Squeezing out the last drop of blood

Making Iowa's tax system "equitable" --- the idea behind the Republican/Branstad reform plan passed by the House last week --- is not equitable. Business and industry exists to make money. There's no reason to abolish a mechanism ensuring they pay taxes on a larger percentage of their property's value than homeowners. There is apparently broad consensus at the Statehouse that business taxes are too high. So, why not go with the Democratic plan? That would cut taxes businesses pay to the residential rate for the first $30,000 of value. After that, it would go up to the existing rate for businesses. This targets the tax cut to small business while providing a benefit for all businesses. Everyone loves small businesses and every politician loves to aim their legislative efforts at that kind of business. The only thing is (BROAD  GENERALIZATION ALERT!), Republicans really love big businesses and are always looking out for their interests. Republicans and Branstad say these lower taxes will attract more business to Iowa and spur growth of existing businesses. That is basically a tenent of trickle-down economics: Lower taxes to spur economic growth and pretty soon you'll be bringing in more revenue that ever before! There's never been any particular reason to believe that logic, and certainly not to accept it as a panacea solving all problems. Local governments --- cities, counties, school districts --- are concerned that the bottom line of this solution to "high taxes" would be sucking tax money from their coffers. But $500 million less annually for local governments across the state just means cutting costs and finding efficiencies, advocates of this plan say. We could start just educating kids through eighth grade, shut down public safety departments on weekends and let those roads revert to dirt trails --- you know, the way they were in the 1800s. Some Republicans have said, though, that local governments should have less taxing authority. There's no equity in the Republican/Branstad plan because tax money is precisely where local governments get their revenues to provide vital services that give us an excellent standard of living. Their primary purpose is not to make money by selling people products (like the businesses that would get the windfall under this plan). Even if Republicans are right in suggesting that local governments wouldn't lose tax revenues, opponents argue that the plan would result in taxes being shifted from businesses to homeowners. I'm sure that's the kind of equity all Iowans can get behind.

Putting the squeeze on Iowa's casinos

Gov. Terry Branstad's proposal to cut corporate tax rates in half while boosting casino taxes to 36 percent hasn't gained a lot of traction. However, the scheme, intended to spur job growth for small businesses, is getting some pushback from those who fear their jobs will be on the line if casino taxes rise. Casino operators have suggested that  squeezing as much tax revenue out of them as possible will lead to layoffs and even closing some of the 17 state-licensed businesses. (In the case of Isle Casino & Hotel Waterloo, operators and the association that holds its license are warning it could lead to a smaller amount of donations for area projects.) It's a delicious irony that Branstad, who campaigned on a pledge to create 200,000 jobs in Iowa by cutting the corporate tax rate, has that factor complicating his proposal. It's likely that Branstad sees casinos as a "lemon" in economic development terms. Some have argued that casinos don't really help a state's economy, only diverting money that would otherwise be spent on different entertainment options. The casino component of Branstad's plan is intended to fill the revenue gap that will occur with lower corporate tax rates. (And of course, those newly-created jobs will bring in more tax revenue for the state.) Branstad professes not to want to hurt casinos, but believes they have done well enough to handle a little subisdy for his trickle-down experiment. It's easy to imagine, though, that community boosters will side with their area's casino rather than support Branstad's proposal. After all, why trade actual jobs at a local business for the possibility of jobs that might be created by letting some unnamed corporations pay less in taxes? There's no guarentee any lost jobs will appear in your own community. That could make it hard to convinice lawmakers to support the proposal.

Try to understand, he's a magic man

Former Governor Terry Branstad will apparently aim to cut and restructure corporate taxes if he's elected in November with the goal of a massive boost in jobs and personal income (Here's one of the numerous stories where his goals are mentioned: http://bit.ly/bzsGnN). It's true that both Republicans and Democrats across the country and nationally have embraced the idea of targeted tax cuts or tax credits when the economy is faltering (which doesn't mean it accomplishes their hoped-for aims). Thirty years after Ronald Reagan was first elected, though, there's still no evidence that the trickle-down theories of "Reaganomics" have any merit (here's a recent critique of the idea: http://bit.ly/azmsii). Nonetheless, the approach was embraced by those in the GOP including Branstad, who was first elected in 1983. Don't get me wrong. Branstad appears to have very legitimate criticisms of his opponent, Gov. Chet Culver. He and other Republicans have been questioning Culver's fiscal management, including a penchant for making very large across-the-board cuts mid-year rather than passing smaller budgets. He also slams the huge "I-JOBS" bonding program that makes state money available to create jobs (with the bonds to be paid back using gaming revenues). But this belief that corporate America --- the titans of industry largely responsible for our current fiscal disaster --- will lift us out of the economic doldrums if we just let them keep more of their "hard-earned" money is just foolish. Or magic.