From Rep. Kirsten Running-Marquard
On July 2nd, Governor Branstad vetoed $56 million in urgently needed school funding. The money was approved by lawmakers in a compromise during the 2015 legislative session.
In an effort to restore school funding, I and other lawmakers are calling for a special session of the Iowa Legislature to overturn the veto. For a special session to occur, two-thirds of Iowa lawmakers (67 in the House/34 in the Senate) must formally request one. Above is my official petition.
Iowa school leaders say the result of the $56 million veto will be larger class sizes, fewer teachers, and higher property taxes. A petition from Iowans to lawmakers calling for a special session was also launched last week and has already gathered over 5,000 signatures. Anyone interested in signing the petition can go here.
The state just ended the fiscal year on the June 30th with a 6% increase in revenues and collected a record $8 billion for the first time in Iowa history. Over the last five years, school funding has slipped to about 1.85% annually, including one year when the Republican party and Governor Branstad left schools with zero. That’s compared to average increases of about 6% in the 1980’s to 4% in the 90’s.
Separately here is an analysis from Iowa Policy Project:
Some folks may buy into Gov. Branstad’s line about spending “one time money” as a solid reason for a line item veto. But as often happens, Republican “logic” falls apart under scrutiny. Mike Owen of Iowa Policy Project provides just such scrutiny:
Set aside for a moment that it can be quite sensible to use one-time funds for ongoing expenses. It depends on the circumstances. Set aside the fact that Iowa revenues and projections are strong and that state money seems to be available on an ongoing basis for corporate subsidies if not for restoring repeated shortfalls in education funding.
In the case at hand, the Governor vetoed one-time funds — for public schools, community colleges and the three regents universities — that ironically would have been spent in line with his own stated concern. The $55.7 million in one-time funds for local schools and area education agencies would have supplemented regular funding, set at 1.25 percent growth per pupil, all part of a package negotiated by the split-control Legislature.
Here’s the oft-stated concern about one-time funds, in a nutshell: You don’t spend one-time money on things that commit you to the same or greater spending in the future, because you don’t know whether the funds will be there later on.
For K-12 schools, the legislation specifies that funds “are intended to supplement, not supplant, existing school district funding for instructional expenditures.” It goes on to define “instructional expenditures” in such a way that assures the funds are for one-time uses that carry no additional commitment beyond the FY2016 budget year.
So, you can add to one-time expenses that you would have had to leave out, for purposes such as textbooks, library books, other instructional materials, transportation costs or educational initiatives to increase academic achievement. You can’t plan on having the same funds available in the following budget year.
For community colleges and the regents, each section of the bill included this stipulation: “Moneys appropriated in this section shall be used for purposes of nonrecurring expenses and not for operational purposes or ongoing expenses. For purposes of this section, ‘operational purposes’ means salary, support, administrative expenses, or other personnel-related costs.”
With or without the one-time funds that would have helped school districts, the legislative compromise ensures the continued erosion of the basic building block for school budgets, the per-pupil cost.
For the last six budget years, per-pupil budget growth has been above 2 percent only once. Once it was zero, and schools for the coming year are at 1.25 percent. This does not come close to meeting the costs of education at the same level year after year.
Supplemental State Aid (formerly termed “allowable growth) defines the percentage growth in the cost per pupil used to determine local school district budgets, which are based on enrollment. For FY2016, the Legislature and Governor have set the growth figure at 1.25 percent. Though state law requires this figure to be set about 16 months before the start of the fiscal year, the issue was not resolved until last week, when the Governor signed the legislation, and the fiscal year had already begun. The Senate passed 4 percent growth for FY2017 and the House 2 percent, but no compromise emerged and that remains unsettled. The education funding vetoed last week by the Governor affects separate one-time spending that would not have affected future budgets.
One of the real mysteries to many Americans is how our country can turn a blind eye to a plant that has been shown that it could help solve some major problems from agriculture to construction to medicine.
The ban on use of products from cannabis plants is particularly baffling in the medical area. Based on some myths that came into popular lore in the first half of the last century, laws were created that all but banned research on medicinal uses for cannabis in the US. Other countries are throwing off their self imposed shackles of fear and are studying what applications there could be for cannabis derived medicines.
Cannabis derived medicines have been shown to have real promise in helping control seizures in children which can be life saving. This is one place where the Iowa legislature to their pride legalized use of the medication yet to their unending shame refused to legalize ownership of the medicine.
