Caucus Newsletter July 23, 2010

Included in this edition:

• True state employee numbers
• Iowa Edges Toward National Education Standards
• K2 Banned

“I want to make it clear that while Director Leopold agrees that some programs need to be reviewed, it does not give him the authority to ignore the laws that are currently on the books,” said Paulsen. “It is his job to carry out the law as enacted.”

In August of 2009, House Republicans joined with Senate Republicans and the Republican Party of Iowa to craft a list of priorities for the state. In their “Real Solutions for Iowa’s Families” plan, Republicans suggested a sunset of every state program. This proposal is a systematic process wherein every program funded by state government will be sunset (de-authorized) by a predetermined date unless the legislature proactively decides to reauthorize that program. This review forces a decision to keep, repeal or change each program paid for by taxpayers.

“During these tough economic times, Iowa families have been forced to examine every aspect of their spending, every priority,” said Paulsen. “Unfortunately this same discussion rarely occurs within state government but it’s a conversation we need to have.”

During the 2010 session, Republicans put forth House File 2119, a bill which followed through on their plan to sunset government programs. Unfortunately, Democrats killed this bill in the State Government committee.

“Over the last four years, state government has exploded. It is bloated and expensive and a drain on Iowa taxpayers, even the DNR director agrees,” said Paulsen. “Iowa Republicans will streamline state spending and programs in a way that protects taxpayers from out of control spending, yet delivers the services they expect.”

To view the full Real Solutions for Iowa’s Families plan here: http://www.iowahouserepublicans.com/realsolutions

Caucus Newsletter July 9, 2010

Included in this edition:

• Revenue Exceeds REC Estimate
• LIHEAP Fraud
• K2 in Iowa

Autonomy of the Elder Affairs Commission – The flashpoint to the controversy was a citizen board actually exercising its authority and thinking independently. The resistance to the Elder Affairs Commission’s efforts to do its job was certainly not a position taken without input from the Governor’s office. This is clear from the Commissioners’ own comments, who tried to get support from the Governor but instead ran into a stone wall.

Will this position change with a new director? If there is a person in the current administration who can bring diverse groups together, it is former representative Ro Foege. But he serves at the pleasure of Governor Culver. And it is pretty clear from what transpired between the Commission and McCalley that the governor’s office wanted no part of an independent thinking board. Will they change their tune?

Long-Term Care Ombudsman’s Office – Central to much of the dispute was the long-term care ombudsman’s office. This federally-mandated organization is supposed to serve as an independent voice advocating for the needs of seniors in facility-based settings.

In previous years, the ombudsman had played an active role in legislative discussions on bill of interest. But since Chet Culver became governor, there has been little involvement from the ombudsman. After the recent revelations in the Des Moines Register, we now know why that happened.

The Governor’s decision to move the ombudsman’s office out of the Department on Aging was hailed by some as a wise, prudent step to ensure its autonomy. But Culver moved it to an agency under which he has even greater control – the Department of Administrative Services. Will the ombudsman have total autonomy, which federal law requires. Or will Culver and his staff continue to impose controls on what the Ombudsman says?

Death of the Senior Living Fund – Fiscal Year 2011 will the final year of the Senior Living Trust Fund, as Governor Culver and the Democrat majority in the Legislature decided to empty out the account in order to balance the budget. This means that two-thirds of the state funding for the Department will not be available in 2012. How does the Department handle this impending shortfall will be a major issue this fall.

Even though Congress failed to generate the support for a national drink tax to help finance government controlled healthcare, states like Rhode Island are moving forward with similar proposals. Legislators in the Ocean State are currently debating whether or not to levy a five cent tax on soft drinks, 10 cents on each product larger than 20 ounces. Other states and cities want to go further. The mayor of Philadelphia has suggested taxing at a rate of two penny’s per ounce, resulting in consumers getting pinched for an extra $2.88 when they buy a 12-pack of Coca-Cola.

Proponents of the tax claim charging more for sugary drinks will achieve lower obesity and diabetes rates. And, politicians are using that argument to cloak their real motive, which is to raise more money to spend on big government programs. Several independent studies have concluded that a beverage tax will do little to nothing to change consumer behavior to the point it will begin reducing obesity rates. However, what taxing soda will do is increase grocery bills, further weakening the economy and exacerbating unemployment.

Soda manufactures believe it will have a negative impact on their sales, which could force manufacturing and distributing plants to shed jobs. Grocery stores and other retailers predict their businesses will suffer as well. They believe thrifty shoppers, especially those living close to the borders, will take their business into states that do not impose similar taxes. That also means less sales tax revenue for the states. Moreover, those who are likely to change their purchasing habits are those who make less money, meaning a tax on soda will hit the low and middle class the hardest.

A broad coalition representing the food, beverage, hospitality, grocery and convenience store industries are fighting against these proposals as they pop up in each state. They have a clear and commonsense message for lawmakers: now is not time to be raising the price of groceries and it is not the time to pass policies that hurt small businesses.

Here is what’s being left out the preschool discussion:

1. A glossy handout talks about $64 million cost in FY11. Little attention is being paid to the nearly $100 million final price tag as estimated by Iowa’s nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency.
2. Culver’s preschool law allows school districts to use K-12 property tax levies to also fund preschool so the cost may be much higher than $100 million.
3. Culver’s preschool law is written such that any across the board cut means taxpayers could be called on to fund the lost state dollars.
4. Culver’s preschool law doesn’t let private preschools lead the way. The only way local private preschools can access the $100 million is to be government run. The private preschool must meet state accreditation standards and can only use school district-employed teachers.
5. Culver’s preschool isn’t “free” for parents. The $100 million means Iowa school districts get $3,500 per 4 –year old. That pays for the accreditation and the state law minimum of 10 hours of instruction each week. Parents still pay for the rest of the day.
6. Democrats reversed themselves on a $5 million plan to give Iowa businesses a matching grant if the business sponsored an on-site preschool or day care. The money went to fund more government run preschool.

