Bold Ideas
by John Drury
The Republicans in the Iowa Senate released their economic development
plan two weeks ago today and they have gotten remarkable press coverage
since then. Below is my letter to the editor printed in the Mason City
Globe Gazette the Sunday following their announcement. An excerpt was later
printed in The Des Moines Register.
Dear Editor:
The
Iowa Senate Republicans have released their economic development plan.
This plan is an alternative to the Grow Iowa Values Fund that was
developed two years ago and then shot down in the last legislative
session. There are some aspects of the Republican proposal I can
appreciate, but giving away more of our desperately needed state
revenue at a time of a budget crisis is not one of them.
One of
the key components of their plan is to eliminate income tax for people
under the age of 30. Apparently, they believe that having to pay income
tax is what is causing our 22-29 year olds to leave the state in
droves. The average yearly tax savings would be about $600 for this age
group. That amounts to $50 per month.
It isn’t the $50 a month
in taxes that is driving our well-educated youth to other states. It is
because they can make thousands more per year elsewhere. When a teacher
can go across the border and make $10-$15,000 more per year for the
same position, do our Republican leaders truly believe that saving $600
a year is going to keep them in Iowa?
Eliminating income tax for
those under 30 would cost the state approximately $200 million yearly,
according to the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency. The state of
Iowa simply cannot afford this plan.
While it’s good to see that
Republicans at least recognize the problem of young people leaving the
state, this part of the plan only serves to show how out of touch the
Senate Republicans are with the reasons why.
Signed, John Drury
The
Friday following the announcement I attended a legislative forum in
Clear Lake. When someone inevitably asked our Senator about this plan,
he said that the headline of the plan was not supposed to be about
eliminating income tax for twenty-somethings. Instead, it was some of
the tax breaks and incentives to business that were supposed to be the
attention grabber.
Yes, tax incentives to business, that's a
new concept, sure to grab a headline I thought. Just once, I'd like to
hear a Republican lay it on the line and tell it like it is. I would
certainly have more respect for them even though it might go something
like this:
Constituent: “Sen. Rascal, can you explain how the No Tax Under 30 Plan is really going to help Iowa?”
Sen. Rascal: “Well,
that's not really going to do anything other than make some more young
Republicans, so you really need to look at that part of the plan as
more of a recruitment effort by the Republican Party. We are well aware
that saving $600 per year in income tax is less than chump change and
will have no effect other than to train our young-uns to hate paying
taxes. But thanks for the question, that’s a good question, I’m glad
you asked it because it’s a good question.”
Another
explanation of the No Tax Under 30 plan I heard that day was that the
Governor asked for bold ideas. Yes, that’s true, he did ask for bold
ideas but continuing to hand out more of our state revenue for no
return during a difficult budget crisis is not a bold idea. While other
states have held onto their revenues during hard economic times, Iowa
has continued to cut revenues leaving us unable to properly fund our
most basic services.
Perhaps the Senate Republicans thought the Governor was asking for old ideas.
On another topic, the ruling on the Canadian Outlet was issued today. Judge
James Drew issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the Huffs from
selling, receiving and processing prescription drug orders which are
placed with and filled by a Canadian pharmacy.
You'll remember from an earlier column that the Canadian Outlet was a business owned
by Scot and Cheryl Huff of Mason City. Customers received their
prescriptions from their doctors, then brought them to the Canadian
Drug Outlet where the drugs were then ordered from Canadian pharmacies
over the Internet. The pharmacies then shipped the drug directly to the
customers’ homes. The pharmacies paid the Huffs a commission on orders
received.
In
the ruling the judge wrote, “It is undeniable that the cost of
prescription medication in this country is causing extreme hardship for
many, especially senior citizens. Additionally, the fact that many
prescription drugs are available at a much lower cost in Canada
compared to the United States is extremely difficult to understand.
However, the desirability of allowing prescription drugs to be
purchased from foreign countries is an issue for the Legislature to
address.”
I couldn’t agree more, and I would suggest that you ask your legislators the following question at your earliest opportunity.
“Iowa
is in the top five in the percentage of its elderly population. Since
the federal government has failed its people on this issue, don’t you
think the state of Iowa has a moral obligation to meet the needs of
Iowans who cannot afford the drugs that are prescribed to them?”
“Thanks for the question, that’s a good question, I’m glad you asked it because it’s a good question.”
Blog For Iowa 
Sen. Rascal:
LikeLike