The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

I missed out on Gov. Terry Branstad's signing/vetoing festival to, at long last, conclude this year's legislative bidness.

Oh, I did peruse the veto messages from Honey Creek. It is a state-owned resort, so I needed to make sure the new sheriff hadn't closed the joint down. He had not.

I know it's been several days, but I'm chiming in anyway. Here's the good, bad and ugly of what he did and did not do, as I see it.

The Good

Branstad did not tinker further with the state's voluntary preschool program for four-year-olds. And he sent his education chief, Jason Glass, to Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" show to say that the program will remain in place for the next two years.

The governor badmouthed public preschool during his campaign and then tried to slice it down to a set of vouchers for low-income families only. At least the governor never favored going as far as some of his fellow Republicans who wanted to scrap the whole thing. GOP Sen. Mark Chelgren even used the word "indoctrination" to describe the state effort. Which, again, is voluntary. And never mind that many of these school-based programs partner with local private preschools, including church schools.

It's also free, which frosts folks who think richies are sending their little lords and ladies to get a state-funded freebie. I sympathize, and maybe down the road we can figure out a better funding plan. But tossing out a program that provides a high quality instruction to thousands of kids, wealthy and less-so, would have been a mistake.

Iowans of all stripes opposed cutting the program. And last week Branstad sat through a two day education summit listening to experts talk about the critical importance of good preschool. This was bad politics and bad policy. I think the governor deserves lots of credit for listening to Iowans and backing away.

The Bad

Unfortunately, the governor opted for a callous replay.

Branstad, for the second time this year, vetoed a bipartisan effort to increase the earned-income tax credit. It's not surprising, but that doesn't make it any less galling.

Federal and state earned-income credits benefit low-income workers. For many, the break exceeds the income taxes they owe, so they get a refund. Basically, it's government recognizing that all sorts of taxes - sales taxes, property taxes, withholding taxes - take a painful bite out of a worker's small pay check, so the government throws them a bone. Thanks for working hard.

Branstad killed a measure raising the Iowa credit to 10 percent of the federal credit. It would have meant a tax break for tens of thousands of Iowans who could use one.

Somehow, in these times of Twilight Zone politics, the credit gets portrayed as a liberal welfare giveaway. Tell that to the guy working two jobs, or the single mom trying to afford gas and groceries. And explain how this “liberal” credit got a bunch of Republican votes while Branstad's bid to cut corporate income taxes never saw the legislative light of day, even in the GOP House.

Branstad says he vetoed the credit because it's not part of “comprehensive and holistic” tax reform. Trouble is, Branstad has never proposed comprehensive and holistic tax reform. He tried to give corporations a tax break and cut commercial property taxes. Those don't add up to comprehensive reform. Not even close.

The governor is right that property taxes need reform. He had a historic opportunity to do real reform, meaning fundamental changes that modernize the antique system in a way that benefits all taxpayers. He had money in the bank to make it happen and shared legislative control that could have led to a bipartisan breakthrough.

Instead, Branstad did what Iowa politicians have always done. He tried to put more lipstick on the same old property tax pig. Give a break to one group of taxpayers, ignore the others, and let local governments deal with the consequences. And instead of using rising revenues to help grease the skids for real reform, he peddled a fairy tale fiscal crisis. His first earned income veto did significant damage to his ability to bargain with Senate Democrats, further hurting chances for a property tax accord. His second sets the stage for a contentious 2012.

And who pays for that failure in leadership? Low-income workers. Seems fair.

What Branstad's veto message should have said is, “Recipients of this credit aren't among the Iowans I consider important. None of you are corporate executives, nor are you building a nuclear power plant. So tough darts.” Honesty, that's all I want.

The Ugly

Democrats are freaking out over Branstad's veto of a provision that would have kept three-dozen state workforce development offices open. They're calling for a special session to override, but that's not going to happen.

I don't blame them for raising Cain. That's what the opposition is supposed to do. But frankly, this is what cutting the size and scope of government looks like. It sounds great in theory. But in practice, it's not pretty.

Branstad got elected after campaigning on clear promises to do this sort of thing. Cut, slice, streamline. Voters bought into that message and put him in office. Now, they know that decision has real consequences. In this case, fewer physical offices where the unemployed can get help.

Maybe they like it. And maybe they don't. That's what elections are for. There's another one next year.