Quantcast
Channel: Federal Budget Archives - Bleeding Heartland

Iowa governor objects to “biased” federal COVID-19 funding formula

0
0

Governor Kim Reynolds and 21 of her Republican counterparts complained on February 27 that the latest Democratic COVID-19 relief package “punishes” their states.

It’s a strange take on a bill that would provide $350 billion to state and local governments across the country, including more than $2.5 billion to Iowa. In contrast, a smaller coronavirus response proposal from Republican members of Congress would allocate zero new dollars to state and local governments.

Voting mostly along party lines, the U.S. House approved the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act in the early hours of February 27. Democrats in the U.S. Senate are expected to approve most of the package, minus a minimum wage increase that can’t be included in a budget reconciliation bill, according to the Senate parliamentarian.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee explained earlier this month that 60 percent of the $350 billion would go to states and 40 percent to localities. That $195.3 billion for states breaks down as follows: $500 million for every state and the District of Columbia ($25.5 billion total), plus “$169 billion based on the state share of total unemployed workers.”

Another $65.1 billion would go to counties based on population, and $65.1 billion would go to cities “using a modified Community Development Block Grant formula.”

A downloadable spreadsheet on the committee’s website indicated that Iowa’s state government would receive $1.39 billion for the new Coronavirus Relief Fund. Iowa counties would receive another $612 million, metro cities would receive $335 million, and smaller municipalities would receive $216 million.

A $600 million plan that ten Republican senators offered for President Joe Biden’s consideration earlier this month would have given nothing to state and local governments.

Reynolds would have almost unchecked authority to allocate the state’s $1.39 billion share from the American Rescue Plan, since the Republican-controlled Iowa House and Senate declined last year to approve any oversight process for federal COVID-19 relief funding.

Instead of hailing the latest Congressional action, the statement from Reynolds and other GOP governors objected,

“Unlike all previous federal funding packages, the new stimulus proposal allocates aid based on a state’s unemployed population rather than its actual population, which punishes states that took a measured approach to the pandemic and entered the crisis with healthy state budgets and strong economies.

“A state’s ability to keep businesses open and people employed should not be a penalizing factor when distributing funds. If Congress is going to provide aid to states, it should be on an equitable population basis.”

The governors don’t acknowledge that every state, no matter how small, is on track to receive $500 million in the latest package–a formula that benefits lower-population states.

Furthermore, while the governors claim their “measured approach to the pandemic” helped “keep businesses open and people employed,” the reality is more complicated.

Republicans like to attribute Iowa’s budget condition and relatively low unemployment rates to the lax COVID-19 mitigation policies Reynolds prefers. However, the Council of State Governments found last year that Iowa fared better than most states in terms of budget shortfalls in large part because of the structure of our economy. States heavily dependent on natural resources or tourism saw “catastrophic” revenue declines. In contrast, Iowa and Delaware benefited from “industry-specific mitigation factors, […] with relatively high concentration of state GDP in the finance and insurance sector and a low concentration in the leisure and hospitality sector.”

The GOP governors’ news release did not clarify whether the governors would prefer the American Rescue Plan as currently drafted or the Republican senators’ plan, which excludes another round of local and state government aid. Asked whether Reynolds is encouraging Iowa Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst to vote against the COVID-19 relief bill, the governor’s spokesperson did not respond to Bleeding Heartland’s inquiry.

UPDATE: Republicans on the House Budget Committee released this chart indicating that if the $350 billion were distributed solely on a population basis, Iowa’s state and local governments would receive an additional $734 billion.

That’s a significant number, but remember: if Congressional Republicans had their way, states would be getting no new money to support government operations.

Several commenters pointed out that when it comes to Iowa school funding, Reynolds and GOP state lawmakers rejected an equal population approach, preferring to reward some school districts and punish others based on how they approached the pandemic.


Full text of February 27 joint news release from 22 governors including Iowa’s Kim Reynolds:

22 Governors Oppose Biased Fund Allocation in Stimulus Package

DES MOINES – Twenty-two governors have released a joint statement opposing the new standard in President Joe Biden’s stimulus bill for how federal funds would be allocated to states:

“Unlike all previous federal funding packages, the new stimulus proposal allocates aid based on a state’s unemployed population rather than its actual population, which punishes states that took a measured approach to the pandemic and entered the crisis with healthy state budgets and strong economies.

“A state’s ability to keep businesses open and people employed should not be a penalizing factor when distributing funds. If Congress is going to provide aid to states, it should be on an equitable population basis.”

Governors who joined the statement include Kay Ivey (R-AL), Mike Dunleavy (R-AK), Doug Ducey (R-AZ), Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Brian Kemp (R-GA), Brad Little (R-ID), Eric Holcomb (R-IN), Kim Reynolds (R-IA), Laura Kelly (D-KS), Tate Reeves (R-MS), Mike Parson (R-MO), Greg Gianforte (R-MT), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Chris Sununu (R-NH), Doug Burgum (R-ND), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Kevin Stitt (R-OK), Henry McMaster (R-SC), Kristi Noem (R-SD), Bill Lee (R-TN), Spencer Cox (R-UT) and Mark Gordon (R-WY).

The 33 states expected to lose funding under this proposal, which was adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives this morning, include the following:

* Alabama
* Alaska
* Arkansas
* Delaware
* Florida
* Georgia
* Idaho
* Indiana
* Iowa
* Kansas
* Kentucky
* Maine
* Minnesota
* Mississippi
* Missouri
* Montana
* Nebraska
* New Hampshire
* North Carolina
* North Dakota
* Ohio
* Oklahoma
* Oregon
* South Carolina
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Utah
* Vermont
* Virginia
* Washington
* West Virginia
* Wisconsin
* Wyoming

One-page fact sheet explaining the allocation of COVID-19 relief funds to state and local governments.

Top image: Screenshot from Governor Kim Reynolds’ February 25 news conference.


Axne, Miller-Meeks support Violence Against Women Act

0
0

The U.S. House voted 244 to 172 on March 17 to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) with some new provisions. All Democrats present, including Representative Cindy Axne (IA-03), were joined by 29 Republicans, including Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02), to send the bill to the U.S. Senate. Republican Representatives Ashley Hinson (IA-01) and Randy Feenstra (IA-04) opposed the legislation.

Congress enacted VAWA as part of the 1994 crime bill and has expanded its scope on several occasions. The version approved in 2013 lapsed in 2019, and while some funding for its programs has continued, the current bill would go further. Li Zhou reported for Vox,

In the latest reauthorization, lawmakers aim to strengthen protections for women facing sexual violence by ensuring that non-tribal offenders on tribal lands can be held accountable, and by closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole,” which would bar anyone convicted of stalking from obtaining a firearm. Additionally, the bill includes funds for housing vouchers, so survivors in federally-assisted housing are able to relocate quickly if they need to. It guarantees, too, that people will be able to obtain unemployment insurance if they have to leave a job because of concerns for their safety.

The bill also includes more funding for rape prevention and education as well as funding to “specifically tailor programs to the needs of communities of color, including improving language access.”

The House approved a similar reauthorization bill in 2019 with support from all Democrats and 33 Republicans. But it stalled in the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Iowa’s Senator Joni Ernst was charged with leading the VAWA effort in the last Congress, but she failed to hammer out a deal.

Colby Itkowitz and Marianna Sotomayor reported for the Washington Post on March 17,

Republican opposition to the bill revolves in part around closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole,” which adds dating partners and stalkers to the provision banning spouses of convicted domestic violence or abuse from owning firearms.

The National Rifle Association is opposed to the extending the ban, and Republicans have opposed the broader VAWA legislation over it, arguing that it is a ploy by Democrats to erode Second Amendment rights.