Long before Culver took office House Republicans championed preschool in a bipartisan manner focused on parent choice, not government directives.

In 2005 and 2006 House Republicans and an evenly split Senate invested in a broad range of iowa’s already successful early childhood programs with the goal of improving choice, quality and access. This effort was designed to leave more money in parents’ pocketbooks with less government intervention.

House Republicans increased preschool tuition funding and eligibility for child care tax credit so parents kept the ability to decide whether their four-year old went to a public or private preschool.

House Republicans expanded parent education that focused on local decision making, not government dictates. And finally, House Republicans funded quality professional development for preschool providers and expanded quality improvement grants for local providers.

Bottom line, House Republicans offered a variety of quality preschool options for about one-third the cost.

Quality preschool is essential to Iowa’s educational and economic development success. But spending $100 million plus may not be the best bargain out there.

Caucus Newsletter June 11, 2010

Included in this edition:

• Government run preschool fact check
• Safe Saturday’s Program
• Soda Tax?

These fees cover only the consideration of whether a particular document must legally be disclosed. Those requesting the documents could still incur charges for photocopying or retrieval of records. In addition to appropriateness of high fees, Culver and Miller continue to take the stance that documents considered to be “drafts” or “works in progress” (sometimes including emails) can be withheld.

Recent examples of roadblocks for information seekers include Culver’s emails about a death at a state hospital, records about the film tax credit scandal, and evidence of the state’s role in the Atalissa situation.

Additionally, the Des Moines Register recently requested six weeks worth of emails between the Executive Director of the Department on Aging and the agency’s lobbyist. The Register was told it would cost them $744 for just the examination of the records and consideration of disclosure.

The Register eventually obtained these emails from a source other than the governor’s office. The Register has since been critical of the lack of autonomy of Iowa Long-Term Care Ombudsman Jeanne Yordi. Emails obtained by the Register evidence that the Department on Aging Director John McCalley and Governor Culver dictated the ombudsmen offices’ public policy opinion on state and federal legislation. This is in direct conflict with federal law that requires Yordi to be an independent advocate for the elder population of Iowa. Sometimes the best interest of the elderly may conflict with the opinions of the Department of Aging and Governor Culver.

Iowa’s Public Records Law is contained in Chapter 22 of the Iowa Code. Specifically, Iowa Code sec. 22.3 provides that the cost imposed for providing a copy of an open record “shall not exceed the cost of providing the service.” This section also allows state agencies to charge “all expenses of the work” and that may include a “reasonable fee” for supervision.

The audit is known as the Sex offender Tracking and Registration effort (STAR), and represents a joint project between federal Marshals and local law enforcement to perform a 100% compliance check to ensure that sex offenders are providing accurate information to the State’s registry. The audit in Iowa was the first STAR operation in the nation.

Overall, authorities checked in with 1,745 registered sex offenders. Of those, 155 were found to have provided a false address. Having an over 90% registration rate is encouraging and may be reflective of recent efforts to implement changes to registration requirements by 2009 legislation. The goal remains to achieve 100% compliance.

The comprehensive sweep through the Northern half of the state should send a strong message to all registered sex offenders. Law enforcement is serious about the requirements placed upon sex offenders and the interest isn’t just from local officials. The support of U.S. Marshals is a clear indication that increasingly standardized regulations across the country will be enforced.

According to information provided at a May 10 press conference with Tim Junker, Northern District U.S. Marshal, charges have already been filed against 63 of the 155 sex offenders found out of compliance. That situation is still developing. While Federal charges will be pursued where a sex offenders has crossed state lines and failed to register, many of the violators are going to face the stiff penalties contained in SF 340 from the 2009 Legislature.

For a sex offender found to be in violation of the law they face an aggravated misdemeanor for the first offense and a class “D” felony for second or subsequent offenses. The new law in Iowa does not allow for the suspension of any fine imposed against a sex offender or for a deferred or suspended sentence.

While the STAR effort was aimed at verifying addresses, it also gave authorities an opportunity to observe if other requirements of the law were being followed. This means a number of offenders will likely face additional charges. According to Tim Junker, this effort should send a message to sex offenders and they should understand that the Marshals are likely to do this again.

According to the LSA report, the Legislature increased the number of authorized FTE positions from an actual 52,273 in FY 2009 to an estimated 52,907 in FY 2010. That is an increase of 633.84 positions. This occurred despite the Governor’s 10 percent across the board budget reduction.

That the number of FTE positions increased by over 600 after the 10 percent ATB cut shows one just how much Democrats increased the size of the budget prior to the cut.

During the 2010 session, Democrats boasted the “largest reorganization and downsizing of state government in over 25 years”. However, according to the LSA report, they authorized an additional 194.96 FTE positions. That is not downsizing of state government but quite the opposite.

The report outlines that despite the revenue downturn and overspending that created the budget deficits of the past two fiscal years, Democrats still managed to grow state government by 828.8 FTE positions.

To view the entire tracking document, click here:

The LSA report is further proof that the Democrats did not really cut the budget or reduce the size of state government but rather used other funds to increase the budget and add new FTE positions.

House Republicans believe that a real downsizing of state government is needed to reign in the cost of government and giving the taxpayers their moneys worth.

Source: (LSA FTE Final Tracking)