Just a short list of some of the medical conditions that cannabis medications can treat:
stop cancer from spreading
slows the effects of Alzheimer’s
As I said, that is just a short list. A lengthier list with some discussion can be found here. Just the other day a new study was released that that showed that marijuana products rich cannabidiol oil sped up the healing of bone fractures. Imagine what that could mean for older folks who just broke a hip or a leg. In a story in the SFGATE Oscar Pascual summarizes the findings of a study done at Hebrew University in Jerusalem:
“CBD markedly enhanced the biomechanical properties of the healing femora after 8 weeks,” researchers reported.
Researchers also evaluated the administration of both CBD and THC, but did not find it to be more advantageous than CBD by itself.
“CBD alone is sufficiently effective in enhancing fracture healing. … Multiple experimental and clinical trials have portrayed CBD as a safe agent suggesting further studies in humans to assess its usefulness for improving fracture healing,” the study concluded.
CBD-rich cannabis could prove beneficial for bones as well as joints, as patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis are now reportedly using medical marijuana for pain relief.
So once again we appeal to those in congress and in legislatures throughout the country to stop this insane war on the cannabis plant. Let Americans use applications derived from the cannabis plant to enrich our lives through medicines, agricultural (especially needed in mono-cultural Iowa) and industrial uses.
Let me remind you that those who form the biggest lobbies against cannabis tell us quite a story about why it remains illegal and un researched in the US:
the pharmaceutical industry – cannabis may be able to displace billion dollar drugs
the alcohol industry – pretty obvious I would say
the police union
private prison corporations
prison guard unions.
Way beyond time to throw off the shackles of ignorance, Iowa and America.
Eileen Fisher is a Johnson County resident and president of CAFE Iowa CAN, a network of tobacco control advocates whose presence is felt continuously among Iowa legislators.
She recently provided this report on tobacco control legislation during the 2015 session of the General Assembly.
Health and Human Services Budget—SF 505
The bill appropriates funds from the General Fund for the Departments of Aging, Human Services, Public Health, Veterans Affairs and the Iowa Veterans Home. This bill represents a decrease of $19.2 million compared to FY15. The final bill provides the following appropriations and policy provisions of interest to your organization:
- Level funding of $5,248,361 for the Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Division.
- Removal of the earmarks on the funding with the exception of the $453k for enforcement with ABD.
- New language was included which requires the department to determine if those seeking help with cessation services have third-party sources available before providing nicotine replacement products through the program.
Bills that Failed to Pass
Vaping Regulations—HF 306–Position: For
This bill would have redefined alternative nicotine and vapor products as tobacco products, thus making all provisions applicable to tobacco products also applicable to alternative nicotine products and vapor products, including the taxation of tobacco products.
Casino Licenses—SF 139–Position: Monitoring
This bill would have provided for the issuance of a license to conduct gambling games at a gambling structure in which smoking is prohibited. This bill required the racing and gambling commission to establish a process for granting licenses to conduct gambling games at a gambling structure that is subject to the smoking prohibition requirements of Code section 142D.3. Companion bills on this issue include SF24 and HF255.
Casino Smoking Ban—SF 36 –Position: For
This bill would have removed the exception under the Smokefree Air Act that allowed smoking on gaming floors; the bill makes the entirety of these premises subject to the smoking prohibitions of the Act. Companion bills on this issue include HF102 and HF336.
Tobacco Age—SSB 1109 – Monitoring
This legislation would have raised the legal age for use of tobacco, nicotine products and vapor products to 19. The title of the bill was The Keep Tobacco Out of Iowa High Schools Act.
Cigarette Permits & Reports—SSB 1195–Position: For
This bill would have related to the permit fees for distributors, subjobbers, and retailers of tobacco products. Under this bill the fee for permits for cigarette and tobacco product distributors, vendors, and wholesalers would have been raised to $500, up from the current $100.
Note bills that failed to pass in 2015 remain active for the 2016 legislative session. To learn more about CAFE Iowa CAN, click here.
For Immediate Release
July 10, 2015
Contact: Josh Levitt
Important Questions Remain: Will Iowa GOP Condemn Johnson’s Remarks?
Do Iowa GOP leaders support Johnson’s Desire to Privatize Education?
DES MOINES – The Iowa Republican Party hit a new low yesterday as GOP State Senator David Johnson scolded an Iowa teacher to “quit whining” about education funding. Johnson’s comment comes after Republicans in the legislature, including Johnson, spent ample time during the 2015 legislative session fighting to underfund Iowa schools and leave school districts with far fewer resources to support Iowa students.