Speaking to reporters on March 16, Ernst indicated that the GOP caucus is still unwilling to cross the NRA on this bill: “Certainly we ran into hiccups with some of the gun issues, and that’s a big one for a number of us, stripping away people’s constitutional rights is not something that we should be doing.”

In a written statement enclosed in full below, Axne noted that Iowa’s “volunteers, shelters, and support networks have been working with domestic violence and sexual assault survivors without the full funding and support they deserve from Congress for over two years – and this past year of public health and economic challenges have removed even more safety nets while increasing the need for support.”

Miller-Meeks did not release a statement about the VAWA or mention this vote on her social media feeds. Similarly, Feenstra didn’t publicly comment on his opposition to the reauthorization.

Hinson’s news release (also enclosed below) touted her support for a Republican alternative bill, which she described as a “clean” reauthorization without “partisan additions.” While Hinson criticized Democrats for advancing what she called “a partisan version” of VAWA, she didn’t address the elephant in the room: in this polarized environment, 29 GOP votes for a Democratic proposal is by definition a successful bipartisan effort.

Earlier on March 17, Iowa’s U.S. House members split along party lines as every Democrat present and four Republicans voted to remove the deadline to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which guarantees equal protection for women. Iowa was among the first group of states to ratify that amendment in 1972, with broad support in both parties. Congress originally required the amendment to be ratified in three-fourths of states 1979, then pushed the date to 1982. In recent years, three more states have ratified the ERA, leading to the current push to extend the deadline again.

Feenstra and Miller-Meeks did not explain their votes against the ERA. Republicans who spoke during the floor debate asserted the bill was itself unconstitutional and objected that it could be construed to guarantee a woman’s right to an abortion. Hinson’s statement echoed those points, claiming the bill would “expand taxpayer-funded abortion access nationwide.”

Iowa’s delegation has agreed on several recent House actions. On the evening of March 17, all four Iowans were part of the 384 to 38 majority that approved funding for various assistance programs for survivors of violent crimes. Statements from Feenstra, Axne, and Hinson explained that legislation in more detail.

Earlier the same day, the House approved “a resolution to award three Congressional Gold Medals to the Capitol Police, the D.C. police and the Smithsonian Institution,” recognizing their actions during the January 6 coup attempt. I was relieved to find no Iowa names among the twelve Republicans who opposed that resolution.

On March 16, Iowa’s House members were part of the 415 to 3 majority that approved an extension of the Paycheck Protection Program. Over the past year, PPP loans have helped many small businesses and nonprofits keep employees on the payroll despite disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.


March 17 statement from Representative Cindy Axne on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act:

Axne, Bipartisan House Vote to Revive Violence Against Women Act

House passed legislation today to increase protections, support for survivors of abuse

WASHINGTON – Today, Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03) joined a bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives to revive the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), legislation to increase support and protections for programs for victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, as well as stalking and human trafficking. 

Our volunteers, shelters, and support networks have been working with domestic violence and sexual assault survivors without the full funding and support they deserve from Congress for over two years – and this past year of public health and economic challenges have removed even more safety nets while increasing the need for support,” said Rep. Axne. “Iowa’s communities have stepped up to fill that need even as they are struggling financially, but they shouldn’t be left without the help Congress has provided for over 20 years. When I worked at the State of Iowa, I worked with the Crime Victims Assistance Unit at the Attorney General’s office and saw firsthand what happens when Iowa’s local and state agencies don’t have the resources they need. I’ve supported this legislation since my first day in office, and I’m committed to seeing it reauthorized as soon as possible.”

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 also includes reauthorization and increased funding for critical Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors (STOP) grants, a $60 million investment that Rep. Axne successfully advocated to increase in 2019.

The STOP Formula Grant Program is awarded to states to enhance the capacity of local communities to strengthen strategies to combat violent crimes against women and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases involving violent crimes against women.

“I know that our domestic violence support networks need increased support. These grants not only help local law enforcement agencies stop these despicable crimes, but they also ensure we’re protecting and supporting survivors,” said Rep. Axne“The increases for the STOP grant program that I pushed for are included in this bill to provide the proper tools and resources needed to better address, combat and prosecute violence against women.”

Background:

The landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994 codified Congress’s commitment to advancing effective strategies for preventing and responding to domestic and sexual violence, holding offenders accountable, and ensuring safety, autonomy, and justice for victims. 

VAWA guaranteed legal protections for women who have experienced domestic and sexual violence. It was initially passed in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000, 2005 and 2013. The bill expired at the end of 2018 and was briefly renewed by a resolution reopening the government, but expired again in February 2019.

In April 2019, Rep. Axne and a bipartisan House voted to reauthorize VAWA programs – but the measure was not passed in the Senate.

Support:

VAWA reauthorization has the support of more than 200 advocacy organizations, including the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, Break the Cycle, Legal Momentum, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Organization for Women, MomsRising, Feminist Majority,  YWCA USA, AAUW, Business and Professional Women’s Foundation, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Women’s Law Center, National Association of Hispanic Organizations, AFL-CIO, UAW, NAACP, Human Rights Campaign, National Council of Churches, and National Congress of American Indians. 

Statement from Axne on the Equal Rights Amendment:

Rep. Axne Reaffirms Support for Women’s Equality with Vote to Enable Ratification of Equal Rights Amendment

House voted today to remove time limit on states’ ratification of constitutional amendment preventing sex-based discrimination

WASHINGTON – Today, Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03) backed legislation aimed at ensuring constitutional equal rights for women by removing the time limit for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

“I am proud to join my colleagues to affirm that women have been intentionally left out of the Constitution for far too long,” said Rep. Axne. “Suffragette Alice Paul first introduced the Equal Rights Amendment in 1923, and women are still waiting nearly 100 years later for equal protection under the law. Today, women are still paid less for our work, often overlooked for promotions, are less likely receive business loans and to own our own businesses. If the discrimination we’re still fighting hasn’t expired, then neither should our efforts to see the ERA added to the Constitution.”

Under Article V of the Constitution, an amendment to the Constitution needs to be proposed by two-thirds of the Congress and ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states.

In 1972, Congress advanced the ERA and set a seven-year time limit for the needed two-thirds (38) states to ratify the amendment. The time limit was extended by Congress to 1982, but elapsed with only 35 states having ratified the amendment.

In 2020, Virginia became the 38th and final state needed to ratify the ERA – following Nevada in 2017 and Illinois in 2018 – which would create additional legal avenues for people who face discrimination under the law on the basis of sex, and allow the Supreme Court to apply the highest of standards when reviewing sex discrimination cases. It would also give Congress the power to enforce that equality of rights under the law are not abridged by the United States or any state on the account of sex.

Congress has the authority to strike the time limit, just as it had the authority to extend the limit in 1979. Article V of the U.S. Constitution does not include time limits for the ratification process.

The State of Iowa ratified the ERA on March 24, 1972.

Statement from Axne on the Victims of Crime Act fix:

House Passes Axne-Backed Bill to Bolster Resources for Crime Victims

Axne previously urged congressional leaders to ensure strong funding for grant programs under the Victims of Crime Act

WASHINGTON – Today, the House advanced bipartisan legislation, the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021, originally cosponsored by Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03) to make critical improvements to victim services programs that receive grant funding through Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). These programs offer direct compensation and services to those who have been impacted by crimes like domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking, and more.

VOCA grants come from the Crime Victims Fund (CVF), which uses no taxpayer dollars and is instead funded by federal criminal monetary penalties. However, CVF deposits have dropped recently as a result of changes in policies at the Department of Justice, threatening cuts to grants that fund victim service and compensation programs, including help paying lost wages, medical bills, and funeral and burial expenses.

