Sioux City Journal. May 5, 2013.

Big issues still await decisions by Legislature

This year's Legislature should have concluded its work on Friday, the 110th day of a scheduled 110-day session.

But it didn't.

In fact, when lawmakers return to Des Moines to begin overtime on Monday, their plates will remain heaping full of unfinished business.

Allowable growth? Unknown (because school districts don't have this information to plan budgets, up to 250 teachers across the state will receive layoff notices this spring). Education reform (long forgotten is Gov. Terry Branstad's hope for passage of education reform by the end of February)? Unclear. Property tax reform? Up in the air. Gas tax hike? Maybe, maybe not. Size of budget for next year? Still talking.

And so on ...

Quite frankly, we are hard-pressed to think of any major decisions made by this body after four months of, ahem, work.

Yes, yes, we understand we have divided government, we understand Republicans and Democrats don't see eye to eye, we understand these are difficult issues and we understand protocol and procedures exist.

Still ...

Call us naive or ignorant, if you will, but we are incredulous at the fact the Legislature is unable at this point to check off anything of substance on its session to-do list.

Too often, in our view, state lawmakers find themselves still grappling with most or all of the biggest issues in the waning days and hours of their session (in 2011, the Legislature didn't close until June 30, the third-longest session in history, for example). As a result, some issues just get pushed off to another year (education reform and property tax reform, for example).

Why is this? Too much wasted time early in the session? Too many side-issue distractions?

Just a thought, but perhaps 110 days for a session is too much time. Perhaps, Iowa should shorten the length of the session, thereby forcing lawmakers to get down to business faster and focus more clearly. A shorter session would save taxpayers money, too.

On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, seemed strangely optimistic about everything.

"People of good faith really are coming together, ideas are being exchanged," he said.

After four months, we're only at the point of exchanging ideas? What have they been doing for 110 days?

This is the stuff average Iowans, including us, do not understand.

Can you imagine the impact on our economy if the private sector moved at this glacial pace?

Ever sat in on an office meeting at which no decisions were made? Of course. Ever sat in on an office meeting at which no decisions were made every day for 110 days?

We haven't, either.

Maybe everything will fall into place this week. Maybe the deals will get done and the interests of Iowans will be served.

Maybe the session will stretch into June.

Or, maybe lawmakers will give up on the heaviest lifting and go home.

Therein lies the problem. It's early May and Iowans simply don't know.

___

Iowa City Press-Citizen. May 4, 2013.

Court rules again that married means 'married' in Iowa

We've said before that, because of the Iowa Supreme Court's 2009 ruling on marriage equality, "marriage" should always mean "marriage" in Iowa — whether the couple is gay, lesbian or straight.

— That means lawmakers shouldn't have freaked out a few years ago when the Iowa Natural Resource Commission expanded its definition of "family members" from referring exclusively to "husband, wife and children" to include "domestic partners," ''spouses" and "legal guardians."

— That means no state agency should make any distinctions between gay, lesbian and straight employees (as the Iowa Department of Corrections did a few years ago) when deciding whether to grant extended leave under the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

— And that means — when issuing birth certificates to children born to a married couple — the Iowa Department of Public Health should offer married same-sex couples the same options for being listed as parents as the department offers to married heterosexual couples and adopting couples of either sexual orientation.

On Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on a case involving that third example and ordered that both spouses in a lesbian marriage must be recognized as legal parents to any child born during the couple's union.

The health department, under both the Culver and Branstad administrations, had refused to put the names of married, same-sex partners on a birth certificate — unless the child was adopted. The state officials argued that the wording of the law in regards to listing parentage on a birth certificate is "gender-specific" and not open to interpretation despite the 2009 Supreme Court ruling.

But that law already is riddled with strange exceptions for heterosexual couples:

— It allows a birth mother's husband to be listed on a birth certificate, even when it's impossible for him to be the biological father.

— It allows heterosexual couples to be listed as parents on a birth certificate even when they conceive via anonymous donor insemination.

— And it allows heterosexual and same-sex couples alike to be listed as parents when a child is adopted.

So we're glad the Iowa Supreme Court backed a lower district court ruling that both Heather and Melissa Gartner of Des Moines should be listed on the birth certificate of their daughter, Mackenzie. (The Gartners married in June 2009, and Heather gave birth to Mackenzie three months later.)

But we also continue to hope lawsuits like this will cause the Iowa Legislature to begin a discussion about whether to change the state law and require that birth certificates — without exception — list the biological parents of child as well as any other adoptive or custodial parents.

Without such a change in the state law, however, the court was absolutely right to rule that the health department needs to stop singling out same-sex, married couples in this regard.

___

Telegraph Herald. May 5, 2013.

Gambling pie only so big

As Iowa gears up to add another casino, this time in Cedar Rapids, state and gaming officials must recognize that adding casinos doesn't necessarily add gamblers.

Will some residents of the Cedar Rapids area go to a casino more frequently once there is one right in town? Sure. But many of those will be people who otherwise would have gone to Riverside or Dubuque or Waterloo or Tama. Having a casino in town might cultivate a few more casual visitors. But by and large, no matter how it's sliced, the gambling pie is only so big.

Because of that fact, it's natural that casino owners — like Dubuque native Dan Kehl, owner of Riverside Casino & Golf Resort — oppose the expansion of gambling in Iowa. A Cedar Rapids casino is a hand in Dan Kehl's pocket. Cedar Rapids' gain will be, in large part, Kehl's loss. So you can't blame Kehl for fighting the Cedar Rapids casino. It will hurt Dubuque, too. And profits at Mystique and the Diamond Jo already have been slipping.

