A new feature here at the Real Sporer will be the regular and unedited posting of some of our legislators' public communications. Thanks to Krusty for the idea. Christopher Rants, our Minority Leader, is generating a good discussion with his weekly posts over at Krusty. We can never get too much conversation about the Republican agenda, that's for sure, so here's our contribution to the public debate.
In any event, it would only seem appropriate to commence with Sen. Mary Lundby's (Republican minority leader) most recent public statement. Let me know your thoughts.
In any event, it would only seem appropriate to commence with Sen. Mary Lundby's (Republican minority leader) most recent public statement. Let me know your thoughts.
Balancing the Budget with a Future Taxpayer Tsunami
By: Mary Lundby
As a general rule, Iowa state budget revenues are obtained from a system of taxes, fees and penalties -- creative money collecting schemes that force good citizens to pony up the cash for any and all services state government provides.
In a nod to the potential for kid-in-a-candy-store spending habits of some politicians, past Iowa General Assemblies have created policies that place limits on the amount of revenue the state can spend. One tool Iowa legislators use to set limits for the state budget is to rely on a small group of experts to predict state revenue.
The Revenue Estimating Conference (REC) predicts the growth in revenues received by the state. The Iowa Code requires both the Governor and the Legislature to base all of their budgeting decisions on the predictions the REC makes in December prior to the start of the legislative session. However, last year the evenly split Legislature ‘not withstood’ (legislative speak for we’re going to ignore our own rules) this provision of law and based their budget for FY 2007 on the REC estimate established in April 2006.
This year, the REC – Dennis Prouty, director of the Legislative Services Agency, Charles Krogmeier, Gov. Culver’s director of the Department of Management and David Underwood, chief fiscal officer of the Assa Abloy Door Group, LLC – met on Good Friday to set their revenue predictions for the end of the FY07 budget year and the FY08 budget year.
If Senate Democrats were hoping for an inspired fiscal miracle, courtesy of Friday’s REC meeting, they’re probably a little disappointed.
The REC experts sided with caution and are predicting a slowdown in Iowa’s economy that will impact state revenues. The REC did predict $180.1 million in new dollars going forward, but almost all of that revenue is from the new tobacco tax, which we all know is supposed to be dedicated to health care, that leaves very little growth from other revenue sources. The REC estimated on Friday that revenues, inclusive of the tobacco tax and other pending revenue enhancement policies such as a tax amnesty, will generate a little over 4% in new state budget money for next year.
The miracle Senate Democrats were hoping for is a REC prediction that would have helped them fund their budget promises, but that didn’t happen. The Senate Democrats’ appropriation bills are moving out of the Senate with state government spending growth rates approaching 10%. The connection between a REC prediction of 4% revenue growth and a budget that spends an additional 10% of future revenues suggests that Senate Democrats’ budget is not going to balance at some point in the near future.
You may be thinking, “So what? We can deficit spend like the Federal Government.” If only Iowa had the option of managing a state budget with IOUs to some cartel of foreign investors, the reality – Iowa is constitutionally bound to balance our budget every year and leave at least one percent of state revenue in reserve to cover future budget deficits.
In light of a REC predicted economic slowdown, the Senate Democrats’ reckless spending spree is setting the state of Iowa up for a tsunami of tax increases to meet Iowa’s constitutional obligation for a balanced budget.
Senate Democrats have managed in one legislative session, through spending increases and expansive anti-business policies, to unravel ten years of Republican guided leadership focused on delivering efficient government and lower taxes to the citizens of Iowa. They have created an environment where onerous and aggressive tax increases are the only way this Democratic controlled legislature will be able to sustain their version of a progressive Iowa.
It will take work, but it is important that Iowans are made aware of the dramatic policy changes taking place at the Statehouse. Senate Republicans plan to use the interim and the second session of the 82nd General Assembly to highlight the tax-and-spend governing philosophy of Senate Democrats and bring to light the long term costs of over-regulation and reckless tax-fueled spending.
In a nod to the potential for kid-in-a-candy-store spending habits of some politicians, past Iowa General Assemblies have created policies that place limits on the amount of revenue the state can spend. One tool Iowa legislators use to set limits for the state budget is to rely on a small group of experts to predict state revenue.
The Revenue Estimating Conference (REC) predicts the growth in revenues received by the state. The Iowa Code requires both the Governor and the Legislature to base all of their budgeting decisions on the predictions the REC makes in December prior to the start of the legislative session. However, last year the evenly split Legislature ‘not withstood’ (legislative speak for we’re going to ignore our own rules) this provision of law and based their budget for FY 2007 on the REC estimate established in April 2006.