“Victim assistance and compensation programs offer critical resources – including financial resources – for Iowans who have been the victim of serious crimes. The need for these services has outpaced recent funding, and cutting these critical supports during a global pandemic would only hurt our communities,” said Rep. Axne. “I am proud to have supported this straightforward fix that will prevent disastrous cuts to VOCA, shore up the CVF, and offer much-needed flexibility for states and victim service providers looking to help those in need.”

Specifically, the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021 would:

Require DOJ to deposit all monetary penalties, including those from deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements, into the CVF.  

Strengthen state victim compensation funds by increasing the grant calculation for victim compensation programs from 60% to 75% of state-funded payouts.

Require state VOCA administrators to waive the 20% match requirement for victim service subgrantees until one year after the end of the pandemic. State VOCA administrators would also be permitted to create a procedure to waive these requirements at their discretion after the initial waiver period expires.

Allow states to request a no-cost extension from the Attorney General to ensure they can effectively use victim service grants without fear of penalty.

Provide flexibility for state compensation programs to waive the requirement to promote victim cooperation with law enforcement for good cause.

Last December, Rep. Axne urged congressional leadership to ensure VOCA programs did not face funding cuts by expanding deposits to the CVF and ensuring those deposits would be made available to victim service providers. 

March 17 statement from Representative Ashley Hinson on the Violence Against Women Act:

Hinson Supports Clean VAWA Reauthorization, Rejects Partisan Additions

Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Hinson released the following statement supporting the clean extension of the Violence Against Women Act, which Democrats rejected today. 

“I voted in favor of the Violence Against Women Extension Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. This bill would extend the current, bipartisan version of the Violence Against Women Act that provides critical services to survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence.  Unfortunately, Democrats rejected this effort and instead advanced a partisan version of the legislation. Supporting victims of violent crimes shouldn’t be a partisan issue, and I hope to work in a bipartisan manner going forward to provide resources to women and children who have endured domestic or sexual abuse.” 

Hinson statement on the Equal Rights Amendment:

Hinson Statement on Moving the ERA Deadline

Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Hinson released the following statement on legislation that would remove the deadline to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.

“I am disappointed that I didn’t have the opportunity to consider a modern, updated version of the Equal Rights Amendment. The premise behind today’s resolution was Constitutionally unsound and would actually undermine women’s rights and the progress we have made since the 1970s. This legislation would also expand taxpayer-funded abortion access nationwide. I will continue to fight for all women and girls – including those not yet born.”

Hinson statement on Crime Victims Fund Act:

Hinson Co-Sponsored Bill to Provide Resources to Victims of Violent Crimes in Iowa Passes House

Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (R-IA) released the following statement applauding House passage of the the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021.  

“I am proud to support legislation that will keep the crime victims fund afloat. The Crime Victims Fund provides essential services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and other horrific crimes. Unfortunately, the Crime Victims Fund in Iowa is projected to hit a decade low by the end of this year. This bill will ensure that those who have suffered from unthinkable crimes have the resources they need to recover physically and emotionally.”

Statement from Representative Randy Feenstra on the crime victims funding bill:

Bill to Shore Up the Crime Victims Fund Passes House

Feenstra is an original cosponsor of the bipartisan, bicameral VOCA Fix Act of 2021

WASHINGTON — Today, H.R. 1652, the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021, passed the House with broad bipartisan support. Rep. Randy Feenstra (IA-04) was an original cosponsor of this bipartisan, bicameral legislation, which aims to improve the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) by making updates to the Crime Victims Fund (CVF) that provides crime victims with much-needed assistance and compensation.

“I am pleased this commonsense legislation received bipartisan support from my colleagues,” said Rep. Feenstra. “It is unacceptable that deposits into the Crime Victims Fund have been declining, and addressing this has become even more pressing in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. By preventing future cuts to the CVF, survivors of domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, human trafficking and other crimes will have a reliable, sustainable resource for getting the assistance they need and deserve.”

The CVF is funded through federal criminal penalties, but deposits have dropped over the past several years. This is in part due to penalties being deposited into the general fund of the Treasury, and then they are not properly routed and deposited into the CVF. This decrease in funds has resulted in cuts to victim service providers. Among other things, this bill would require the Department of Justice (DOJ) to deposit all deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreement monetary penalties into the CVF.

In 2020, all 56 State and Territorial Attorneys General sent a letter to Congress in support of implementing these updates. The VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021 is supported by more than 1,670 national, regional, state, territorial, and local organizations, including: the National Children’s Alliance, the National Criminal Justice Association, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National District Attorneys Association, and the National Association of Victim Assistance Administrators.

Grassley votes to advance bipartisan infrastructure bill (updated)

0
0

Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst rarely land on opposite sides of any issue, but it happened on an important U.S. Senate floor vote on August 7. Iowa’s senior senator was among eighteen Republicans who joined Democrats on a procedural vote to advance a bipartisan infrastructure bill. Ernst was among the 27 Republicans who voted against the motion, which needed 60 votes to pass.

Grassley has not been among the 20 senators negotiating the bipartisan bill. He has spoken favorably of federal spending on projects like roads, bridges, airports, and broadband, but said this week “the big hold-up for me” on the infrastructure proposal is whether the “pay-for” provisions to cover the costs are real or just “gimmicks.”

A vote for the final version of this bill would be another data point suggesting Grassley intends to seek re-election in 2022.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said the Senate will not adjourn for its traditional August recess until after the bipartisan bill has passed. The legislation would spend about $1 trillion, with a focus on “physical infrastructure.” Democrats plan to pass a larger spending bill including “human infrastructure” provisions such as child care, education, and higher wages for home health care workers.

The full text of the bipartisan bill is here. Emily Cochrane, Christopher Flavelle and Alan Rappeport reported for the New York Times on some of President Joe Biden’s priorities that were dropped from the compromise. Laura Michelle Davis and Clifford Colby reported for cnet.com on some of the big ticket items remaining in the bipartisan bill:

  • $39 billion for mass transit
  • $66 billion for passenger and freight rail
  • $25 billion for airports
  • $17 billion for ports and waterways
  • $110 billion for roads and bridges
  • $12.5 billion for electric vehicles
  • $55 billion for water infrastructure
  • $73 billion for power grid improvements
  • $65 billion for broadband

I haven’t seen any public statement from Grassley or Ernst on Saturday’s votes but will update this post as needed.

UPDATE: Jamie Dupree reported in his must-read newsletter on Congressional happenings,

LEGISLATIVE NERD NOTE. When Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) vowed on Saturday to object to any deal leading to a quick Senate vote on infrastructure, he also unwittingly undercut fellow GOP Senators who wanted to bring up a series of amendments. Yes, this is procedurally geeky, but stick with me.

SUBSTITUTE. Right after the Senate voted to shut off debate on Saturday, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) offered an amendment setting out the effective date of the bill. Because of the procedural situation involving the amendment tree – Carper’s amendment will elbow out about 20 GOP amendments to the bill.

NO DEAL. In other words, if there is no agreement to speed up the final vote on infrastructure, don’t look for votes on any possible Republican changes to the bill. They can thank Hagerty for submarining his own colleagues.

Grassley expects to vote on Republican amendments to the package.

LATER UPDATE: Grassley and Ernst both voted against a cloture motion on the bipartisan infrastructure bill August 8. The Senate approved that motion by 68 votes to 29 (roll call). Burgess Everett and Marianne Levine reported for Politico,

Hagerty on Sunday afternoon attempted to bring up 17 amendments by unanimous consent, but Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) objected, citing his refusal to come to a time agreement and potential objections from other senators. […]

“We have wasted all day Thursday, Saturday and now through Sunday,” said an exasperated Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “That’s enough time to vote on a multitude of amendments, and we just sat around those three days, accomplishing nothing.”

