The Des Moines Register. Jan. 16, 2012.
Legislators need to look at their benefits
There's another issue that needs to be on the Iowa Legislature's "To do" list for 2012: cleaning up inequities in lawmakers' pay and benefits.
The Legislature needs to engage in comprehensive self-reform to provide for proper taxation of members' compensation, to provide fairness to the taxpayers and to ensure transparency.
House and Senate Republican leaders said recently that lawmakers should help pay the cost of their health insurance. "We think we should be contributing more to our monthly premium," House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, told The Des Moines Register editorial board.
More? He and the majority of lawmakers don't contribute anything in monthly premiums for their insurance.
Lawmakers are offered free health insurance for their families. The Register could not find another state that provides such a generous health benefit to its part-time lawmakers.
While our elected officials talk about paying perhaps $100 a month for their insurance, some states require lawmakers to pay the entire cost of coverage. If our lawmakers — who typically are in session about four months a year — want to enroll in a state health insurance plan, fine. But why should Iowans pay as much as $18,000 per lawmaker, per year, for that coverage?
They shouldn't.
The idea of them paying toward their insurance premiums is one of a number of changes that need to be made this year in lawmakers' pay and benefits. Last year, a Register investigation found questionable compensation and benefits for our lawmakers.
In addition to salaries ranging from $25,000 for rank-and-file members to $37,500 for key leaders, lawmakers receive a "per diem" of $100 or $134 per day during the session, depending on where they live. This is supposed to cover their expenses, although they don't have to document any expenses to receive the money, which can add up to $13,400 in a 100-day session.
The money is not subject to income tax the way salary is, yet because of a quirk enacted by the Legislature, it counts as income to inflate their state retirement pensions. They also receive a $300 per month for 12 months as a "constituent allowance." They are not required to account for how that money is spent either.
Then there are the benefits.
As of September, 133 of 150 lawmakers were signed up for state health insurance. Of those, 83 chose a plan with no monthly premium. That coverage is much more generous (lower co-payments and deductibles) than average Iowans working in the private sector have. In addition, taxpayers pick up much of the cost for dental, life and disability insurance.
After all that, when state lawmakers leave office they are eligible for a state pension. Unlike the vast majority of former state workers, they have the option of paying the full cost to enroll in their state health insurance plans for the rest of their lives. That means they don't have to find insurance on their own or risk being denied coverage by a private insurer because they or family members have a pre-existing health problem — a problem many Iowans encounter when they leave a job or are fired.
Rather than kicking in a few dollars to cover their health insurance, lawmakers should draft legislation to overhaul their entire compensation.
Pay should be taxed. If lawmakers want to be compensated for specific expenses, they should be required to turn in receipts and documentation the way other state employee do.
While our elected officials talk this year about ways to rein in government spending and make the best use of tax money, they should start by looking in the mirror.
___
Sioux City Journal. Jan. 17, 2012.
Compromise on gas tax appears within reach
Compromise on an increase in Iowa's gas tax appears to be within easy reach during this legislative session.
Bipartisan support exists within the Legislature for a plan under which the tax would be increased over two years, beginning in 2013. In a recent editorial board meeting with the Journal, Gov. Terry Branstad signaled he would support an increase in the tax if the Department of Transportation first identifies tens of millions of dollars in savings he wants, if the tax is phased in over more than one year and if the increase doesn't begin until the middle of next year.
Rep. David Tjepkes, R-Gowrie, and Sen. Tim Rielly, D-Oskaloosa, the chairmen of the House and Senate Transportation Committees, respectively, have proposed a plan under which the tax would be hiked by four cents in 2013 and by another four cents in 2014. When fully implemented, the plan would produce an additional $180 million a year for the road use tax fund. The plan is close to the 10-cent increase recommended in October by the Governor's 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission.
We urge its passage.
No one can reasonably dispute the transportation infrastructure challenges we face in our state. According to the Department of Transportation, the annual deficit between road and bridge needs and the revenue available to meet them is almost $1.5 billion; for critical needs, more than $200 million.
In our view, the economy in Iowa has improved enough to make an increase palatable. The fact the Iowa gas tax has not been raised since 1989, the fact Iowa's gas tax ranks in the bottom third among states, the fact our unmet transportation needs are large and growing and the fact the burden of this tax is borne by visitors to Iowa as well as residents strengthen arguments for an increase.
If the state wishes to properly meet its fundamental obligation to provide safe roads and bridges and adequately meet the need for a modern transportation infrastructure system crucial to future economic success, then it must stop putting off this discussion.
A reasonable, effective gas tax proposal — one we believe Iowans will support and Branstad will sign — is on the table. Republicans and Democrats in both chambers should get behind it.
___
Globe Gazette, Mason City. Jan. 17, 2012.
