A number of Iowa sheriffs have continued to raise questions about changes they opposed in SF 2379 with an apparent intention of having changes made next year. For many, sheriffs were the reason changes to our gun permitting laws were needed. Under current law, sheriffs have complete discretion as to whether they will issue a permit and how they will issue it.

This meant that some sheriffs completely refused to issue gun permits. If you lived in “their” county, you did not enjoy the same constitutional rights as someone in another county. Other sheriffs issued permits but placed odd and crippling restrictions upon them. Some examples include permits limited to only be valid when carrying a certain amount of cash or not valid within the limits of incorporated areas.

The bill that was passed this year, by overwhelming majorities, addressed these issues by joining many fellow states in embracing the Second Amendment with “shall issue” gun permits. That means that as long as you meet the State’s qualifications, a sheriff shall issue you a permit. This removes authority from the sheriffs and not surprisingly has been met with opposition from a number of them and those lobbying on their behalf.

Recently a number of sheriffs have raised concerns over various changes set to take effect at the beginning of next year. One concern raised is that the law will somehow lead to people hunting from their vehicles. While it is true that a permit holder can have a loaded weapon in their vehicle, it remains against the law to fire a weapon on or over highways and public roadways (Iowa Code Chapter 481A.54).

Another concern raised is that sheriffs will not be aware if someone is arrested for a crime that would invalidate a permit. It is contended that the current annual permit allows for more assurance that violators will be caught rather than only catching them at the new five year renewal. However, SF 2379 recognizes this by allowing sheriffs to perform annual criminal history checks on permits holders to maintain the current level of oversight.

The largest point of contention however seems to be the training requirements for qualification. Training is something that was exclusively offered by county sheriffs. However, the new law will open opportunities to obtain qualified instruction from others. As with current law, there are not a set of statewide standards related to the content of firearms safety training.

Much like current law, SF 2379 allows those who are best equipped in the area of firearm safety to determine the necessary content of their programs. Many will likely seek training from certified instructors of the National Rifle Association, a group who has long advocated for safety training and offered courses nationwide.

Also centered around the qualification process, some have complained that the law does not require an applicant to participate in a range test. However, the Legislature has not previously placed such a requirement upon applicants and chose not to add it in this revised law.

With such a large change to how Iowa handles the issuance of permits and the carrying of weapons, it is fair to expect that refinements to the law may be needed. While some of the issues highlighted above may not be areas all agree need addressed, there very well may be some areas where adjustments could be made. For this reason, it is important to continue to evaluate our practices and engage on the issue.

An email from the Iowa Department of Education was sent out shortly after enactment detailing the main points of the bill.

• The funding must be used for K-12 teacher salaries, benefits, and other expenses such as support services to retain existing employees, rehire positions or create new positions.
• This funding cannot be used for administrative expenses.
• The funding will be distributed using weighted enrollment from the state aid formula. Fund distributions will follow the regular state aid payment cycle.
• All funding will be distributed to K-12 school districts in state FY11.
• This funding is for K-12 school districts only, per the federal statute.

Since that initial email additional details have been figured out and provided.

Ed Jobs authorizes school districts to use Ed Jobs funds for compensation and benefits and other expenses, such as support services, necessary to retain existing employees, to recall or rehire former employees, and to hire new employees, in order to provide early childhood, elementary, or secondary educational and related services at the school building level. They may use the funds to pay the salaries of teachers and other employees who provide building-level educational and related services.

The Iowa Dept of Ed plans to capture 0.2% of the money for administrative costs, with the remaining portion being distributed to school districts. The distributed portion of the money will be dispersed in FY11, with the intent being to begin distribution in the September if the money is available by then. The Department of Ed will use the state aid formula to calculate the amount each district will receive. Those amounts can be found on their website.

This additional amount of money means school districts will receive four state aid distributions on the state aid payment schedule:

1. regular state aid,
2. ARRA SFSF Education Fund distribution;
3. ARRA SFSF Government Services Fund distribution, and
4. Education Jobs distribution.

For assurance, reporting requirements in the bill are that states using the Ed Jobs money must apply all ARRA reporting and accountability provisions to the use and distribution of Ed Jobs funds. Reporting is required quarterly starting in September (or December if funding starts later) and school districts will use current state ARRA reporting system. Included in the reports will be data on jobs created, jobs saved, uses of funds, and amount of funds expended. School districts must maintain records that separately track and account for Ed Jobs funds.