Grassley voted against ending debate Sunday, citing his complaints about the amendment process. However, he told reporters after that he’d still support final passage. The infrastructure bill could theoretically be amended after Sunday’s vote. But that would require cooperation from all 100 senators, making the prospects unlikely.

The post Grassley votes to advance bipartisan infrastructure bill (updated) appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Grassley touts infrastructure vote; Ernst quiet on opposition

0
0

Can you guess which Iowa senator is up for re-election in 2022, and which one won’t face Iowa voters for another five years?

In a rare gesture of bipartisanship on August 10, the U.S. Senate approved by 69 votes to 30 a bill that would spend $1.2 trillion on infrastructure projects. Iowa’s senior Senator Chuck Grassley was among nineteen Republicans who supported final passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, despite being unhappy with the amendment process. Senator Joni Ernst stuck with the majority of the GOP caucus in opposition; the no votes included potential 2024 presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

In a written statement enclosed in full below, Grassley said, “Iowa’s aging infrastructure risks slowing economic growth and eroding daily comfort and convenience. This bipartisan bill fixes potholes, rebuilds bridges, upgrades water systems and brings broadband to rural corners of our state. Investing in Iowa’s infrastructure will pay dividends for decades to come.” His news release highlighted reports showing Iowa has more structurally deficient bridges than any other state and many large roads in poor or fair condition.

The bill involves about $550 billion in spending not previously approved by Congress. Its large pieces include:

  • $39 billion for mass transit
  • $66 billion for passenger and freight rail
  • $25 billion for airports
  • $17 billion for ports and waterways
  • $110 billion for roads and bridges
  • $12.5 billion for electric vehicles (including a nationwide network of charging stations)
  • $55 billion for water infrastructure
  • $73 billion for power grid improvements
  • $65 billion for broadband

Ernst did not publish a statement on her website explaining her opposition to those projects, nor did she mention the infrastructure vote on her social media feeds. Instead, she bashed the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation that Senate Democrats brought to the floor immediately after passing the infrastructure bill.

Ernst’s staff provided comments to some media (not Bleeding Heartland). Stephen Gruber-Miller reported for the Des Moines Register,

Ernst, in a statement, pointed to the Congressional Budget Office estimate that the bill would add $255 billion to the national deficit over a decade.

“Congress and the American people were promised an infrastructure bill that was fully paid for, but that’s clearly not the case,” Ernst said in her statement.

Ernst said she offered amendments to the infrastructure bill to help pay for the proposal, but they were voted down.

“While I certainly support improving America’s hard infrastructure — like our roads and bridges — I simply can’t support saddling more debt onto the shoulders of future generations of Iowans and opening the door for Bernie Sanders to ram through his multi-trillion dollar liberal tax-and-spending spree,” she said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the lower chamber won’t take up the bipartisan bill until Senate Democrats have approved the larger spending bill, which will fund many “human infrastructure” programs relating to education, health care, and child care.

I anticipate that as federal funding finds its way to Iowa improvements in broadband or physical infrastructure, Ernst will want a bit of the reflected glory. If you hear the senator take credit for projects funded by the bill she voted against, please contact Laura Belin with details on her comments.

Final note: Transportation for America, a nonprofit advocating for infrastructure policies that prioritize maintenance and safety over new road construction, described the Senate-approved bill as a “historic investment in yesterday’s transportation priorities.”

There are certainly welcome new additions, including a major recalibration of the nation’s approach to investing in and running passenger rail and a small program to tear down divisive old highways. But with this deal, the Senate is largely doubling down on a dinosaur of a federal transportation program that’s produced a massive repair backlog we are no closer to addressing, roads that are killing a historic number of vulnerable travelers each year, little opportunity to reach work or essential services if a family doesn’t have multiple cars, and the continued inability for local governments to have a say over what projects are built in their communities.

The group said House members can improve on the bill by adopting language “requiring states to make progress on repairing their infrastructure before building expensive new things (in fact, this provision was applied to transit only), requiring measurable improvements in the number of people killed on our roads, measuring greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation system, and providing more money for removing or bridging over highways that were rammed through Black and Brown neighborhoods.”


Full text of August 10 news release from Senator Chuck Grassley’s office:

Grassley Votes To Invest In Iowa’s Future

Bipartisan infrastructure bill paves way for better roads, bridges, internet access and economic opportunity for Hawkeye State

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today voted for the Senate’s bipartisan infrastructure package that will make significant investment in Iowa’s roads, bridges, waterways, energy and internet infrastructure. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act combines a routine highway bill with various other bipartisan infrastructure proposals and new programs to empower innovation in rural America and move people and products safely and smoothly throughout the country. 

“Iowans have raised infrastructure concerns at nearly all of the 85 county meetings I’ve held so far this year, whether it be about roads and bridges, access to broadband or the locks and dams on the Mississippi River. Iowans rely on sound infrastructure to move our ag products and manufactured goods, as well as to connect with family, business partners and critical service providers. But like much of the country, Iowa’s aging infrastructure risks slowing economic growth and eroding daily comfort and convenience. This bipartisan bill fixes potholes, rebuilds bridges, upgrades water systems and brings broadband to rural corners of our state. Investing in Iowa’s infrastructure will pay dividends for decades to come.  

“Like any compromise, this bill isn’t perfect and nobody got everything they wanted or likes everything in the bill, but this bipartisan package is a vast improvement over the House-passed infrastructure bill and a far cry from President Biden’s and Congressional Democrats’ partisan schemes to hike taxes and spend trillions on liberal pipedreams masqueraded as ‘human infrastructure.’ Our bipartisan package bundles several bills that have already won bipartisan action in the Senate, all without raising taxes on Iowa families. It’s proof that the Senate is fully capable of delivering on bipartisan policy when given the chance. It’s a shame my Democrat colleagues are still intent on following this bipartisan exercise with a partisan multi-trillion dollar reckless tax and spending spree, which I will oppose,” Grassley said

DELIVERING FOR IOWA

Investment in traditional infrastructure not only improves our quality of life, but it also boosts economic growth over the long term. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act repairs and upgrades Iowa’s critical infrastructure, paving the way for greater economic activity for years to come. Here are a few example of the bill’s impacts on Iowa.

Roads

Roughly 29 percent of Iowa’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, resulting in an estimated cost of $336 per year for each motorist, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. This bill invests $4.2 billion in repairing Iowa’s roads, with the opportunity to compete for additional resources. The bill also includes a new grant program for rural transportation projects. 

Bridges

Iowa leads the nation in the number of structurally deficient bridges. Fixing these bridges means safer roadways for Iowans. This bill guarantees Iowa $431 million for bridge repair, with more competitive grant funding available. 

Waterways

Iowa farmers, manufacturers, shippers and businesses rely heavily on our waterways to do business and move their goods. This legislation contains key Grassley provisions and priorities such as addressing the backlog for Operations and Maintenance and Investigation Accounts through the Army Corps of Engineers, allowing states to use federal highway funding for lock and dam modernization, helping complete studies from flooding, funding soil moisture and snowpack monitoring activities in the Upper Missouri River Basin to inform the lower basin of drought and flood conditions and funding Mississippi River and tributaries projects. 

Airports

Iowa’s commercial and general aviation airports increase the productivity for private sector businesses and the agriculture industry. They also provide Iowans much needed connections across the nation and world. Under this bill, Iowa’s airports will benefit from increased funding for the Airport Improvement Program for runways, gates, and taxiways. The bill also creates a new Airport Terminal Improvement Program and improves the air traffic control infrastructure.