Democrats fought for months to get proper funding for Iowa Schools. And now we know why Branstad vetoed more than $55 million in K-12 funding, a move that until yesterday defied reason and ran contrary to the priorities of most Iowans. Senator David Johnson made it very clear: Republicans simply don’t care about Iowa teachers or the support they provide for our students.
Johnson’s response was downright shameful, especially for a public official. But instead of apologizing to Iowa teachers for his deplorable remark, Johnson doubled down on his opposition to education funding late yesterday, and, in the process, made clear that his goal is to privatize education.
According to Iowa Starting Line, Johnson sent an email to another Iowa teacher, Ryan Paulson, where he declares,
“True ed reform won’t happen until that $6,000 in state aid is stapled to every student’s backpack and spent at the discretion of the parent(s).”
In the wake of Johnson’s remarks, two important questions remain:
Does the Iowa Republican Party condemn David Johnson for his shameful and insulting remarks yesterday directed towards an Iowa teacher?
Do Republican Party leaders, namely Governor Terry Branstad and Minority Leader Bill Dix, support Johnson’s desire to privatize education?
If Branstad, Dix and the Iowa Republican Party are looking to privatize education in Iowa, perhaps that explains their relentless drive to underfund Iowa schools, even as educators have spoken out, loudly, against the cuts.
See the full roundup below:
Iowa Starting Line
Apparently Senator David Johnson wasn’t finished sending questionable emails on education just yet. In other emails Starting Line obtained from readers and found posted online, Johnson makes clear he doesn’t mind the fallout his tone is causing, saying in one, “I sure hope all these emails are going viral too.” More importantly, however, in one reply he lays out his desire for an ambitious, all-encompassing school voucher/privatization plan that may explain Statehouse Republicans’ actions on education funding.
GOP Senator Tells Teacher to “Quit Whining”About School Funds
Iowa Starting Line
“Good to hear your view,” Johnson began in his response. “But apparently you lack the courage to tell us where you are from and where you teach. BTW, the session extended by the Democrats unnecessarily cost me that same $2,000. My money, not taxpayers’. ” “Quit whining,” the email concluded. “Kind but skeptical regards, David Johnson.”
A state senator from northwest Iowa told a Waterloo teacher to “quit whining” during an email exchange about state funding for public schools.
Senator David Johnson, a Republican from Ocheyedan, replied, saying Gross lacked the courage to reveal where he was from and he told the teacher to “quit whining.” Gross posted the exchange on his Facebook page. “I was suprised by kind of the tone. I didn’t think it was actually him and then…gave him a chance to reply and he said it was him and wasn’t really apologetic about it,” Gross says. “That was pretty shocking.”
editor’s note: Sen. Johnson’s line about ”extended unnecessarily by the Democrats’ indicates that Republicans expected (or knew) Branstad would veto the compromise. They were never bargaining in good faith.
(Editor’s Note: Joe Bolkcom represents Iowa Senate District 43 in the Legislature. The following editorial appeared in the Iowa City Press Citizen, and is reprinted with permission of the author).
When considering the accomplishments of the 2015 session of the Iowa Legislature, it makes sense to be clear about where we started.
In Iowa, Republicans control the governor’s office and the Iowa House. Democrats control the Iowa Senate. That means bipartisan support is required for any idea to pass the legislature.
- Republican opposition, for example, prevented the following common sense ideas from reaching the governor’s desk:
An increase in the minimum wage.
- A crack down on dishonest employers who refuse to pay employees what they are owed.
- An anti-bullying law to give all students a safe and supportive place to learn.
- The elimination of the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse so no Iowa abuser can ever be sure they got away with it.
- Tougher laws against domestic violence and human trafficking.
I again led efforts to bring Iowans responsible, regulated access to medicines made from cannabis. The legislation we wrote is based on the most successful approaches adopted by other states, including Minnesota and Illinois. It was approved with bipartisan support in the Senate, but was blocked from a vote in the House by Republican leaders.
It takes time for even good ideas to become law. The minimum wage hike, the wage theft crackdown, the anti-bullying effort, the tougher laws on domestic abuse and human trafficking, and medical cannabis will all be ready for the House to consider next January.
While I was disappointed those ideas did not become law, I’ve very happy to report that steep, permanent cuts in state support for the University of Iowa were decisively rejected.
I want to thank the many Johnson County residents who spoke up against a misguided proposal from the Iowa Board of Regents.
