Editorials: Warning; deficits ahead

State revenues are projected to drop by $1 billion over the next two years because of tax cuts, according to a report issued last week from the Iowa Revenue Estimating Conference. The three-member panel expects the state will take in $517 million less next fiscal year and $580 million less in FY2026. That’s at least $200 million less than expenses each year.

Department of Management Director Kraig Paulson, a member of the panel, said the state can spend down its savings to cover the deficits. That should get the majority Republicans through the 2026 election, when the governor is on the ballot. They believe that they can deliver yet more tax cuts next legislative session.

If the savings can’t cover it in the second year, legislators could be forced to cut spending. Interesting that the subsidy for private school vouchers roughly equals the deficit.

If you do not believe that lower taxes will lead to inferior services, note the number of longstanding rural nursing homes, including in Storm Lake, Newell and Albert City, that have closed in recent years thanks to the Medicaid “reform” that handed over nursing home payments to private insurers. It’s one reason the Reynolds Administration sloughs off nursing home inspections.

Or, check Storm Lake: Dredging ceased, the Department of Natural Resources office was closed, and the marina was turned over to the county.

Tax cuts have consequences.

The projected deficits are the result of years of income tax cuts leading to a flat tax rate of 3.8%. Gov. Reynolds and legislative leaders say their goal is to eliminate the state income tax.

The burden is shifted to property taxes as schools try to maintain, and the county assumes natural resource asset management and liabilities.

You may still feel the sting of your last property tax bill. Ours went up 76%, for a metal building along the railroad tracks.

Beware. The piggy bank will go empty. This happened in Kansas. The result was a Democratic governor. If the taxpayers can figure out by November two years hence that they are getting the short end with higher property taxes, a rundown marina, and closed school buildings in vital little places like Early or Fonda, they just might surprise the sclerotic Republicans and vote for a Democrat.

The predicate is that lower income taxes will result in greater prosperity. Iowa has among the lowest growth rates in the country after years of hacking away at the income tax. All the working stiff got was higher sales and property taxes, since he paid very little in state income tax in the first place. Our schools aren’t better, public or private, the test scores indicate. They are dropping. Our surface water remains among the most polluted anywhere.   The public may tire of this steady erosion of Iowa.

Politics on the bench

Iowa Supreme Court Justice David May is on the November ballot for retention. Since he voted with the 4-3 majority to bar women from obtaining abortions, there has been a call to oust May. Those who wish for judicial independence argue that voting out a judge should only be done over incompetence or turpitude, not politics. Unfortunately for the idealists and judicial independence, that horse left the barn over a decade ago.

In 2010 three justices of the highest integrity were voted off the court for finding that you may not discriminate against gays as a class. It was one of the lowest points in state history. Since then, the high court has gone partisan. Gov. Reynolds stacked the court with conservatives who would vote her way. It is understandable, if regrettable, that voters would want to mete out the same sort of political justice on May. In plebiscites of attorneys, May’s standing has declined since he was elevated to the supreme court from the court of appeals. Attorneys say that May is more prone to outside influence. Of course he is, because Republican voters are not afraid to hold him to account.

May is fair game on a retention vote. He was a highly regarded lawyer and appellate judge, but May could be seen as having taken on a political bent by reversing court precedent of just a few years previous on the abortion issue, for example. If he loses his seat, he deserves it for helping to politicize the court. May probably will be retained by voters who don’t like the idea of booting a judge for a vote over one or two issues, or who support his political aims. If he were rejected by voters, Reynolds will appoint someone as conservative or moreso. Voting against him is thus pointless except to make a statement.