Broadband

Thousands of Iowa households don’t have access to high-speed internet, which has proved indispensable for continuing education, conducting business and delivering health services during the pandemic. This bill provides $65 billion to increase access to broadband services, with a particular focus on unserved and underserved communities, including rural Iowa.

Clean water

The bill authorizes $227 million over the next five years for Iowa through the existing Clean Water State Revolving Fund program and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which have been around for decades. These funds will help Iowa’s years-long efforts to further improve water quality. 

Natural Disaster Mitigation

Iowans know firsthand how devastating natural disasters, such as flooding and tornadoes, are to our communities. This bill provides funds to state and local communities to carry out mitigation projects that reduce the risk of natural disasters. 

A BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act represents a highlight reel of the Senate’s bipartisan work. It includes several bills that have already won bipartisan action in the Senate, including a must-pass highway bill to extend programs set to expire this fall.

Here are some examples:

  • Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act – Passed Senate 89-2
  • Cyber Response and Recovery Fund – Passed Senate as part of bipartisan Endless Frontiers Act
  • Energy Infrastructure Act – Passed Energy & Natural Resources Committee with bipartisan support
  • Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act – Passed Environment & Public Works Committee with bipartisan support
  • Commerce Surface Transportation Investment Act – Passed Commerce Committee with bipartisan support
  • RECYCLE Act – Bipartisan cosponsors
  • Broadband Financing Flexibility Act – Bipartisan cosponsors
  • Carbon Capture Improvement Act – Bipartisan cosponsors
  • BUILD Act – Bipartisan cosponsors

The post Grassley touts infrastructure vote; Ernst quiet on opposition appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Catholic nuns to Cindy Axne: Tax the rich

0
0

Sister Jeanie and Sister Elaine Hagedorn, who co-authored this post, are Catholic sisters with the Congregation of the Humility of Mary. They live in Des Moines and are longtime advocates for Catholic social justice with groups like NETWORK.

No matter where we come from or what we look like, Iowans believe that working families deserve a fair shot. All work has value, and all working people have rights, from farmworkers in vibrant rural towns to factory workers in our bustling cities. But for too long, a greedy few corporations and CEOs have rigged the game in Iowa and across the world, taking from working people to make sure that a powerful few can get rich off the profit that working Iowans, particularly Black and Brown working Iowans, produce.

For years, wages in Iowa have stagnated for everyone, and the racial wealth gap has exacerbated inequalities embedded in our economic system. In particular, Black, Brown, and Indigenous workers have been pushed to the economic margins by systemic inequality in our tax code. Meanwhile, the climate crisis continues to put all Iowa families at risk as storms like the 2020 derecho devastate working neighborhoods.

As Catholic nuns with decades of ministry experience in Iowa, we have worked closely with those most impacted by Iowa’s inequities. Union workers, immigrant communities, hungry children, and houseless families have turned to social services, religious communities, and mutual aid efforts because of our state and federal government’s misplaced priorities.

For too long, our governments have spent money on tax breaks for corporations and bloated military and police budgets. These reckless spending priorities promote two great social sins: inequality and violence.

Pope Francis has long spoken out about the need for governments to address the evils of inequality and violence as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. In place of these injustices, he has called for solidarity with workers and nonviolence to be at the center of all public policy. He has called on all people to build solutions “based on decent and dignified working conditions” so we can build an economy that puts people before corporate profits and the global weapons trade. Imagine what an Iowa that puts workers first could look like: thriving communities and strong neighborhoods where we work together for a better future.

A re-alignment of our nation’s policies with our moral priorities is long overdue, and this week, Iowa’s U.S. House representatives have an unprecedented opportunity to act. The Build Back Better Act being considered by Congress is a once-in-a-generation recovery package that can be passed through the budget reconciliation process, and Iowans need U.S. Representative Cindy Axne (IA-03) to support the full package, with all of its investments in climate, care, and community.

The Build Back Better Act would make health insurance, child care, housing, and college more affordable, and would ensure that all of Iowa’s workers have paid family and medical leave. It would expand affordable home- and community-based care for Iowa’s seniors, and it would offer tax credits for Iowa parents and workers to put food on the table. Preschool would be available to all 3- and 4-year-olds, and we would see unprecedented investments in renewable energy, offering a livable future to Iowa’s children.

This much-needed plan would be paid for by raising taxes on corporations and those earning more than $400,000 a year, and it would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. This plan would be fully paid for by creating a tax code that lets us care for one another. In Iowa, we believe in rewarding work, not wealth, and we need our Congressional Representatives to reflect Iowa values.

Congress has never shied away from reckless spending to prop up forever wars and tax giveaways for the top 1 percent, but this package is paid for by ensuring that corporations and billionaires can’t continue to cheat on their taxes. The mega-wealthy who earn their income from stocks currently pay a lower tax rate than Iowa’s teachers and nurses. That can change, and it must.

So, in this busy Congressional week, we offer a prayerful challenge to our fellow Catholic Cindy Axne and all members of Congress: put people and the planet ahead of big corporate profits. Invest in solutions that serve people of color, families, and the working poor in Iowa. Pass the Build Back Better Act without delay.

Axne has already publicly endorsed the Build Back Better Act’s drug cost reforms. Now Iowans need her to hold the line, voting against the bipartisan infrastructure bill until the House passes the bold investments we deserve. If you agree, you can call Axne at 888-738-3058 and urge her to vote for a bold Build Back Better plan.

The post Catholic nuns to Cindy Axne: Tax the rich appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Seniors can’t afford another six years of Chuck Grassley

0
0

Kay Pence highlights Senator Grassley’s double standards on the federal deficit, depending on which party controls the presidency.

I was 4 years old when Senator Grassley first entered elected office. I grew up, got married, raised a family, went to college, had a career and now I’m retired. Who knows, I may have even voted for Senator Grassley at one time. A lot has changed in the last 62 years though: namely, Chuck Grassley. 

Normally I would support a healthy senior continuing to work as long as they want. However, I’ve always believed we send Representatives to Congress to represent our interests. The Alliance for Retired Americans has been tracking Representatives’ voting records since it was formed in 2001 and Senator Grassley has only voted correctly on senior issues 11 percent of the time.

 

When running for re-election or when we have a Democratic president, Senator Grassley claims to bring Midwestern common sense to the people’s business. Last month he said, “Working families and retirees can’t spend willy-nilly without keeping close eye on their bank accounts. Small businesses and farming operations would go bankrupt if they didn’t make sure their expenses squared up with income. In other words, Iowans live within their means.” 

However, it’s hard to cite examples of Congress living within their means in the 62 years Grassley has been in elected office. When Republicans control the government, he has no concerns about pulling out the taxpayers’ credit card.  

Since Grassley was first elected, the debt ceiling has been raised 78 times: 49 times under Republican presidents, and 29 times under Democratic presidents. When Donald Trump was president, the national debt grew at the fastest rate of any modern president to $27.75 trillion, up 39 percent from $19.95 trillion four years earlier. Grassley enthusiastically supported the largest driver of Trump’s deficit, his 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and didn’t pay for a penny of them with spending cuts.  

The deficit games Grassley and his Republican colleagues are now playing cause many Americans to lose faith that Congress works for us. Grassley doesn’t like the Build Back Better bill because people and corporations that make more than $400,000 a year will have to start to pay their fair share.

The Build Back Better plan closes the carried-interest tax loophole, which allows private equity moguls to classify their income as capital gains and pay only a lower tax rate on those earnings, rather than the normal top income rate of 37 percent. This is the tax loophole billionaire Warren Buffet highlighted when he admitted it allows him to pay a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. Working people are tired of paying higher effective tax rates than billionaires. Why isn’t Grassley on the same page?