Chief justice makes good case for more court system funding
Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady got legislators' attention recently when he described court system problems related to lack of funding.
Now, the judicial ball is in the Legislature's court, where it seems there's plenty of sympathy and understanding, but where funding prospects are uncertain.
We believe some funding increase is necessary, whether or not it's the full $10 million Cady asked for in his State of the Judiciary speech to the Legislature.
Cady told lawmakers the system is stretched to the limit, and has said that layoffs are the only alternative to increased funding.
He said the court system has a smaller workforce than it had 24 years ago and is dealing with a much bigger workload.
"During this 24-year period, the number of cases filed with our courts, excluding simple misdemeanors and traffic violations, has increased 50 percent," he said. "During this same time, the Code of Iowa has increased in size by 79 percent."
Several other factors play into the request for additional funding.
Certainly one is inconvenience to Iowans, especially in rural areas where they have to drive longer distances for court services and judges have to drive to provide them, thus increasing costs.
Another is the money the court system brings in. The current judicial budget is $154 million (about 2.5 percent of the state budget), Cady said.
"At the same time, we bring in about $146 million each year through fines, fees and the like," he said.
In a state searching for more operating money, it seems increased judicial services would be one source.
Then there is one factor many people may not consider. Cady said studies by the World Bank and U.S. Chamber of Commerce say a strong, independent judiciary can be a "catalyst" for economic growth because companies locate in places governed by the rule of law.
Cady said the $10 million he's seeking would allow staffing clerk of court offices full-time statewide, increase the number of employees in the general judicial workforce by 42 and expedite the installation of electronic filings.
Lawmakers said Cady made valid points, and we agree.
Sen. Tom Hancock, D-Epworth, chairman of the Senate Justice Systems Appropriations Committee, said there's no question the judicial branch lacks adequate funding.
House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, R-Garner, said Cady built an argument for a funding increase.
But lawmakers made no promises as budget targets still are being formulated.
"We need to look at the data ...," Upmeyer said, "and we'll see what we can do."
At this point, that's all that can be expected.
But it's clear that the judicial system needs more money. We trust lawmakers will come through so Iowans can be better-served.
___
Ames Tribune. Jan. 15, 2012.
An idea whose time has not come
In his Condition of the State speech, Gov. Terry Branstad said something a little unusual. It was said almost in passing, and might have been easy to miss, but it calls for some scrutiny.
Branstad was talking about lowering commercial and industrial property taxes, a good idea that has bipartisan support at the Statehouse and certainly widespread support in the business community. Commercial and industrial property is taxed at its full market value, compared with residential, for example, that is taxed at about half market value. Even though taxes are not first on the list of reasons that a company might want to locate here, they are a factor, and existing businesses could use some relief.
The problem with reducing property taxes is that it affects local government revenue — cities and counties — and unless we want to live with drastically reduced local services like police and fire protection and street maintenance, the lost revenue has to be made up somehow. One way would be to raise residential property taxes. Ames estimated during last year's discussion of this issue that the city would have to raise residential property taxes 21 percent to make up the difference.
Obviously, not a good solution.
So, this time around, the governor said, "In addition, our plan prevents a shift to other classes of property by limiting local government spending and by cutting in half the annual growth limit for residential and agricultural property."
By limiting local government spending. That's the unusual, and troubling, statement.
Unusual, because the governor, a conservative Republican, is proposing to dictate from the central state government how much cities and counties can spend. The state already sets taxation growth limits; setting actual spending limits usurps another piece of local control.
Local control of government is a foundational tenet of conservatism. The belief is that the closer decisions are made to the people being governed, the better. At the federal level, it's the argument behind state's rights. It's what fuels fights over textbooks and curriculum in public schools.
How does the state's dictating how much money local governments can spend further the cause of local control? It doesn't. It is not a "conservative" idea.
And the idea is troubling, first, because we believe that the voters of a city or county should decide, through their elected representatives, how their public money is allocated and how much is spent. As politicians so often say, it is their money.
Second, wresting control of spending away from local government appears to be part of a trend that is playing out with highly questionable results in other states. In Michigan, for example, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder expanded the reach of his state's fiscal-manager law last year, to the point where a fiscal manager can be dispatched to a financially troubled city and suspend the decision-making power of the elected city government, in effect stripping the voters of the right to choose their own representatives. The law is being challenged as unconstitutional.
We're not suggesting that Branstad has anything as draconian as this up his sleeve. But why start down this path at all?
It is true that the revenue lost from reducing commercial and industrial property taxes will need to be made up somewhere. If lowering property taxes has the desired effect on business growth, then increased tax revenues at the state level should be used to fill in the gap at the local level.
There should be no need for the state to muscle into local government spending decisions.