I’m proud that Democratic state senators and my Johnson County House colleagues, led by Senate Budget Chairman Bob Dvorsky of Coralville, made it clear that so-called “performance based funding” goes nowhere as long as Democrats hold the majority of the Iowa Senate.
Local school funding was the most contentious issue of this session. We need to face the fact that Iowa no longer leads the nation in student achievement.
Other states are investing more and seeing better results. When it comes to per student funding in our K-12 schools, Iowa—the education state—has slipped into the bottom third of the 50 states.
Education is the next generation’s ticket to a better life and is key to building a high-wage, high-skill Iowa economy. That’s why I worked hard this session to get our state’s support for education back on track. Unfortunately, despite hard work from Iowa educators, students and parents, the best that can be said is that a status quo education budget was approved.
It might be enough to prevent Iowa from falling further behind, but it won’t help our young people catch up to students in other states.
The Republican argument that Iowa can’t afford first class schools is ridiculous. Our state’s economy is growing and we have almost $1 billion in savings. And the same House Republicans who voted against education turned around and introduced legislation calling for massive tax giveaways to wealthy Iowans and out-of-state corporations.
What Iowans need to know about this session is that support for public education is now a partisan issue at the Iowa Statehouse. That’s unfortunate, but it is true.
Legislative Democrats support strong local schools and affordable access to community colleges, public universities and private colleges.
Legislative Republicans don’t.
In fact, the Republican majority of the Iowa House was so opposed to responsibly funding Iowa’s local schools that they ignored legal deadlines and caused fiscal uncertainty in hundreds of school districts.
More than 1,100 Iowa teachers were pink-slipped this spring because of Republican intransigence in the Capitol. Republican members of the legislature stubbornly refused to bargain, even to the point of threatening to shut down state government.
Most Iowans, be they Democrats or Republicans, do not share this strange hostility toward public education. That’s why Iowa candidates for office always promise to support local schools.
The 2015 session is when the gap between campaign promises and votes cast in the legislature became a Grand Canyon.
In the coming months, I’ll be working to tell as many Iowans as possible the story of the failure of legislative Republicans to support our local students.
My goal is to help the majority of Iowans who support our schools gain the attention of the Republican members of the Legislature.
If they do, the next session of the Iowa Legislature will be the one that reverses Iowa’s slide with regard to educational leadership.
Contact Joe Bolkcom, D-Iowa City, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
(Editor’s Note: Yesterday, Governor Branstad used his authority to line item veto the bipartisan, bicameral agreement on school funding. Bolkcom, who uses Twitter sparingly, posted twice in reaction to the governor’s veto).
Big spending Branstad hands over hundreds of millions to profitable out of state corps but stiffs our kids education. What’s wrong with him?
— Joe Bolkcom (@JoeBolkcom) July 3, 2015
Gov: Keep short changing our investments in education & we will need a new state motto. Fields of Dummies! or A Land Between 2 Prisons! — Joe Bolkcom (@JoeBolkcom) July 3, 2015
by John Feinblatt
Every four years, the national media looks to Iowa for stories about where American voters stand on pressing issues.
After what happened this spring here in Des Moines, it’s clear where Iowans stand on guns and public safety — and how Iowans made their voices heard is a story that deserves to be told.
It starts in the Statehouse, where the NRA’s lobbyists pushed Senate File 425. The bill set out to overturn a longstanding background check requirement on private handgun sales. In effect, the gun lobby wanted to get rid of a provision that helps ensure guns sold at places like gun shows and via the Internet are subject to the same rules as guns sold at federally licensed dealers.
In quickly advancing the bill to the floor, gun lobby-aligned lawmakers conveniently avoided talking about what the bill would actually do. They went so far as to say that that the bill was focused on “safety improvements.” They also touted the bill’s other provisions, including those that would streamline the law to ease some restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. The lobbyists never mentioned repealing background checks. That makes sense, since 88 percent of Iowans support the background check policy.
In the run-up to the final vote on the Senate floor, I reached out to Republican strategists in Iowa to see whether the NRA could be stopped.
“Not a chance,” longtime political observers told me. “They’re too powerful and once they’ve gotten something on the floor, there’s no way to beat them.”
We’ve heard that line for years. Too often, we’ve taken it for granted. The truth is, there’s only one way to find out if the conventional wisdom is actually accurate: show up and fight back.
And that’s what we did.
