HF 193 provides changes to the permit application process for carrying a weapon. These changes should bring more clarity and predictability to the process.

Under current practice, a local sheriff may deny or restrict an application for a permit to carry without providing any explanation to the applicant. The legislation approved by the Public Safety committee on Tuesday requires that sheriffs explain why an application was denied or restricted. A sheriff who denies an application is required to provide a written statement of the reasons for the denial or the restriction to the applicant by mail within twenty working days of the filing of the application.

This is seen as big step forward for those applying for permits to carry weapons. Many have complained of sheriffs across the state handling these applications very differently, making it very difficult for applicants to understand the process.

Not only does the bill address denials, but it also requires an explanation for restrictions placed on a permit to carry. Some permits are issued with such stringent restrictions that they are utterly useless pieces of paper that grant a gun owner to carry their weapon only under rare circumstances.

The bill creates a process for those who have had an application denied or restricted to seek a hearing. The applicant can appeal the denial or restriction to an administrative law judge by sending them a copy of the notice from the sheriff along with their rebuttal of the reasons given for the denial or restriction. The administrative law judge’s decision will be subject to judicial review. This will give applicants and sheriffs an appeal process in the courts.

These changes will help the citizens of Iowa who have long felt that the process left them in the dark.

The bill addresses a number of other issues surrounding the issuance of permits to carry weapons. It includes a provision for reciprocity between states that have been designated as Brady-alternative states. The period of time a permit is valid is increased from 1 year to 3 years. The age of eligibility for a nonprofessional permit is raised from 18 to 21.

The bill also includes language that would prevent domestic abusers from getting permits. The training required for getting a permit is addressed more specifically in the bill than it has been in the past and includes a clause that would grandfather in current permit holders by waiving the requirement for the training program.

Having given up on the price fixing for public projects bill (prevailing wage), the Democrats this week pushed House File 530, employee choice of doctor, or the employee doctor shopping bill.

HF 530 upsets the careful balance in workers’ compensation struck over the past 96 years. The bill reverses the current system that allows an employer to choose care for injured workers, and instead places the choice of doctor in the employee’s hands. This will destroy an employer’s opportunity to contract for health care and thus will raise insurance premiums greatly. This move will wipe out Iowa’s optimal position as a high benefit – low insurance premium state.

The bill, HF 530, provides that an employee may select their own doctor by having that doctor on file with the employer. The doctor need not be a specialist or occupational physician, and any referral to such a specialist must be paid for by the employer. Currently employers can send injured workers directly to the appropriate specialist thus avoiding the cost of the referring doctor. Under the bill, the added step of referrals and the inability of employers to contract for health care will drive up the cost of care and thus raise workers’ compensation insurance rates.

This bill attempts to “fix” a system that is not broken. Employees already have a procedure to request a change of doctor and in the overwhelming majority of cases such requests are granted. However most workers never feel the need to request alternative care. Less than two percent of those treated for work related injuries ever request alternative medical care.

Iowa workers already enjoy the highest maximum benefits of any state in the Midwest. Iowa’s rate of $1,206 per week outstrips the next highest performer, Minnesota, by $456 per week, and is far ahead of Nebraska, Illinois, South Dakota, Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin. In fact, Iowa is ranked third nationally, behind only the District of Columbia and New Hampshire.

Despite these high benefit rates Iowa still enjoys very low workers’ compensation insurance rates. Iowa ranked 41st highest in total premiums in the 2008 edition of Oregon Workers’ Compensation Premium Rate Rankings. The impact of HF 530 could be staggering to Iowa’s rates. In 2007, the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), the national manager on insurance data, estimated that the elimination of employer directed care in Iowa would increase premiums by up to $93 million per year.

The bill will impact the state’s general fund in two ways. First, since the state is self-insured, the increase due to the bill would be $5 million a year in workers’ compensation costs. Second, since workers’ compensation insurance premiums are tax deductible, due to the increase in premiums the state would lose $10 million a year in corporate income tax revenue.

Independent research into this subject has revealed that employees choose a provider based on familiarity rather than expertise. The result, according to the independent research group Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI), is an increase in medical payments, higher indemnity benefits, lower odds of returning to work, and increased time out of work.

