were voicing their opinions to the public.  The problem is the speed that this bill is getting pushed through the legislature.  There is no sun light on the bill.  So, agencies can only respond as they hear the ramifications through news outlets. 

The biggest concern for most agencies was the golden parachute portion of the bill. It offers a retirement plan to government employees that are 55-years and older.  It is such a great gift ($1000 for every year worked plus 5-years of paid health insurance) that agencies are worried about a mass exodus of workers and a complete brain drain.  Agencies don’t know how they will operate if this legislation passes.

Agencies had no say and now they are demanded to support the bill.  This seems very dictorial.  An open process of allowing agencies and legislators to work to craft  proper policy is what the constitution demands.  Not, the executive branch overpowering all other arms of government.

 This past Saturday we had the Republican township caucuses.  I came away with a crystal clear message.  Society wants a change in government.  They demand that that their voice is heard and, if not, they will find new leadership.   

 It doesn’t matter if your Republican or Democrat, society will get rid of the bureaucrat that doesn’t listen.  Scott Browns win in Mass was a blast felt by all politicians! The message was clear, we don’t want health care, we don’t like terrorist tried in our courts and we hate reckless spending!

 In Charles Krauthammer column on Jan 23, 2010, he hit this issue on the head.  He wrote:  “Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don’t Mirandize terrorists. Don’t raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests…..

The reason both wings of American liberalism — congressional and mainstream media — were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they’d spent Obama’s first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.

 This is a great lesson for Republicans.  LISTEN to your constituents!! Taxpayers are still in control and if you think you know better than them, you might want to find a new occupation.

 So, we start with ideas for a Republican platform at the township caucus, we take these ideas to the county, district and state convention.  We pass a final Republican platform that will be created by the taxpayers of Iowa. And, I will read it, understand it and follow it as a State senator.  “Throw the bums out” should be a warning phrase for every politician!

 Last year, Governor Culver hired a $300,000 out-of-state consultant to make suggestions of where the state could save money. At the conclusion of their work in Iowa, these consultants produced a report suggesting that Iowa could save $1.7 billion over 5 years. Governor Culver and legislative Democrats were quick to say they would piece together a bill that would save the state $250 million dollars in this year alone with more savings in future years.

 After independent and non-partisan analysts scored the nearly 250 page bill, they came to the conclusion that the savings will only add up to approximately $43 million, a tiny fraction of the advertised savings that the taxpayers were told they could expect to see.

 In addition, many portions of the bill do not amount to a reduction in government– but instead amount to more government. Several provisions also include new ways for the government to generate more revenue instead of finding new efficiencies or cost savings.  Other parts actually increase the size and scope of the bureaucracy.

 I applaud that we have found $43 million in savings but lets be realistic before we promote a grandiose plan of massive savings.