The Iowa chapter of Moms Demand Action, part of Everytown for Gun Safety, went to work. Iowa moms made nearly 5,000 phone calls to state senators, explaining what the bill really would do. They held an advocacy day and delivered petitions filled with signatures. They ran informational advertisements in newspapers across the state.
Most important, they talked face to face with their friends and neighbors.
In the end, the so-called experts were wrong. The Legislature never passed the bill, and the “unbeatable” gun lobby saw its top legislative priority in Iowa defeated.
The lesson we should take from Iowa is simple, and bears repeating.
When people know what’s in a bill —when legislators understand the consequences of what they’re voting on — they’ll do the right thing.
Using misleading language to mask a bill’s true purpose may have worked in the past, but it didn’t this time. Once we got away from the horse-trading lobbyists at the Capitol and into cities and towns throughout the state, we saw that the public wanted to keep the background check system in place. Iowans know that keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous felons is just common sense. Like the vast majority of Americans, they believe that Second Amendment rights go hand in hand with basic safety measures.
The defeat of SF 425 is more than just a political victory, though. Iowans will be safer as a result of its defeat. We know this because in nearby Missouri, legislators overturned a background check requirement in 2007 and the results were deadly. Research by the scholar Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, found that after Missouri did the gun lobby’s bidding and gutted its background check system, the state’s gun homicide rate increased by nearly 25 percent. We know, too, that the gun suicide rate in Iowa is 27 percent lower than in states that lack comprehensive background check measures.
Ultimately, the win in Iowa serves as yet another reminder that when you try new approaches and get voters engaged on an issue, powerful interests can be defeated.
When the people go head to head against the gun lobby, the people —and public safety —can prevail.
John Feinblatt is the president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Contact: email@example.com
A bipartisan bill to expand broadband internet access to more homes, schools and businesses was signed into law by Governor Branstad last week. The bill also contains language regarding uniformity for local governments when approving cell tower siting applications.
Communication providers identified the cost of laying fiber optics as one of, if not the, main barrier to expansion of broadband service into rural Iowa. Under House File 641, a provider can apply for and receive a ten-year property tax exemption for the installation of broadband in identified targeted areas. The Legislature also created a Broadband Grant Fund that providers can access for assistance, up to 15% of qualified installation projects.
A targeted service area is one that is defined to an area that doesn’t have a communication service provider that offers or facilitates broadband service at or above 25 megabits per second of download speed and 3 megabits per second of upload speed. The property tax exemption will be for projects that begin on or after July 1, 2015, and will no longer be available for projects beginning July 1, 2020.
Cell Tower Siting
A uniform process was created for the location of new cell towers, modifications of existing cell towers, and collocation of cell towers and the rights and responsibilities of local governments for approval of the towers. The goal of the legislation is find the right balance between how much information must be provided by the cell tower applicant and how much authority a local government can have over these decisions.
Applicants (cell tower companies) will be required to provide an explanation as to why they are asking to build new rather than to collocate with an existing tower. Local governments feel that this information is important to help them in make an unbiased decision. Likewise, local governments must approve an application for a new tower in 150 days, or the application is automatically approved. This gives applicants a definitive timeline to help with their business decisions.
On the Iowa Senate Democrats website:
The Legislature closed out the 2015 session with Senate Democrats opting to end five months of gridlock on school funding. The goal of the compromise is to maintain educational opportunities and boost student achievement.
The final agreement provides an additional $156 million for the 2015-16 school year. The compromise includes a 1.25 percent increase in basic aid for our local schools as well as an extra $56 million in one-time funding for Iowa schools this fall.
The attention now turns to Governor Terry Branstad, who must sign this funding or veto the compromise. A veto would result in larger class sizes, fewer course offerings and extracurricular activities, and higher property taxes. Please contact the Governor, and ask him to sign into law the school funding approved by the Legislature in Senate File 510 and House File 666. You can e-mail him by going to www.governor.iowa.gov/constituent-services/register-an-opinion or call his office at 515-281-5211.
After several lean years, Iowa’s improving economy makes it possible to do more for our students and schools. The state has nearly $1 billion in savings, but as support for our public schools has become divided along party lines, Iowa’s investment has dropped to $1,600 less per student than the national average.
In addition to ensuring our K-12 schools can make ends meet this fall, we also voted this year for:
• Continuing a teacher leadership effort that is bringing the best techniques to more classrooms.
• Affordable tuition, job training and skilled workforce initiatives at our community colleges.
• An increase for our state universities that should allow them to continue their tuition freeze.