This year, the REC – Dennis Prouty, director of the Legislative Services Agency, Charles Krogmeier, Gov. Culver’s director of the Department of Management and David Underwood, chief fiscal officer of the Assa Abloy Door Group, LLC – met on Good Friday to set their revenue predictions for the end of the FY07 budget year and the FY08 budget year.
If Senate Democrats were hoping for an inspired fiscal miracle, courtesy of Friday’s REC meeting, they’re probably a little disappointed.
The REC experts sided with caution and are predicting a slowdown in Iowa’s economy that will impact state revenues. The REC did predict $180.1 million in new dollars going forward, but almost all of that revenue is from the new tobacco tax, which we all know is supposed to be dedicated to health care, that leaves very little growth from other revenue sources. The REC estimated on Friday that revenues, inclusive of the tobacco tax and other pending revenue enhancement policies such as a tax amnesty, will generate a little over 4% in new state budget money for next year.
The miracle Senate Democrats were hoping for is a REC prediction that would have helped them fund their budget promises, but that didn’t happen. The Senate Democrats’ appropriation bills are moving out of the Senate with state government spending growth rates approaching 10%. The connection between a REC prediction of 4% revenue growth and a budget that spends an additional 10% of future revenues suggests that Senate Democrats’ budget is not going to balance at some point in the near future.
You may be thinking, “So what? We can deficit spend like the Federal Government.” If only Iowa had the option of managing a state budget with IOUs to some cartel of foreign investors, the reality – Iowa is constitutionally bound to balance our budget every year and leave at least one percent of state revenue in reserve to cover future budget deficits.
In light of a REC predicted economic slowdown, the Senate Democrats’ reckless spending spree is setting the state of Iowa up for a tsunami of tax increases to meet Iowa’s constitutional obligation for a balanced budget.
Senate Democrats have managed in one legislative session, through spending increases and expansive anti-business policies, to unravel ten years of Republican guided leadership focused on delivering efficient government and lower taxes to the citizens of Iowa. They have created an environment where onerous and aggressive tax increases are the only way this Democratic controlled legislature will be able to sustain their version of a progressive Iowa.
It will take work, but it is important that Iowans are made aware of the dramatic policy changes taking place at the Statehouse. Senate Republicans plan to use the interim and the second session of the 82nd General Assembly to highlight the tax-and-spend governing philosophy of Senate Democrats and bring to light the long term costs of over-regulation and reckless tax-fueled spending.
28 comments:
I'm confused - I thought all those government handouts (via the ethanol explosion) to the Farm Bureau members was going to bring Iowa's rural economy roaring back. Guess $4 a bushel corn still isn't enough to make a living (or revive the Iowa economy).
In my admittedly few encounters with Senator Lundby, I have found her to be a good and reasonable person. I would love to hear how she feels about the extremely vile and nasty personal attacks levied against her and other R’s by their fellow R’s. As an outside online observer, that kind of behavior appears to be prevalent among Iowa R activists.
From the Boston Globe:
In a Capitol Hill debate about global warming touted by its moderator as a "smackdown" between former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Gingrich praised Kerry's recently released book about environmentalism, acknowledged that global warming is real, and offered what amounted to an unexpected apology for his party's inaction on curtailing greenhouse gas emissions.
"I'm not going to stand up here and defend our failure to lead," said Gingrich, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and plans to release a book in the fall burnishing his environmental credentials. "There has to be a green conservatism."
....As recently as two years ago, Gingrich ridiculed the notion that humans are causing the earth to warm, but yesterday he said the evidence was "sufficient."
rf - let's just say for the sake of argument that Gingrich gave the argument to Kerry. No one thinks we ought to just pollute because we can. There isn't any good reason not to reduce greenhouse gasses etc.
So, you guys can all go on thinking utter hysterical doom and gloom about humans creating all this evil (you won't be happy until we are all walking to work or living in caves) and we can think it's just the right thing to do for national security reasons.
It really doesn't matter the motivation. It matters about getting it done.
The differences between R's and D's on this is simply the method by which we will reduce emissions.
Kerry and Democrats want draconian, enonomy ruining, private business ruining regulations and laws and throwing people in prison.
Gingrich outlined sensible private market solutions involving tax incentives among other ideas.