At the public hearing held on the bill on Tuesday night, 24 of the 38 speakers argued against it. They included representatives of business and industry, doctors and nurses and even a few employees who had suffered injuries on the job. One speaker talked about getting hurt on the job and the system worked fine for him and it should not be changed.

After the public hearing, the bill was amended with a strike after amendment that made it even more onerous. The Labor Committee approved the bill on a party-line vote. The original plan was to read in the bill on Tuesday night and debate it on the floor on Friday. However, the House adjourned before the public hearing so the bill is not eligible until next week. At this point, the Democrats are at least 4 votes short of having the 51 needed for passage. Hopefully that will not change in the coming weeks.

House Republicans will continue to fight against these job-killing bills and instead push for legislation that will help put 80,000 Iowans back to work and create new jobs in the future.

On January 21, House Republicans released a series of questions aimed at helping legislators of both parties dive into the state budget and bring more transparency and accountability to taxpayers.

Republicans have made Democrat leadership, department heads and staffs aware of their questions and House Republican Ranking Members will be investigating where each taxpayer dollar is spent and relaying that information back to Iowans. Republicans will be asking:

• How many new full-time employee positions have you added since 2007? Provide a listing of all full-time employee positions, complete with job titles, salary and benefits for the position and whether the position is filled? If it is not filled, how long has the full-time employee position been open?
• How will you implement the across the board cut?
• Provide us with the list of suggested cuts you provided to the governor in the fall of 2008?
• If you were forced to cut your budget by 10 percent, what suggestions would you have to reduce the budget and / or reduce the responsibilities of your department?
• What assets does your department have that can be leased or sold? What services do you provide that could be privatized or outsourced?

Republicans also raised concerns about the Democrats decision to cut regularly held and public budget subcommittee meetings. These subcommittee meetings are held at the beginning of each legislative session and typically consist of at least three meetings a week. Recently, Democrats have decided to cut back to two meetings a week.

During these tough economic times and when our state is facing serious budget constraints, it’s troublesome that the Democrats are willing to cut Iowans out of the process. Now is the time for increased discussion, ideas and solutions. It’s not the time to shut the door on input and open meetings.

During the Governor’s Condition of the state address he proposed spending $43 million from the Economic Emergency Fund on helping communities recover from the storms of 2008.

Property Tax Replacement Funds: The Governor proposes spending $20 million on this purpose. Culver proposes to create a funding source for communities to help replace lost revenue and property taxes. An application process or means of distribution among disaster-impacted communities needs to be proposed.

Jumpstart Assistance: The Governor proposes spending $10 million on additional jumpstart assistance. This round of jump start is more flexible Jumpstart assistance to help meet some of the gap where federal assistance cannot be used. Some of the ways the new Jumpstart assistance could be spent is for grants for those over federal income limits, additional funding for projects just above the federal $25,000 limit on “Jumpstart Express.” Additional mortgage assistance after individuals have exhausted the three months allowed under HUD.

Non-Profit Assistance: The Governor proposes spending $5 million in a forgivable loan program for non-profit and cultural venues impacted by the disaster. They would be required to rebuild and continue to operate for five years at pre-disaster wages and benefits for employees.

Individual Unmet Needs Assistance: The Governor recommends spending $5 million in financial assistance for the “unmet needs” of disaster-impacted individuals and families. He proposal says the assistance could work through the case management system to ensure that eligible individuals have maximized other state and federal assistance and be available in the form of up to $5,000 grants. This program could be administered by the Department of Human Services.

Rebuild Iowa Office: The Governor recommends spending $2.0 million on the administration of the Rebuild Iowa Office. The proposal states the office serves as a clearinghouse for the state’s flood-recovery efforts, and coordinates the day-to-day rebuilding plans.

Skills Training: The Governor proposes the creation of a $1 million Skills Training Fund. The money will also be used to pay for one staff member to administer the fund. The money from the fund would be used for short-term skills training programs particularly to prepare for a construction workforce in the rebuilding phase.

To this point, Republicans have not been included in the development of any disaster relief legislation despite calls for bipartisanship from both legislative Democrats and the Governor. A disaster relief bill is expected to be debated in committee next week (week of Jan. 19) and move quickly to the floor for debate the following the week.