• Need-based financial aid to help Iowans attend our private colleges.
As we set our sights on funding for the 2016-17 school year, Senate Democrats will continue to work with parents, teachers, community leaders and students to make the case for investing more in educational opportunities that help Iowans of all ages build a successful future.
Catching up on some old reading I finally got around to reading Peter Fisher’s synopsis of the disastrous Kansas budget over at Iowa Fiscal Partnership.
Justice Louis Brandeis once called states “the laboratories of democracy.” As the major laboratory for crazy right wing anti-tax, anti-government policies Kansas has pretty much proven that their policies don’t work.
Here is the synopsis:
Keeping Ahead of the Kansans
By Iowa Fiscal Partnership
IFP POLICY SNAPSHOT /
Iowa’s Neighbors Show the Folly of Drastic Cuts to State Income Tax
• Big income-tax cuts in Kansas have dramatically reduced funding for schools, health care and other services.
By Peter S. Fisher
As state legislators consider drastic cuts in Iowa’s income tax, they would do well to consider the experience of our neighbor Kansas, which enacted a huge income tax cut in 2012, and cut taxes again in 2013. These cuts have dramatically reduced state funding for schools, health care, and other services.
These Kansas tax cuts were touted as a powerful economic development tool. Businesses and jobs would flock to Kansas, and growth would be so strong that, according to some, state tax revenues would actually increase.
Instead, the state of Kansas has been forced to cut school funding each year since enactment. At a time when the majority of states have increased education funding to make up for cuts during the recession, general state aid in Kansas has continued to fall, and per pupil funding is 15 percent below pre-recession levels, with school closings and increased class sizes the result. Two districts recently announced they will have to end the school year early for lack of funds. The state recently abandoned the school funding formula; aid is no longer tied to enrollment. Most of the state’s reserves have been used up just to keep services afloat, leaving the state with no cushion to soften the effects of the next recession. The state’s bond rating has been lowered.
As for the tax cut being “a shot of adrenaline” for the state’s economy, as the governor predicted, the anticipated job growth did not materialize. Instead, private sector jobs in Kansas have grown by 3.5 percent since the tax cuts took effect, well below the 5.0 percent growth nationally over the same period.
It is instructive to consider as well the experience in Wisconsin, where a large personal income tax cut took effect at the start of 2013, with similar results: subsequent job growth of 3.4 percent, farther below the norm than in Kansas.
None of this should come as a surprise. Most major academic research studies have concluded that individual income tax cuts do not boost state economic growth; in fact, states that cut income taxes the most in the 1990s or in the early 2000s had slower growth in jobs and income than other states. Businesses need an educated workforce, and drastic cuts to education are likely to make it difficult to attract new workers, who care about their children’s schools at least as much as they care about taxes. Nor will income tax cuts help small businesses create jobs. Only a tiny fraction of those paying income taxes own a business, and of those most are not in a position to create more jobs, or can expand employment only if demand for their services increases, regardless of taxes. (footnotes at link)
Just Thursday the Kansas legislature overwhelmingly rejected a new tax plan in the face of huge cutbacks for education and drastic lowering of bond ratings. Early Friday morning there was a reversal, but taxes enacted were just tinkering at the edges. More on that here:
Kansas is hardly alone in this. Presidential hopeful Gov. Scott Walker has turned a similar trick in Wisconsin as noted above.
In Louisiana, the legislature and the presidential hopeful Bobby Jindal are locked in negotiations over how to pay for any services and yet adhere to anti-tax guidelines laid out by Grover Norquist. Yep, legislators turned to Grover Norquist for guidance. Norquist is the unelected self proclaimed anti-tax guru.
We are watching these states and others with Republican governors and legislatures circle the drain of state insolvency while they turn their states into little pits of hell on earth for their citizens. Iowa is but one senator from joining the combination of Republican dominated legislature plus a Republican governor that seems to be the formula for disaster. Thus, while the presidential election gets the press, the local races are extremely important.
While stories abound of states cutting budgets and strangling themselves, Minnesota and California have both shown that fairer taxation and public spending for common good programs can have a great effect on improving the economy. From an analysis of Minnesota’s economy:
Minnesota is one of the top-ten best economies in the country; it is also a high-tax and high-spending economy.
“For so long, the accepted formula is that in order to have a healthy state economy, you have to have low taxes, low spending, and right-to-work laws,” Haglund says. “Minnesota actually has turned all of that on its head.”