Americans are also tired of paying the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world. Consumers in other high income countries pay a fraction of what Americans pay because they negotiate prices. Grassley was the chief architect of banning Medicare from negotiating fair drug prices which leaves seniors at the mercy of drug companies’ unquenchable greed. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that seniors, taxpayers, and employers would save over $450 billion if we allowed the largest purchaser of drugs in the world to negotiate prices just like other high income countries do. 

Those savings could be used to strengthen Medicare to include dental, hearing and vision coverage. Grassley continues to block negotiations in the name of competition but it seems that the only competition is between who can fleece consumers the most. 

Supply chain disruptions caused by increasing weather events; fires, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc. are also increasing our costs. The longer we wait to address climate change, the more it is going to cost. It looks like Big Pharma, billionaires and fossil fuel industry lobbyists may sway enough corporate Democrats to kill Biden’s Build Back Better agenda. But if we had a senator willing to come to the table and represent Iowans we could have a fairer tax code, lower drug prices, and we could finally start addressing climate change. 

Seniors can’t afford another six years of obstruction by Chuck Grassley.

Kay Pence is a retired Communions Workers of America union representative and Vice President of the Iowa Alliance for Retired Americans. Pence started her career as a technician for Northwestern Bell Telephone company in 1972 and while working full time earned a BA from Marycrest University and a MBA from Saint Ambrose University in Davenport. Pence is the mother of three sons and grandmother to six and resides in rural Eldridge, Iowa with her husband of 46 years.

The post Seniors can’t afford another six years of Chuck Grassley appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

What the bipartisan infrastructure bill will spend in Iowa

0
0

The state of Iowa will receive approximately $5 billion from the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill headed to President Joe Biden’s desk, according to calculations published by U.S. Representative Cindy Axne (IA-03). Axne, the lone Democrat in Iowa’s Congressional delegation, was among the 215 Democrats and thirteen Republicans who approved the bill late in the evening on November 5. (Procedural matters earlier in the day led to the two longest votes in U.S. House history.)

Iowa’s three Republicans in the chamber—Representatives Ashley Hinson (IA-01), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02), and Randy Feenstra (IA-04)—opposed the infrastructure legislation.

When the Senate approved the same bill in August, Iowa’s Republicans landed on opposite sides, with Senator Chuck Grassley supporting the infrastructure package and Senator Joni Ernst voting against it.

HOW FUNDS WILL BE SPENT IN IOWA

The bill involves about $550 billion in spending not previously approved by Congress. Axne’s news release estimated Iowa’s share of several large pieces. Our state stands to receive:

  • $3.4 billion in highway funds and $432 million for bridge replacement and repairs (out of a total $110 billion for roads and bridges)
  • $638 million for water infrastructure (out of $55 billion nationally)
  • $305 million for public transportation (the bill’s $39 billion for mass transit is the largest ever federal investment in this area)
  • $120 million for airports (out of $25 billion)
  • at least $100 million for broadband internet (out of $65 billion)

The bill also includes $12.5 billion for electric vehicles (including a nationwide network of charging stations), $17 billion for ports and waterways, $73 billion for power grid improvements and clean energy, and $66 billion for passenger and freight rail.

AXNE’S COMMITTED TO HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE BILL

In a written statement hailing passage of the bill, Axne made clear she’s not satisfied with this spending alone.

“With this bill, we’re securing the investments we need to expand internet access, reduce supply chain disruptions, and keep our communities safe – all without raising taxes on middle class Iowans,” said Rep. Axne. “This bipartisan infrastructure package, which I look forward to seeing signed into law very soon, will support thousands of Iowa jobs and fund vital investments that I’ve fought to see included in our agenda this year — like the largest investment in rural broadband connectivity in history. This bill will also provide an important extension of programs and new investments that will bring more than $5 billion to Iowa for modernization of our roads, bridges, airports, and public transportation systems. And, as we have promised from the first days of this new Administration, these investments are made without raising taxes on middle class families or passing large amounts of debt on to our children’s generation.”

“To be clear: while this bill moves to the President’s desk to become law, I believe that our work is not over,” Rep. Axne added. “I came to Congress to find solutions on a range of issues that are facing our middle class families – and investments in priorities like child care, biofuels, affordable prescription drugs, housing, education, and sustainable agriculture are still on my to-do list. That’s why I will continue to push my colleagues to continue moving forward on the Build Back Better Act and get this complementary bill signed into law.”

Axne noted that the bipartisan bill “is projected by Moody’s Analytics to create more than 770,000 jobs by 2025,” and if combined with the second bill “will create more than 2.4 million jobs in the same amount of time.”

I supported the House Progressive Caucus withholding support on the bipartisan infrastructure bill over the past two months, waiting for an ironclad agreement on the Build Back Better Act. I’m concerned that by passing the first bill now, progressives have set the stage for conservative Democrats in the House and Senate to tank the larger spending bill, which will be passed through the budget reconciliation process. It’s already been slashed from $3.5 trillion in investments, which would have been fully paid for through tax increases, to $1.75 trillion with many important programs missing.

That said, Representative Pramila Jayapal, who leads the House Progressive Caucus, has managed these negotiations well and sounds confident the reconciliation bill will go through. She has more information than what is publicly available and reportedly received individual commitments from each of the House Democrats who had threatened to block the Build Back Better Act. I hope Jayapal doesn’t get double-crossed.

REPUBLICANS QUIET ABOUT VOTING AGAINST INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING

I didn’t see any public statements from Hinson, Miller-Meeks, or Feenstra explaining why they voted against spending billions to improve Iowa infrastructure. Please let me know if you catch any of them taking credit for projects in their districts that would not have been possible without the federal funding they opposed. Our state has long been among the worst in the country for structurally deficient bridges.

Hinson spoke on the House floor on November 5 and later released a statement emphasizing her opposition to the larger reconciliation bill. Excerpts:

Iowans deserve to know how much of their hard-earned paychecks are going to be wasted on frivolous, misguided priorities like funding for butterflies or desert fish, when my constituents are busy trying to put food on their tables, provide for their kids, and keep their family farms operating.

“But no, we can’t even get the most basic information – we don’t have an official cost estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. […]

We are spending approximately trillions of taxpayer dollars on nonsense priorities when Iowans are dealing with real challenges, and we can’t even give them the respect of waiting for a proper cost estimate?

I don’t call child care support, universal pre-school, child tax credits, affordable housing, or clean energy “frivolous, misguided priorities.” The child tax credit alone has lifted an estimated 3 million American children out of poverty and helped millions more parents “put food on their tables.” Democrats should be pushing to make that policy permanent rather than extending it for only one year.

State Senator Liz Mathis, the likely Democratic nominee in Iowa’s new second Congressional district, and State Representative Christina Bohannan, the likely nominee in the first district, both tweeted in support of the infrastructure bill, noting that Hinson and Miller-Meeks had voted against it.

UPDATE: During a July 2021 appearance on KWWL-TV’s “The Steele Report,” Ron Steele asked Hinson where she stands on the “massive” infrastructure bill, which (in his words), “has to be done.” My transcript of Hinson’s response, beginning around 12:55 on this video.

Well I think, Ron, with any bill that focuses on infrastructure, we need to focus on real, hard infrastructure, which is our roads and bridges, our locks and dams, our broadband. So that’s what I’ve been focused on. That’s what I heard when I did my three town halls in person in the district, took those questions from constituents and heard that they want focused, targeted investments in real infrastructure.