Last session, the Legislature approved House File 2645, a bill that dramatically changed Chapter 20, the public employee collective bargaining rules and 260C, which deals with teacher contracts and termination. The bill was rammed through in the cover of darkness and approved by the Legislature before the public outcry became loud enough to prevent its passage.

The Governor vetoed HF 2645, stating that it was “a poorly written bill with sometimes-ambiguous language that raises troubling, unanswered questions and unresolved uncertainties for management, labor and taxpayers alike. At the heart of the ambiguities is the ‘open scope’ language of the bill, which does not define what is, and what is not, a part of the ‘other terms and conditions not already excluded,’ that could be made subject to mandatory bargaining…. all of which could be made subject to binding arbitration upon impasse and which could potentially result in untold and unintended obligations resulting in substantial tax increases.” (Governor’s Veto Message, May 15, 2008)

After the Governor’s veto, he pledged to work with the unions, management and taxpayers to come up with a compromise bill. Legislative Democrats said they would wait for the Governor to lead on labor issues. “The ball’s in the governor’s court,” said Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal. “I think it’s highly likely there will be something.” (Des Moines Register, December 15, 2008)

However, in his Condition of the State speech on January 13, the Governor made no mention of any changes to labor laws. He did not even repeat what he said in his 2008 Condition of the State speech that “For the benefit of working Iowans, I challenge you to try to find consensus, and to not be afraid to debate difficult issues, like, prevailing wage, independent contractor reform, choice of doctor, fair share, and the right to bargain matters like employee discipline and discharge.”

The Governor did not mention any of those proposed bills. While it is likely Legislative Democrats will resurrect plans to weaken Iowa’s Right to Work law and expand the collective bargaining law, Republicans appreciate the Governor’s decision to drop these ideas from his agenda in 2009.

House Republicans will judge every bill this session with the question “Does this bill help grow Iowa’s economy?” Any version of HF 2645 will harm the economy and will be opposed by the caucus.

In his Condition of the State speech, the Governor punted on the issue of how to solve the $779 million budget gap. He did however say the solution to Iowa’s problems is to borrow $700 million and spend it on infrastructure, roads and flood reconstruction.

Everyone agrees that the two most important issues facing the state this session are flood reconstruction and dealing with the self-inflicted $779 million budget gap for Fiscal Year 2010.

The Governor’s speech only dealt with one of those two issues. The Governor proposes to borrow $700 million in the form of 20-year tax-exempt state revenue bonds. The bonds would be repaid using $56 million in annual gaming revenue from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF). While not all of the details are known, it is apparent that most of this money would not be spent on flood rebuilding.

The Governor also recommends appropriating $43 million from the Economic Emergency Fund (EEF, commonly referred to as the “Rainy Day Fund”) for flood relief. That leaves $112 million in the EEF. Interestingly, this is roughly the figure that David Underwood of the Revenue Estimating Conference predicted the revenue would be reduced by at the April REC meeting.

The first part of the budget debate is ensuring that the FY 2009 budget is in balance. Currently that is not the case because the Governor needs the Legislature to act on a deappropriations bill and provide a Medicaid supplemental for it to remain in balance. It is unlikely the Legislature will take up a deappropriations bill until late February at the earliest.

The second part is dealing with the $779 million budget gap in the FY 2010. Remember, the budget gap was $563 million when the Legislature left town in April, 2008. This was because of the overspending by the Governor and Legislature. Due to a downturn in the economy, the number grew to $779 million. This will be reduced by roughly $85 million due to the Governor’s across the board cut.

Since the Democrats drained the Senior Living Trust Fund (SLTF), eliminated the Healthy Iowans Tobacco Trust (HITT) fund and virtually drained the RIIF, there is no one-time money to transfer in order to cover the deficit. That leaves the Democrats three options – use gimmicks like leasing the lottery and bonding, raising taxes or cutting the budget. Republicans are ready to help the Democrats cut the budget but are not interested in gimmicks or tax increases.

The bottom line is that this is the typical government-is-the-solution program that will not solve Iowa’s budget mess or grow Iowa’s economy. Republicans support a free market solution that involves making state government leaner and more efficient while not adding to the burdens of the taxpayers.