But you can't blame Cedar Rapids for wanting a slice of the pie.

State gambling regulators have a dilemma. Even though there is evidence to support the fact that Iowa has plenty of casinos and adding casinos won't necessarily create more gamblers, new communities still want in.

Dubuque was one of the lucky ones — perhaps the luckiest in the state. We got in on the ground floor of gambling, beginning with the dog track in 1985 — the nation's first nonprofit pari-mutuel track. But it wasn't just luck. Far from it.

Dubuque's success also took community commitment, good management and other elements that make an enterprise successful. It was not a matter of simply building a gambling facility and watching the money roll in. For a reminder of that, the next time you are driving through Waterloo on U.S. 20, take note of the shell of Waterloo Greyhound Park.

In 1991, Dan Kehl's parents, Bob and Ruth Kehl, charged $40-per-head admission for a steak dinner and a gambling cruise on the Casino Belle, which had been granted the nation's first riverboat gambling license. Four years later, Dubuque Greyhound Park added table games and slot machines to its facility and "and Casino" to its name. Today, Dubuque's gambling entities have different names — Mystique Casino and Diamond Jo Casino, and each boasts stylish facilities with posh restaurants, attractive bars and entertainment.

For more than a quarter-century, Dubuque has been enjoying the spoils of gambling. And that revenue stream has been a significant contributor to the renaissance Dubuque has undergone in that span.

Of course, communities like Cedar Rapids, which has never had a gambling facility, are going to look at Dubuque and wonder, why should Dubuque get all those gambling dollars? The same argument plays out beyond the state's borders. As Illinois looks to expand gambling, proponents want to take back the gambling revenue that is going to casinos in Iowa.

The reality is twofold: State officials should know that expanding gambling in Iowa is more likely to redistribute gambling dollars than draw a significant amount of new revenue. Dubuque officials should know that gambling profits will likely continue to shrink in the face of more competition. Neither of those points is particularly palatable, but it's important that future decisions are based on what's realistic, not what we might hope will happen.

___

The Des Moines Register. May 2, 2013.

Branstad plan still pales next to Medicaid

Rep. Dave Heaton, one of the Legislature's experts on health care issues, understands the seriousness of the debate over expanding Medicaid under the federal health reform law to provide insurance to more than 100,000 low-income Iowans. Rather than blindly following a lesser alternative proposed by Gov. Terry Branstad, the Republican from Mount Pleasant has publicly raised concerns about various provisions in the Branstad bill.

"This is the most significant vote that I will have made in the 20 years that I've been here," he said Monday in reference to House legislation pursuing the governor's Healthy Iowa Plan.

Though Heaton could have joined two other Republicans (Joshua Byrnes of Osage and Brian Moore of Bellevue) and voted against the problematic legislation Tuesday, he didn't. There's a silver lining: The bill's passage allows lawmakers to finally get serious about working out differences between the Senate and House versions of legislation in a conference committee. Ultimately, the Senate bill should prevail.

The Senate knows expanding Medicaid makes sense. It is a time-tested program with low administrative costs and an existing infrastructure. Washington will pay the entire cost for new enrollees the first three years and at least 90 percent after that. Iowa can insure its poor while receiving millions of federal dollars that will create jobs in the health care field. The Register's editorial board, as well as Iowa's hospitals, physicians and AARP, have been supporting the Medicaid expansion for months.

The governor was alone in his opposition to expansion until House Republicans fell in line. Now they are supporting his alternative, which will insure fewer Iowans, leave millions of dollars of federal Medicaid aid on the table and cost Iowa taxpayers $156 million — including money siphoned away from the property taxes in all 99 counties. Numerous questions remain about where an Iowan could go for health care under the Healthy Iowa Plan.

Then there is the huge elephant in the room: In the unlikely event a majority of Iowa lawmakers, both in the House and in the Senate, agreed to pursue the governor's plan, Iowa would still need to apply for and secure a waiver from the federal government to proceed. That is neither simple nor automatic.

For months, the staff of the Iowa Department of Human Services has been compiling scores of documents and information to make a request to the federal government for why it should give Iowa money to enact the governor's plan instead of simply expanding Medicaid. After the waiver application is completed, it must be published for Iowans to review. The state must solicit public comments for at least 30 days, hold public meetings and then take those comments into account before submitting it. The federal government will then begin its process for evaluating the waiver application.

And according to many critics, including U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, the Obama administration likely will not approve the waiver anyway.

Iowa lawmakers and Branstad have set up a terrifying scenario: The Legislature will adjourn, and it may not agree to expand Medicaid. It may not agree on the governor's alternative plan, either. A program known as IowaCare, which provides limited health services to more than 60,000 Iowans, expires at year's end. While our elected officials ring in the New Year with the comfort of knowing their own taxpayer-paid health insurance is safe and sound, thousands of their low-income constituents won't have any health coverage and won't have the money to pay for their own care.

Iowans will pay federal taxes to provide health insurance to poor people in other states. Iowans will get nothing.

So Heaton is right. The votes on legislation to get poor Iowans health insurance are the most important in a lawmaker's career. It's time for all of them to set aside the politics and do what makes fiscal and moral sense: Expand Medicaid to finally insure more poor Iowans.