So that’s what I’m trying to advocate for in those conversations. I’m excited to hear that there is a potential bipartisan deal, but again, very wary of the price tag.

I just want to make sure that these bills are not full of fluff and free stuff, and they’re full of, again, targeted investments that deliver for Iowans. So, that’s what we’re focused on in the infrastructure conversation.

LATER UPDATE: Miller-Meeks’ staff didn’t post any news release about this bill on her official website, but Thomas Geyer of the Quad-City Times quoted from a release that some media received on November 5.

“I have been calling for a fully funded bipartisan bill that would improve our bridges, roads, broadband, locks, dams, broadband and electric grid,” Miller-Meeks said Friday in a news release.

“I will not support a bill that is directly tied to a multi-trillion dollar reckless tax-and-spend package that increases inflation and had no Republican input, even though Congress is evenly divided,” she said.

“We could have passed a clean infrastructure package already on a bipartisan basis like the Senate did and found reasonable ways to pay for it,” Miller-Meeks said.

Miller-Meeks was either unaware or hoping her constituents wouldn’t notice that the bill she just voted against is the bipartisan bill already approved by the Senate.

Miller-Meeks’ deputy chief of staff Austin Harris responded to me on Twitter that the bipartisan infrastructure bill “was linked with” the Build Back Better Act. That was true until a few days ago, when the bills were delinked. There is no guarantee the reconciliation bill will pass in any form now.

Top photo of construction on the Interstate 74 bridge over the Mississippi River first published on October 29 on the I-74 River Bridge Facebook page, maintained by the Illinois Department of Transportation.

The post What the bipartisan infrastructure bill will spend in Iowa appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Iowa Republicans say little about voting to shut down government

0
0

The federal government will stay open until at least February 18, after the U.S. House and Senate passed a continuing funding resolution on December 2. Only one House Republican crossed party lines to support the resolution, which mostly maintains spending levels agreed during the Trump administration. Iowa’s Representatives Ashley Hinson (IA-01), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02), and Randy Feenstra (IA-04) opposed the bill.

In the upper chamber, nineteen GOP senators joined Democrats to send the legislation to President Joe Biden. Notably, Iowa Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst voted against the bill, even though they had supported resolutions setting federal spending at these levels while Donald Trump was president.

The most significant change in the continuing resolution was an extra $7 billion in appropriations related to Afghanistan. Emily Cochrane reported for the New York Times,

The additional funding includes about $4.3 billion for the Defense Department to care for [Afghan] evacuees on military bases, $1.3 billion for the State Department and $1.3 billion for a division of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide resettlement and other services, including emergency housing and English language classes.

All of Iowa’s Republican members of Congress have expressed support for helping those who assisted the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan. Yet they all voted against this spending. Why?

Grassley told Iowa reporters on December 1 that he didn’t support shutting down the government in order to block one of Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates. But his office didn’t release any statement about the continuing resolution, nor did he mention the funding bill on his Twitter feed. (He did tweet about opposing vaccine mandates.)

Ernst also didn’t mention her vote against keeping the government running in any news release or on her social media feeds. The same was true for Feenstra and Miller-Meeks.

Hinson was the only Iowa Republican to release a statement on the matter.

“Iowans are sick of Speaker Pelosi’s out of touch policy pipedreams taking priority over the real issues that impact real people. Congress has known about this deadline for months, but Speaker Pelosi shut down government funding negotiations to focus on passing the reckless $1.7 trillion reconciliation bill. We need to do our job and fund the government in a way that respects working families who pay taxes. Iowans sent me to Washington to stop the chaos and dysfunction in Congress, not enable it further.” 

Those comments don’t make a lot of sense, because:

  1. Keeping the lights on is the ultimate “real issue that impacts real people.” A shutdown would disrupt the lives of millions of Americans who rely on federal government benefits or services.
  2. The House wasn’t voting on the reconciliation bill on December 2.
  3. The bill that passed extended spending levels set during the Trump administration; how does that not respect “working families who pay taxes”?
  4. Republicans’ continual threats to shut down the government are a central element of “the chaos and dysfunction in Congress.” By voting against the continuing resolution, Hinson did enable that dysfunction.

But I will say this for Hinson: she made some effort to explain her position on an important Congressional vote. Miller-Meeks, Feenstra, Ernst, and Grassley couldn’t be bothered.

The post Iowa Republicans say little about voting to shut down government appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.


Violence Against Women Act reauthorized in big spending bill

0
0

President Joe Biden has signed into law a $1.5 trillion omnibus spending bill, which funds the federal government through September 30. The president’s action on March 15 ends a cycle of short-term continuing spending resolutions that kept the government operating on spending levels approved during Donald Trump’s administration.

The enormous package combines twelve appropriations bills covering portions of the federal government, as well as an additional $13.6 billion in aid to Ukraine and several unrelated pieces of legislation. One of those reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act through 2027, a task that had remained unfinished for years. Congress last reauthorized the 1994 legislation addressing violence against women in 2013, and that authorization expired in 2019.

Iowa’s Senator Joni Ernst was a key negotiator of the final deal on the Violence Against Women Act and celebrated its passage this week.

HOW THE IOWANS VOTED ON THE SPENDING BILL

Lindsey McPherson reported for Roll Call on how the omnibus bill was divided in the U.S. House to allow members to vote separately March 9 on two parts:

One piece, which lawmakers backed on a 260-171 vote, included the vast majority of the nondefense spending bills, the nondefense-related funding for the Ukraine crisis and most of the unrelated bills leadership attached to the omnibus given it’s must-pass status. That includes reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act, the National Flood Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a livestock reporting program and more.

Other measures riding on the spending package include legislation to increase reporting of cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, a provision allowing regulation of synthetic nicotine manufacturers, language intended to boost the Federal Trade Commission’s ability to crack down on attempts to defraud seniors and various health provisions, like an extension of higher Medicaid reimbursements for U.S. territories.

The other vote included the three appropriations bills progressive Democrats often oppose: Defense, Commerce-Justice-Science and Homeland Security. The second piece also included the defense portions of the Ukraine supplemental, the annual intelligence authorization and a section intended to promote the U.S.-Israel relationship and back regional peace initiatives such as the Abraham Accords brokered by the Trump administration.

U.S. Representative Cindy Axne (IA-03), the lone Democrat in Iowa’s Congressional delegation voted for both halves of the spending package. Representatives Ashley Hinson (IA-01, the new IA-02) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02, the new IA-01) were among the 39 Republicans to vote for the portion that included much of the domestic spending and provisions on the Violence Against Women Act, flood insurance, food assistance, livestock reporting, and cybersecurity. Republican Randy Feenstra (IA-04) voted against that part of the package.

All four Iowans in the House voted for the part of the omnibus bill that included Pentagon and Homeland Security spending, intelligence authorization, and the new military aid to Ukraine.

The U.S. Senate approved the omnibus spending bill in a single 68 to 31 vote, with Ernst and Iowa’s senior Senator Chuck Grassley both among the eighteen Republicans to vote yes.

LONG ROAD FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT FINALLY ENDS

Since the Violence Against Women Act lapsed, the Democratic-controlled House has voted to reauthorize it in 2019 and in 2021. Axne voted for both of those bills, which each had some Republican support. Miller-Meeks was the only Iowa Republican to support the 2021 bill. To my knowledge, she has never mentioned that vote in a news release or on her social media feeds.

That’s probably because last year’s bill, like the one the House approved in 2019, contained language the National Rifle Association opposes. The provision would close what is commonly known as the “boyfriend loophole”; if it passed, anyone convicted of stalking or abusing a former partner (even if they never married) would be unable to purchase firearms.

