May 14, 2015 As of today the only two budgets that are not in conference committee are the Health and Human Services budget and the Standings bill. Bills are assigned to conference committee after they have been brought to the floor in both chambers twice and no agreement has been reached. It has been common practice over the last 4 years for all the budget bills to go to conference as a result of the split control of the Legislature. Each chamber writes a budget that embodies our individual priorities, and then the differences are ironed out in conference committee. This year has been particularly challenging as a result of the House and Senate failing to agree to common spending targets. The overriding issue in the budget process is the difference between the House and Senate in determining the overall size of the budget. One of the principles that House Republicans have maintained over the last four years is that we will not budget to spend more than the anticipated revenue for the budget year. The Senate has no such discipline in place. As a result of this lack of discipline the Senate has budgeted to spend $169 million more than the state is projected to collect in FY16. The most glaring example is the Health and Human Services budget where the Senate spends $109 million more than the House intends to spend. That $109 million difference allows the Senate to fund Health and Human Services without any scrutiny of the total expenditure or any consideration of the line by line spending in the budget. In other words, they are taking the easy way out. In the House, every budget committee, other than K-12 education, has taken a slight cut from FY15. Each of our budget chairs has been required to evaluate priorities and make tough decisions regarding where they would appropriate the money allotted to them. We have approached these decisions knowing full well that our choices would result in reduced manpower in many departments of state government. We have done our best to minimize the effect of these cuts on the areas that are important to all Iowans and at the same time demand the best possible return on investment on every dollar the taxpayers send to the state. The crux of the entire problem is the fact that the Senate is willing to spend more than the state takes in. Their proposal not only dips into the ending fund balance, they spend monies from the bond repayment account. This is money that they agreed to set aside during our last session to make future payments on the bonded indebtedness that the state incurred during the Culver administration. I know that I may sound like a broken record but this is the same pattern spending that resulted in the 10% across the board cut in October of 2009 and the need to cut the state budget by nearly $900 million during the 2010 session.
After we complete the process of moving the Health and Human Services budget and the Standings bill into conference committees almost all of the pieces will be in place to finalize the budget and adjourn the 2015 session. The final and most important piece of this puzzle will be a joint spending target. Do we repeat the errors of five years ago by dipping into one time funds in order to finance the ongoing costs of our state government? Or do we adopt a budget that recognizes the limits of the revenue that the taxpayers of Iowa have been required to send to Des Moines? Adamantly adhering to the principle that the Legislature not spend more than the state receives in revenue has elevated Iowa to the enviable position of being one of the most fiscally sound states in the nation. We may remain in session for quite some time if the Senate continues to insist on spending one time revenue sources in order to cover the ongoing expenses of the state. While there are some legitimate uses of one time monies contained within the Senate proposals their extensive use of those funds for ongoing expenses have the potential to put the State in a precarious financial position just a year down the road. The House will hold out for a responsible budget that meets the needs of Iowans and respects the Iowa taxpayer.