I think Gingrich was correct not to debate the issue of warming itself, because that fight really doesn't move the ball down the road to achieving energy independence from foreign countries that wish to kill us and destroy our country.
I can tell you that most of today’s conservation minded people are not into living in caves etc. That’s a typical old stereotype, trying to shoot the messenger.
I’m just glad to hear Newt and many other R’s are finally taking a serious look at the issue. There is nothing wrong with debating the methods how we address the issue.
Regulations on ozone destroying chemicals? Did not destroy our economy. Sulfur emissions regulation? Did not destroy our economy. The cap & trade stuff Kerry is talking about relies on the market forces, rewarding innovation and giving lots of freedom to find ways to reach the goals. The gloom & doom of anti-regulation people hardly ever materializes. Encouraging good behavior does not always work without some sticks. Still, the methods for achieving our climate change goals are worthy of debate. I welcome Newt & other R’s to the debate.
Here is what one Iowa utility is doing:
The board of Waverly Light and Power in Iowa last week approved a new residential "inverted" rate to encourage energy efficiency. The utility’s summertime residential energy charge will be 8.50 cents per kWh for the first 600 kWh; 12.01 cents per kWh for the next 500 kWh; 16 cents per kWh for the next 400 kWh and 17.01 cents per kWh for more than 1,500 kWh. In winter, the energy charge will be a flat 8.50 cents per kWh.
“In 1992 we went with a flat rate, following many years of having a six-block, declining block rate that encouraged more usage,” said Glenn Cannon, the utility’s general manager. “We have numerous programs to help customers reduce usage, but a price signal may be perhaps the best way to promote energy efficiency.”
Carla Marinucci, SF Chronicle Political Writer
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
(04-10) 18:42 PDT -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, just back from a trip to Syria that sparked sharp criticism from Republicans and the Bush administration, suggested Tuesday that they may be interested in taking another diplomatic trip - to open a dialogue with Iran.
Why is Lundby submitting stuff to you Uncle Ted? I heard she was going to run for mayor of Marion this fall.
I believe in redemption, I believe in forgiveness," Edwards said of Imus,
eh hem..yea sure - read below. the edwards are rude and hateful.
---
The Edwards' neighbor, Monty Johnson, lives on 42 acres that the Johnson family has owned for decades.
the former senator's wife called the Johnson property "slummy" and condemned its owner as a "rabid Republican."
"I thought he was supposed to be for the poor people," Mr. Johnson said. "But does he ever socialize with any poor people? He doesn't speak to me."
"I'd just like to know why she has such hard feelings to me," he said. "They say they're for poor people."
But apparently, you're nobody until Elizabeth Edwards dislikes you.
Still, he said he doesn't know why Edwards would badmouth him.
The day they looked at their property, the couple and several Secret Service agents parked on his land and walked across the street into the woods.
Johnson approached the agents and asked what they were doing on his property. "The Secret Service let me know it wasn't my concern," he said.
In the meantime, Johnson said he doesn't have hard feelings toward Edwards, but he does expect her to say she's sorry.
"I think she owes me an apology," he said. "And I won't feel right until I get it.
If this is how they treat people in the White House, America is in for a helluva time."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0704100429apr11,0,4859782.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed
It's true that politicians and journalists often don't get along. Heck, we've had some famous pols snub Tribune editorial board meetings because they didn't like something we wrote. Fine, it's a free country.
But let's be clear here. Clinton, Obama and Edwards weren't going to be debating Fox News journalists. They would have been debating each other.
Candidates often feed scoops to favored reporters that help them appear to be commander-in-chief material.
But here's what candidates look like when they attempt to choose which reporters are worthy to question them: fragile, egocentric and frightened of tough questions.
That's not how a prospective president of the United States wants to come across.
This part is worth repeating over and over again. heh heh.
here's what candidates look like when they attempt to choose which reporters are worthy to question them: fragile, egocentric and frightened of tough questions.
fragile, egocentric and frightened of tough questions.
fragile, egocentric and frightened of tough questions.
fragile, egocentric and frightened of tough questions.
Cage match!!!!!
Let's get Clel Baudler and Mary Lundby in the steel cage match for the Meyer confirmation!!!!
It's stunts like this that isn't going to help the Republican party regain control in a couple years.
SHARPTON VOWS MORE: 'It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms the airwaves'... Developing...
Patrick Wintour and Vikram Dodd
Thursday April 12, 2007
The Guardian
Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture.
