House GOP Budget Cuts - Updated

Incoming Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, and state Reps. Renee Schulte, R-Cedar Rapids and Nick Wagner, R-Marion, met with our editorial board this morning. I've been swamped with post-holiday catch up, so I haven't had time to put together a post.

The lawmakers came bearing a list of cuts in the state's current year budget that House Republicans hope to pass after they return to Des Moines next week with a 60-40 majority. The Senate is still controlled by the Dems, so these proposals are no slam dunk. In fact many won't happen.

James Q. Lynch has the story here.

But here's the full list with projected savings. I'm interested to see what your take is. I'll have more to say later. My take is below the numbers.

DeappropBill Impacts v3 1

I think you can separate this stuff into as few categories.

Sketchy-- A lot of this stuff is pretty fuzzy. The Taxpayers First Fund, Republicans contend, would return any budget surpluses to taxpayers. But we don't know how that surplus will be calculated, especially with Gov. Terry Branstad pushing for two-year budget plans.

We also don't know how it would be "returned." Lawmakers said a surplus, for instance, could help with efforts to lower commercial property taxes. Branstad wants to cut corporate taxes, so perhaps it could be used for that. That raises a fairness issue. Should my excess sales/income taxes go to benefit other taxpayers? It sounds like a tax shift, but we'd love to see the final plan.

They mentioned getting at property tax relief by addressing school and county mental health funding. Those routes have potential. Along with the cuts, the House GOP would spend an additional $25 million to help clear mental health waiting lists.

House Republicans want to award "vouchers" for preschool. Lawmakers said schools would still be allowed to offer voluntary preschool programs, but the vouchers could give parents more choices. They couldn't say how it would work.

The word "unknown" certainly appears a lot on the spreadsheets, particularly behind stuff like cutting state services to illegal immigrants. The GOP used to tout a savings of $90 million. That number was bogus. Unknown, at least, is an improvement.

A lot of these propsals will be fleshed out in the coming days as we hear from the offices/programs on the chopping block.

Strictly Political-- There's also plenty of pure politics. It sounds great to go after those egghead professors and their state-paid sabbaticals to give piano lessons in South America or to study yoga. But you don't save much dough. You also end up slicing stuff that sounds frivolous but is actually important.

And lawmakers who are in session 3.5 days weekly, strap on the special interest feedbag at dozens of receptions and use state-issued computers to play video games during a boring debate need to be careful accusing anyone of being on a paid vacation. Maybe we could send a professor to Des Moines to study the solitaire strategies of senators.

Republicans are also pushing to ban state agencies from lobbying lawmakers, because, evidently, they simply can't say no to such persuasive bureaucratic pitches. Private lobbyists will still be free provide helpful information to lawmakers.

These guys talk a lot about respecting the separation of powers, so why are they dictating how the executive branch deals with the Legislative?

And the famous heated sidewalks of campaign 2010 that were never funded will now be cut. That should be pretty easy.

Sounds OK to Me  -- No offense to the Generation Iowa Commission, but Schulte is right when she complains that too many boards and commissions get created for temporary jobs only to become permanent. It's time to cut those weeds.

I think the Power Fund and Iowa Values Fund made some important and necessary investments, but, personally, if I had the power to cut government spending, I would start with programs that hand loads of money to private business in exchange for "jobs," especially "retained jobs." I've watched these efforts for years, and I've become convinced that we threw away a lot of money that could have been better spent. I'd like to see us try something different, although I'm not counting on Branstad to do it. I expect more of the same. And I understand the "everybody else does it/unilateral disarmament" arguments.

I appreciate the evils of smoking, but I share the GOP's skepticism about spending millions of dollars every year to tell people for the 100,000th time that tobacco is a deadly product.

I don't have much problem  with moving the Rebuild Iowa Office back under Homeland Security/Emergency management. And if you can actually save $17.3 million on office supplies, equipment and services, go ahead. But I'm skeptical.

Again, I'm interested to hear your takes.