This Substack hit the 100-subscriber mark today. As promised, here is my first “ask me anything about Iowa politics” discussion thread.
I’m working on a few Bleeding Heartland posts and preparing for Monday night’s edition of “Capitol Week” on KHOI Radio, but will try to check back regularly over the next couple of days to answer your questions. Feel free to talk among yourselves as well!
Iowa politics with Laura Belin is available for free to all subscribers. There are also paid subscription options for those who want to support my work at Bleeding Heartland that way.
Politics and abortion. Can you drill down deeper on the mechanics of the Kansas abortion vote? Do you subscribe to the idea that support drew heavily on volunteers from nearby states, due in part to the anti-choice laws in adjacent states? Do you think the libertarians in Kansas played a role? Were the pro life Kansans caught flat-footed?
Great question! I think everyone was caught a bit flat-footed. Rachel Sweet, who managed the "no" campaign for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, has said in some interviews that they were prepared for the vote to go either way but didn't expect to win by a large margin.
The no campaign was well-funded, in part because Kansas is such an important place for abortion access for residents of nearby states where abortion is now banned. They also had a huge number of volunteers.
Clearly they were aiming at libertarian-minded voters. The no vote was surprisingly high in a bunch of heavily Republican rural counties. They were running ads that didn't mention the word "abortion" at all, but focused on personal autonomy and freedom to make health care decisions without governmental intrusion.
I saw some conservatives try to dismiss the Kansas vote as not very meaningful, since the wording of the ballot initiative was very confusing. Of course Republicans were in total control of the wording! Their efforts to hide the ball failed. That makes me optimistic about prospects for defeating an abortion-related constitutional amendment in Iowa (if Republican legislators press ahead with that).
Only one federal judge has been nominated by Biden in a state with two Republican Senators. Stephen Locher was confirmed by voice vote last month for the Southern District of Iowa. How did this happen? Has Grassley thus been forgiven for blocking Garland in 2016?
I would guess that this nomination has more to do with Grassley being the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee than Biden "forgiving" him for what happened with Merrick Garland. It may have been a gesture intended to smooth the path for other judicial confirmations. Biden needs to get as many judges through this year as possible, in case Democrats lose control of the Senate after November.
They hoarded most of the money. Iowa law allows the legislature to allocate up to 99 percent of projected revenues for the coming year. Republicans approved a budget that would spend about $8.2 billion from the general fund during fiscal year 2023 (which began on July 1). The Des Moines Register reported that's only about 91 percent of the projected revenues that were available to spend. Many state agencies had to make do with status quo budgets. Overall, general fund spending will rise by about 1 percent.
If they had planned to spend closer to $9 billion (which would have been 99 percent of projected revenues), they could have allocated hundreds of millions more to education, health care, water quality and other priorities. Instead of keeping higher education funding mostly flat, they could have increased to match rising costs. Instead of increasing K-12 funding by 2.5 percent (not nearly enough to address rising costs), they could have passed a 5-6 percent increase in state supplemental aid for schools.
Iowa has more than $1 billion sitting in the "rainy day" fund, which was not touched during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Republicans appear to be hoarding money now, anticipating a crash in state revenues when the flat income tax is fully phased in, and extra federal funds (pandemic-related and from the American Rescue Plan) run out.
Thank you for noting that! My understanding was that state lawmakers could have budgeted up to around $9 billion from the general fund for fiscal year 2023. But they allocated $8.2 billion.
I suspect you are correct - my comment was meant as clarification as to what the expenditure limitation applies to. All federal funds (which includes all the COVID-19 relief funds, as well as the federal match for the Medicaid program, funding for Title 1 schools, etc.) are available for expenditure, no limitation applies.
I was thinking that when the extra infusion of federal funds run out, that will negatively impact state revenues indirectly as well. Just when the income tax and corporate tax cuts are being fully phased in.
It depends on what the extra infusion of federal funds is being used for. From what I've observed, many/most state and local governments are focusing on one-time uses - stuff that in the past was considered 'nice to have' but not necessarily a required ongoing expenditure. If that is the case, the funds going away isn't as big a deal. Contrast that with a common federal recession tool, increasing the federal participation rate for Medicaid. When that increased participation goes away, states have to back fill it.
Just read in that Mike Pence will be making a visit to Iowa soon appearing with Grassley. Given the rift between Trump and Pence, what do you think this means regarding Grassley's calculations of Trump's power in the party now?
