After six weeks of session, the Iowa Senate started debating this week.  Two bills set the posturing stage and had more meaning in messaging than actual content of the legislation.  House File 45 was approved by the Iowa House in the second week of session with a projected cut in state spending of $500 million over three years.  This same bill was passed out of the Senate on Thursday with a projected cut in spending of $10 million over a three year period.  Though many believe this bill is destined for a conference committee showdown, it is more likely the bill is done.  Think of this bill as a form of messaging between the Republican majority in the House and the Democratic majority in the Senate and how they perceive each other's goals.  True government spending appears in appropriations bills.  Both sides understand a zero line item in House File 45 doesn't limit actual funding of a program in May.

The second posturing bill came in the establishment of allowable growth for education spending.  After the House previously approved zero percent allowable growth the Senate on Wednesday passed allowable growth at 2%.  Knowing the establishment of an allowable growth rate at any percent in February is superficial to the actual appropriation which the legislature makes in May I asked the Senate Appropriations Chair to explain how we plan to fund education this year at any level. My line of questioning was shut down by the Senate President citing, the state's future ability to pay is irrelevant to the establishment of a promise to pay today.  This idea makes complete sense, only when you don't think about it.  Though this bill is destined for a conference committee showdown, only through appropriations will we see how much the state picks up and how much falls on local property taxpayers.

The Senate moved in a positive direction in debate Thursday afternoon when we unanimously approved Senate File 209 which called for the full coupling of the Iowa Tax Code with the Federal Tax Code.  This bill allows Iowa taxpayers to deduct items on their state income tax filings similar to their federal filings. Think of it as a nearly $200 million savings to taxpayers.  Though it does not take effect until you do your taxes next year, it is still a positive move for keeping more money in your hands.

On a side note, the buzz has started over redistricting.  The conference board members are set, census data is out and maps will soon be drawn.  I have not grown as curious or apprehensive about changes as many of my colleagues.  I have no doubt I may lose half my district or even more.  Be proud in the fact Iowa is an exemplar in setting districts; politicians don't get to make this decision.

Shawn Hamerlinck
State Senate District 42

Think of the difficult cuts which are being made now as a stepping stone to setting Iowa on track to a solid fiscal future.  The Governor's budget is not a step-by-step manual for eliminating a deficit but rather a starting point for discussion.  It is highly unlikely the budget Governor Brandstad presented on Thursday will be the same one he will sign at the end of the legislative session.

The legislature has three possible responses to our budget deficit: raise taxes, find efficiencies or cut nonessential programing.  This past week I have been asked by a number of special interest groups to increase the sales tax by half a percent because it is "no big deal" and "no one would notice."  The sheer audacity of those making those statements is almost as scary as the actual concept of a tax increase right now.  I wonder if those who believe the state should just keep spending actually understand the pressure many Iowan's feel right now.  Most people can't fill up a tank of gas or buy a week's worth of groceries for less than $50.  The long-term answer is not found in, "simply finding new revenue for the state."

It is a wonder how some politicians can avoid recognizing structural deficits and continue to spend as if the problem will just go away.  I heard on many occasions that we have one billion dollars in unspent money so we can save programing.  This claim is correct, as long as you don't recognized the $1.7 billion in programing you promised to fund with only the $1 billion you claim to have.  Apparently basic math doesn't count when politically, you really want something.

For the last two weeks, each department has promoted their programing by saying, "for every dollar you spend with us, you will get seven in return."   If true, with so much return on investment then why are we in debt?  When I ask this question I am quickly informed the state would be further in debt if we didn't fund these programs originally.  By the rationale of this claim, the state would have been $32.6 billion in the hole if we weren't "getting seven in return."  At some point we have to turn on the reality switch.

In these meetings I think about the silent majority: A group which doesn't belong to an association or have a paid lobbyist.  They are a group of Iowans willing to pay taxes with the expectation that those dollars are being used responsibly.  This group is willing to chip-in and help out but they don't want to be used as simply a checking account.

As Iowa begins correcting its budget problem I am growing concerned of Congress's willingness to negotiate plans for three states to declare bankruptcy.  Legislators in these states have offered no roadmap for improving their budgets.  Politicians either refuse to accept the reality of their budgets or spending has become an addiction to them.  Ultimately, taxpayers in states like Iowa will foot the bill for bailing out states with politicians who forgot there is a "no" button right next to the "yea" button.

Senator Shawn Hamerlinck

District 42