His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem.
Black community leaders reacted after Mr Blair said the recent violence should not be treated as part of a general crime wave, but as specific to black youth.
He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped "by pretending it is not young black kids doing it".
What a load of crap. This spew from one of those responsible for the Republican spending spree of the past few years, resulting in an election defeat. I guess if you can't stick with principle, you can at least act self-righteous. What did the R's give us over the past decade? Higher sales taxes, more gambling, no meaningful property tax relief or income tax reform, and state spending that outpaced inflation by a huge amount. Nice job. Thanks.
A pissed off long-time Republican activist.
4:01,
Wow, intellectual honesty! - Is that you, Ken?
Delaware's Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Democratic presidential candidate, has called for the use of military force to end the suffering in Darfur.
I'm sure Biden is not claiming imminent threat to us or WMD's with Darfur. We are talking about an ongoing genocide. It's worthy of a debate to determine if it warrants US intervention. Surely seems more important than a 10+ year-old genocide cited as justification for Iraq. (What was that, the fourth major justification after all other explanations fell through?)
Why can't you folks get over the fact that your guy completely blew it? You are acting like a small child after a parent discovers you doing something you should not be doing. Pointless temper tantrums.
And I'd bet they wouldn't be blowing up themselves and our troops in Darfur. Who knows - maybe they would greet us in the streets with flowers like they expected in Baghdad.
rf
you need to read the war resolution and all of bush's speeches.
every argument for the war was well represented. the only justification for the war that might have been wrong was wmd.
even on the point of wmd, the only evidence we have is that we haven't found large stockpiles. no libs have been able to explain the discrepancy between the 93 wmd inventories and that for which we've subsequently accounted.
and for all, we were greeted as liberators. a very small (like 1-2%) are violent, but they can cause a lot of nasty pictures.
Hey Democrats, come to The Real Sporer and grasp some knowledge!
ab uno disce omnes
We might have initially been considered liberators - but I doubt that's what they are calling us now. Wasn't there some polls in Iraq recently that had about 60-70% of the Iraqis viewing us as occupiers?
Sporer,
Do you still consider the war a great success?
RF,
As much as I like you I have to step in on this one as the ONLY Iowan over here since 2003 so I have some perspective. As a matter of fact, a few mortar rounds just hit somewhere outside just now but they were pretty far away. Additonally, a member of my company (I am a contractor now) was killed by an explosion earlier today at another base so I feel I've earned the right to speak to this issue.
The SURGE had major successes and SADR is out of the country and his bullies went underground. Al Queda was forced to fight fellow Sunnis in Al Anbar who have lined up with us. This can work if we don't have so many on the Left giving a blueprint for defeat. If only we had some Al Queda turncoats like Reid and Pelosi to advertise Al Queda's plans....
Ken,
I truly appreciate the sacrifices you and your friends are making for this country. My beef is 100% with our political leadership. No matter how I try to look at the war, the path from 9/11 to Iraq is completely illogical and has proven extremely counterproductive regarding the goals of WOT.
I realize you have little interest in D candidates, but I think most Americans agree that Obama’s 2002 view on the war was incredibly prescient. If you dare enter enemy territory, I recommend you read his speech: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf
Obviously we have to agree to disagree on this one. You have certainly earned the right to your opinion.
RF,
My computer in my room (it is midnight in Iraq right now) can't open a pdf file. I will try to read it tomorrow morning at my work computer. After years in Iraq on the largest base they finally provided wireless internet for a reasonable price!
There was a connection with Iraq but the same logic could lead us into Iran so I am not sure I want to defend this one all the way down the line. We may have had faulty intelligence and we certainly failed in our post war plan trying to declare stability a little too quickly. To be honest, I am not a believer in the you broke it you fix it thought process and I would be just fine redeploying to a neighboring country but they won't have us if we fail in Iraq.
We have to win and it is possible if we treat this like a war and not as we have been. I actually suggest we hire about 100,000 proxie fighters in the form of Indians and Filipinos working as waiters and street sweepers all over the Gulf. We can get stability for a lot less money and loss of American life. The Iraqi Army is a long way from being effective and we should not bank on them.
I am even more in favor of making this a military occupation and we should shoot back whenever shot at. Incoming mortars should not go unanswered for fear of killing "innocent" Iraqis. We should shoot back because nobody sets up a mortar in an Arab neighborhood without the complicity of that neighborhood's leaders.
US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.
Post a Comment