Politics and abortion. Can you drill down deeper on the mechanics of the Kansas abortion vote? Do you subscribe to the idea that support drew heavily on volunteers from nearby states, due in part to the anti-choice laws in adjacent states? Do you think the libertarians in Kansas played a role? Were the pro life Kansans caught flat-footed?
Great question! I think everyone was caught a bit flat-footed. Rachel Sweet, who managed the "no" campaign for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, has said in some interviews that they were prepared for the vote to go either way but didn't expect to win by a large margin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhKt4bB7HEY
The no campaign was well-funded, in part because Kansas is such an important place for abortion access for residents of nearby states where abortion is now banned. They also had a huge number of volunteers.
Clearly they were aiming at libertarian-minded voters. The no vote was surprisingly high in a bunch of heavily Republican rural counties. They were running ads that didn't mention the word "abortion" at all, but focused on personal autonomy and freedom to make health care decisions without governmental intrusion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/03/kansas-abortion-amendment/
I saw some conservatives try to dismiss the Kansas vote as not very meaningful, since the wording of the ballot initiative was very confusing. Of course Republicans were in total control of the wording! Their efforts to hide the ball failed. That makes me optimistic about prospects for defeating an abortion-related constitutional amendment in Iowa (if Republican legislators press ahead with that).
Only one federal judge has been nominated by Biden in a state with two Republican Senators. Stephen Locher was confirmed by voice vote last month for the Southern District of Iowa. How did this happen? Has Grassley thus been forgiven for blocking Garland in 2016?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden
I don't know all of the calculations that went into that nomination. Stephen Locher did have broad support within Iowa's legal community.
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/senate-confirms-locher-to-be-federal-judge-in-iowa
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2022/05/11/bidens-first-red-state-district-court-nominee-sails-through-confirmation-hearing/?slreturn=20220708132933
I would guess that this nomination has more to do with Grassley being the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee than Biden "forgiving" him for what happened with Merrick Garland. It may have been a gesture intended to smooth the path for other judicial confirmations. Biden needs to get as many judges through this year as possible, in case Democrats lose control of the Senate after November.
There was a big surplus in Iowa's budget this year. What happened to it - where did the money go?
They hoarded most of the money. Iowa law allows the legislature to allocate up to 99 percent of projected revenues for the coming year. Republicans approved a budget that would spend about $8.2 billion from the general fund during fiscal year 2023 (which began on July 1). The Des Moines Register reported that's only about 91 percent of the projected revenues that were available to spend. Many state agencies had to make do with status quo budgets. Overall, general fund spending will rise by about 1 percent.
If they had planned to spend closer to $9 billion (which would have been 99 percent of projected revenues), they could have allocated hundreds of millions more to education, health care, water quality and other priorities. Instead of keeping higher education funding mostly flat, they could have increased to match rising costs. Instead of increasing K-12 funding by 2.5 percent (not nearly enough to address rising costs), they could have passed a 5-6 percent increase in state supplemental aid for schools.
Iowa has more than $1 billion sitting in the "rainy day" fund, which was not touched during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Republicans appear to be hoarding money now, anticipating a crash in state revenues when the flat income tax is fully phased in, and extra federal funds (pandemic-related and from the American Rescue Plan) run out.
Actually, the 99 percent expenditure limitation does not apply to federal funds.
Thank you for noting that! My understanding was that state lawmakers could have budgeted up to around $9 billion from the general fund for fiscal year 2023. But they allocated $8.2 billion.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/02/iowa-state-budget-lawmakers-just-passed-what-to-know/9856300002/
I suspect you are correct - my comment was meant as clarification as to what the expenditure limitation applies to. All federal funds (which includes all the COVID-19 relief funds, as well as the federal match for the Medicaid program, funding for Title 1 schools, etc.) are available for expenditure, no limitation applies.
I was thinking that when the extra infusion of federal funds run out, that will negatively impact state revenues indirectly as well. Just when the income tax and corporate tax cuts are being fully phased in.
It depends on what the extra infusion of federal funds is being used for. From what I've observed, many/most state and local governments are focusing on one-time uses - stuff that in the past was considered 'nice to have' but not necessarily a required ongoing expenditure. If that is the case, the funds going away isn't as big a deal. Contrast that with a common federal recession tool, increasing the federal participation rate for Medicaid. When that increased participation goes away, states have to back fill it.
Congratulations Laura on your new endeavor.
Thanks for reading!
Just read in that Mike Pence will be making a visit to Iowa soon appearing with Grassley. Given the rift between Trump and Pence, what do you think this means regarding Grassley's calculations of Trump's power in the party now?