Three years ago, Senate GOP leaders charged Ernst with working on a deal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. But Iowa’s junior senator was unwilling to back the House bill in 2019. She said at the time, “The House bill is a non-starter and is chalk full of partisan political talking points that take us further away from, rather than closer to, a bill we can get over the finish line.” The main piece Republicans objected to was closing the boyfriend loophole. No progress ensued during the 2020 election year.

History appeared to be repeating itself in the current Congress, with the House-approved bill from last March going nowhere in the upper chamber. The bill needed at least ten Republican votes to overcome a filibuster.

A breakthrough finally came last month, when senators including Ernst rolled out a bipartisan bill. Jennifer Bendery reported for the Huffington Post that ten Republicans co-sponsored the bill. In addition to reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act through 2027,

It also includes new provisions like expanded access to forensic exams for victims of sexual assault in rural communities; a new grant program to provide community-specific services for LGBTQ survivors of domestic violence; and new jurisdiction to tribal courts to go after non-Native perpetrators of sexual assault, child abuse, stalking, sex trafficking and assaults on tribal law enforcement officers on tribal lands.

The one big missing piece was language closing the “boyfriend loophole.” Bendery reported in February,

The gun provision was the biggest sticking point in the Senate, where most Republicans simply refused to support a VAWA bill that included any kind of restrictions on gun access. The National Rifle Association, among other gun rights groups, made it clear they opposed the provision.

Even Murkowski and Ernst tried to keep the gun language in the bill, along with Durbin and Feinstein, according to a Senate Democratic aide. But in the end, they didn’t have the GOP votes to pass the bill with the provision in it.

“It was a really difficult decision,” said this aide, who requested anonymity to speak freely about private conversations. “But it came down to we don’t want this to be a messaging bill. We want this to be a bill that can get to Biden’s desk.”

Staff for Murkowski and Ernst did not respond to Bleeding Heartland’s inquiries about whether the senators tried to keep the “boyfriend loophole” language in the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization.

This document prepared by Senate staff explains each section of the bill, which became law when Biden signed the omnibus spending bill March 15.

Ernst and the other senators who led negotiations on this issue hailed the success in floor speeches on March 16. Ernst posted the video of her own remarks on her official Facebook page.

Ernst said she’d been “a proud champion of this bill” for three years and expressed her gratitude for the bipartisan work “to get it over the finish line.”

The senator added that the bill is “personal” for her, because she is among the “one out of three women that have experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner.” One in four men have suffered similar abuse.

Ernst said it had taken a long time for her to speak about being a survivor, and said she hoped some other women would never have to, thanks to the bill. “And those that do will have the necessary support and resources in a moment of crisis to cope with and ultimately overcome their trauma.” Among the many “critical resources” the bill contains, Ernst highlighted that it doubles support for rural domestic violence and rape prevention programs, both of which are of “great importance” to Iowa.

Negotiations over this bill were “at times very tough,” Ernst acknowledged, fueling doubts about whether the bill would come together. “While the end result isn’t perfect, it modernizes the resources necessary to meet the evolving needs of our survivors. This bill is proof that bipartisanship is not dead, and Congress can tackle these tough issues.”

Ernst became emotional near the end of the speech.

Finally, for my fellow Americans who can say they are survivors, for those who have not come to terms with their abuse, and for those who feel trapped in their situation, and for those who have lost their battle, please know that you are not, and will never be forgotten. The Violence Against Women Act is for you.

Top image: Screenshot from video of Senator Joni Ernst speaking about the Violence Against Women Act on March 16.

The post Violence Against Women Act reauthorized in big spending bill appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

It’s about time to fund the IRS

0
0

This column by Rick Morain first appeared in the Jefferson Herald.

U.S. Senate Democrats passed their omnibus Inflation Reduction Act on August 7 by 51 votes to 50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote. They did so under so-called “reconciliation” rules, which require only a simple majority to pass bills related to appropriations, rather than the usual filibuster-blocking 60-vote margin.

The bill then went to the House, where Democrats approved it on a party-line 220 to 207 vote on August 12. President Joe Biden is expected to sign the bill this week.

The measure contains a number of provisions dear to the hearts of Democrats and many moderates: empowering Medicare to negotiate prices for several key drugs, capping Medicare recipients’ out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 a year, climate control incentives, extension of federal health care subsidies, a 15 percent minimum tax for most corporations whose profits exceed $1 billion a year, and other long-sought goodies.

By raising more money than the act will spend over a 10-year period, it will also enable the government to pay down some of the national debt by several hundred billion dollars. That hasn’t happened for the past 25 years.

A section of the act that particularly irritates Congressional Republicans – and many of their well-heeled donors – increases the funding of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by $80 billion over the next 10 years. A little more than half of that increase will go to hire thousands of new agents to audit tax returns.

GOP Senator Rick Scott of Florida appeared on CBS-TV’s “Face the Nation” August 7. He asked interviewer Margaret Brennan, “Do you know how much – how happy people are to have more IRS agents out there? I mean, this is not – this not going to be popular around the country.”

Senator Scott is probably correct about the people who inhabit the circles in which he moves: they don’t much welcome more auditing agents on the IRS staff.

But I doubt that Americans who earn less than $100,000 a year seriously disapprove. In fact, they may be saying, “it’s about time.”

The IRS has been underfunded for years. In 2010 the number of full-time employees of the agency stood about 94,000. By 2018, after congressional Republicans had worked their will, that number had dropped to about 74,000. Enforcement employees declined by 30 percent.

It’s time-consuming and complicated to audit tax returns of high-income individuals and businesses. So the agency’s audit staff in recent years picked the low-hanging fruit, mostly evaluating returns of taxpayers with incomes less than $75,000, according to IRS data. In 2020 more than 40 percent of its audits targeted low-income recipients of the earned income tax credit, one of the country’s main anti-poverty measures.

A beefed-up enforcement staff will be able to put more resources into audits of higher-income taxpayers. New projections indicate a return on investment of $4.50 in revenue for every dollar spent on enforcement. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS provisions will let the government knock $203 billion off the federal deficit over the next 10 years.

IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig informed senators early this month that the IRS will boost enforcement “in areas of challenge for the agency – large corporate and global high-net-worth taxpayers. [...] These resources are absolutely not about increasing audit scrutiny on small businesses or middle-income Americans.”

For most working Americans who earn a regular paycheck, filing a tax return is easy, with little opportunity for cheating. Their wages, and their W-2 forms, tell the feds exactly how much they’ve earned in the tax year. 

The opportunities for fudging on a return are much greater for high-income corporations and individuals, whose sources of income are more diverse and complicated than a paycheck, and who have access to accountants and attorneys who can push back against IRS enforcement. 

GOP Senator John Thune of South Dakota spoke on the Senate floor last week against the Inflation Reduction Act’s increase for IRS enforcement funding, saying that with its passage “ . . . the IRS can spend more time harassing taxpayers around this country.”

One person’s harassment is another’s fairness. 

A number of Republicans hammer away at the demand of a few progressives to “defund the police,” although few Congressional Democrats propose that these days.

But defunding is what Congressional Republicans did from 2010 to 2020 to the IRS, and what they advised in opposing the Inflation Reduction Act. IRS auditors constitute the government’s financial police force; starving the IRS amounts to defunding the enforcers.

Why shouldn’t the tax returns of high-income Americans get as much scrutiny as those of low- and middle-income taxpayers?

It’s time.

Rick Morain is a reporter and columnist with the Jefferson Herald. He is the former publisher and owner of that newspaper with deep roots in his family. Rick Morain has been active in political and economic development circles in Iowa for more than a half century.

Top image: Official IRS logo.

The post It’s about time to fund the IRS appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.





Latest Images