The funds are available for obligations that occur as of August 10, 2010 and must be spent by September 30, 2012.

Additional details can be found on the Iowa Dept of Ed’s website.

…according to the I-Jobs web site, only…37.6 percent, was used for flood recovery…

In defending his massive borrowing program known as I-Jobs, the Governor has shifted the purpose of the program from creating jobs to flood recovery and prevention.

The Governor has responded to Republican criticism of I-Jobs by asking how we would propose paying for flood recovery and prevention, suggesting that the only way to fund it was to borrow $810 million.

Here is a breakdown of the bonding contained in three bills that established I-Jobs:

• Senate File 376 (I-Jobs) – Borrowed $545 million, cost of repayment is $1.202 billion
• Senate File 474 (Regents) – Borrowed $115 million, cost of repayment is $252 million
• Senate File 477 (State Infrastructure) – Borrowed $105 million (later increased to $150 million) – cost of repayment is $213 million (the repayment number remained the same)

The total amount borrowed is $810 million and will cost $1.667 billion to repay over the next 23 years. In addition, they provided $65 million in cash for local roads and bridges for a total of $875 million for the program. However, the $65 million is not required to be repaid.

The Governor claims that this amount was needed to pay for flood recovery. However, according to the I-Jobs web site, only $328.6 million out of the $875 million, or 37.6 percent, was used for flood recovery and prevention. If you include the cost of borrowing the money, the percentage drops to 19.6 percent.

In addition, according to Legislative Services Agency (LSA), the Democrats have used notwithstanding language to raid the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF) over the past four years. In the past three years alone the Democrats have shifted over $450 million out of the RIIF to use for general fund purposes. That would have been more than enough money to cover the costs of flood recovery.

Democrats usually answer that fact by explaining that had they not shifted money out of the RIIF to pay for non-RIIF expenditures, they would have had to cut those expenditures out of the budget. Naturally this leads to the questions – how and where do Republicans plan to cut? It just so happens that over that last two sessions, Republicans in the Iowa House have proposed nearly $500 million in budget reductions.

So the answer to the question “How would Republicans pay for flood recovery” is that Republicans would not have raided $450 million out of the RIIF and used pay-as-you-go budgeting to fund flood recovery. To suggest that this is not possible just means that the Governor and the Democrats are unable to make any choices regarding spending and are unable to prioritize in order to fund the important items like flood recovery.

Caucus Newsletter August 27, 2010

Included in this edition:

• I-Jobs for Flood Recovery Myth
• $96 Million From Feds for Education Jobs
• Sheriffs Fight Shall Issue

Of the $26 billion provided in the bill, $16 billion is designated to extend the increased federal Medicaid matching rate to states through December 2010. Iowa’s portion of that is estimated to be $83 million. The remaining $10 billion is earmarked to supplement teacher salaries. According to several estimates, Iowa will receive approximately $96 million to be spent solely on employee salaries. The money cannot be used for any other purpose, meaning states are not permitted to scale back current budgets and use the funding as a replacement. This means that Iowa will now be facing an even larger budget gap going into FY12 as the state continues the irresponsible practice of relying on one-time federal stimulus dollars to finance ongoing expenses.

Unlike past bailouts and stimulus bills approved by Congress that have saddled Americans with debt, this legislation seeks to offset the $26 billion in spending, in part, by imposing a $9.7 billion tax increase on U.S. employers that do business overseas. When a U.S. company generates income in a foreign country, they are issued a tax credit against U.S. taxes on that income generated abroad equal to the amount of income tax they paid to that county. The new provisions included in H.R. 1586 significantly limits how American firms use these tax credits.

The new law suspends the recognition of foreign tax credits until the related foreign income is taken into account for taxing purposes in the U.S, and prohibits taxpayers from claiming the tax credit as it relates to foreign income that is never subject to U.S. taxation because of a covered asset acquisition. The new changes will increase taxes on Iowa employers like IBM, John Deere and Rockwell Collins. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) believes many U.S. manufacturing jobs could be in jeopardy as these changes will put American employers at a disadvantage when competing in foreign markets.

U.S. employers are not the only ones being punished by the bill. Recipient of food stamps will see their assistance reduced as the bill seeks to offset nearly $12 billion in new spending by reducing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (also known as food stamps). Food stamp advocacy groups in Washington fought hard against raiding $12 billion from the program, but at the end of day Speaker Pelosi and the majority party put priority on providing financial assistance to the teachers unions over hungry low income families.

While the U.S. economy continues to battle against 10% unemployment and struggle through the recession, Washington is approving policies that only exacerbate the current economic problems. Increasing taxes on U.S. employers takes money away from them that would otherwise be invested back into the company to grow their operations and hire new people.

As in 2008, the DNR created a one-stop website for flood information. The website includes a guide to disposing of flood debris and dealing with flood impacts in ag and rural areas, precautions around asbestos and other timely information. Log on to www.iowadnr.gov/flood.html for information that can help in flood recovery efforts.

For example, homeowners need to separate different kinds of materials as they clean up after the flood. Hazardous materials, appliances and electronic goods should be placed in separate piles when they are put on the curb or the waste hauler may not pick up anything. Guidelines for people who draw their drinking water from a private well are also available. If the well is in a flooded area, the water should be tested to make sure it’s safe. Most important, people should avoid contact with flooded rivers, especially in the Maquoketa River where the major wastewater treatment plants have been affected. Checking recent DNR press releases will provide updated information on parks, campground availability and boating conditions. The information, as well as contact information for local DNR offices, can be found through the DNR’s home page at www.iowadnr.gov.

“I appreciate Gov. Culver’s willingness to admit mistakes, we’ve all made some,” said House Republican Leader Kraig Paulsen (R-Hiawatha). “But he’s yet to acknowledge one of his biggest mistakes, increasing Iowans property taxes.”

Paulsen notes that the governor knowingly spent too much money in fiscal year 2010 which lead him to recklessly make a 10 percent across the board cut. Due to that mistake, property taxpayers were forced to pick up the tab to the tune of a $526.9 million increase.

Adding to his mistakes, state spending has increased by $1 billion (nearly a 20% increase) since Gov. Culver took office. Additionally, for the next fiscal year, he has committed Iowans to $1.1 billion in spending without the ongoing revenue needed to fund it. Together, these fiscal mistakes add up to one costly problem for Iowans.

“I look forward to Gov. Culver acknowledging his fiscal mistakes and joining with House Republicans on our plan to put the taxpayer first, rein in government spending and cut out waste in government,” said Paulsen.

According to the analysis, federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row which has resulted in a doubling of the compensation gap.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.

Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4 percent across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes. Republicans in Congress want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.

While the disparity is not as large in Iowa, there is still a significant difference in the pay for private sector employees versus government sector employees.

Through calendar year 2009, private sector employees earned $98.7 billion in wages, or $35,877 per capita. Government employees earned $11.9 billion, or $46,091 per capita. That’s a difference of $10,214, or 28.5 percent above private sector compensation.

This is evidence that something must be done to limit the growth of government employee salary and benefit packages. In the past two years, House Republicans have proposed reducing state employee salaries temporarily (using the progressive “Principal Plan”) and asking state employees to contribute at least as much as those who qualify for HAWK-I have to pay for their insurance plans.

Caucus Newsletter August 13, 2010

Included in this edition:

• Public Sector Wages Rise
• DNR has Flood Info Available
• More Bailout Cash from the Feds

Gov. Culver has a history of making big commitments for education funding while in the end, not fulfilling those commitments and instead pushing the payment on to the backs of the property taxpayers. For instance, in fiscal year 2010, Culver ended up underfunding education by $270 million, which fell on property taxes. In fiscal year 2011, he underfunded by $170 million, which also fell on property taxes.

“Gov. Culver has already committed over $1 billion in new spending and now he’s adding another $120 million. Once again, this governor proves he’s committed to bloated budgets and out of control spending at the expense of the property taxpayer,” said House Republican Leader Kraig Paulsen (R-Hiawatha). “Balancing the budget is not good enough if it’s on the backs of the taxpayers.”

Due to changes made last session, allowable growth funding for 2012 will set by the Legislature in January.