The latest state tax cuts are expected to cost Iowa more than $2 billion in revenue over the next two years. Advocates for tax fairness argued lawmakers are not considering the long-term consequences of the cuts on schools, workers, and livability.
In the face of a dwindling population and shrinking tax base, Iowa lawmakers doubled down on tax cuts this year, and also passed a measure calling for a constitutional amendment to require any state income tax to be a single rate.
Anne Discher, executive director of Common Good Iowa, said lawmakers chose to cut taxes despite the state's growing economic demands like funding Educational Savings Accounts, which allow parents to use public education dollars to pay for private school.
"I understand that in a vacuum, tax cuts can sound pretty good to folks," Discher acknowledged. "But when you really have a serious conversation about trade-offs, the popularity of tax cuts is a lot less clear-cut."
Lawmakers also passed a cluster of bills to accelerate cuts in the state income tax rate from 3.9% to 3.8%, which Discher argued will have long-term economic effects. Supporters of the tax cut measures, including Gov. Kim Reynolds, have promised more fiscal austerity.
The deeper tax cuts mean an average reduction of about $6 to someone in the bottom 20% of the income bracket, $402 for the middle 20%, and more than $20,000 for someone making more than $1.5 million a year. Lawmakers said they plan to cover the tax cuts with Iowa's budget surplus, which Discher called shortsighted.
"The moment in which that's really going to impact services can be pushed out, right?" Discher noted. "But the thing about surpluses is they are one-time money, and you can't count on them in the long run. And so, when the surpluses are gone, we're going to be looking at a level of tax cuts that are really going to put a lot of important services at risk."
Discher contends implementing a flat-rate income tax would be regressive and hurt lower-income Iowans most. Supporters counter it would be more fair and efficient.
get more stories like this via email
Lawmakers in Michigan have introduced a package of bills designed to lower costs and expand health care access.
Senate Bill 3 would create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board, made up of experts in economics, health care, supply chain management and academia, with no ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Its aim would be to cut costs and protect people's health and finances, by keeping prescription drug prices fair and transparent.
Sen. Sue Shink, D-Northfield, cosponsored the legislation.
"When I talk to people across my district -- and I spend a lot of time going door-to-door talking to people, asking them what's important to them, what kind of issues are they facing -- 'being able to afford health care' is the most common question I get," Shink reported.
As far back as 2017, it is estimated about one-third of Michigan residents ages 19-64 stopped taking their medications as prescribed because of cost concerns. The new legislation is in the Finance, Insurance and Consumer Protection Committee.
Research shows more than 100 brand-name drugs won't have a money-saving generic available any time soon, and for some, not even for another five years. Prescription drug spending in the U.S. has already topped $603 billion, rising 16% between 2016 and 2021.
Shink argued the proposal would help hold pharmaceutical companies accountable.
"Sometimes the drug companies are just charging too much because they can," Shink asserted. "This board is going to take a look at drug prices, find the outliers and then help resolve the situation."
If the legislation is passed, Michigan would become the seventh state to tackle rising prescription drug costs with a Prescription Drug Affordability Board. Companion bills would ensure doctors and insurance companies abide by the board's decisions.
get more stories like this via email
A January survey of Montanans showed a large majority support workers' rights, even as several bills that could affect them move through the state Legislature.
The bipartisan firm Red America, Blue America Research asked about 500 Montanans their thoughts on labor and found 72% think unions help, rather than hurt, Montana's economy.
John Davis, founding partner of the polling firm, said support was even stronger across more specific questions.
"When we had asked a question about changing laws that would weaken employment protection -- so examples being safe work environments, wages, benefits -- 80% of respondents said they do not support efforts to reduce those protections," Davis reported.
Among respondents, 91% said Montana's workers should be able to join a union if they choose to and 87% said they would be less likely to support a legislator who voted to weaken workers' rights.
The survey also found most respondents were unaware lawmakers are currently considering legislation around allowing highly automated, driverless vehicles to operate on public roads in Montana.
"Driving is a major function of a significant percent of the American workforce," Davis pointed out. "So if that were to change, this would have a direct impact on people's livelihoods."
Of those who responded to the survey, 76% said they would not be comfortable sharing the road with driverless delivery vans.
Jason Small, executive secretary of the Montana AFL-CIO, said the status of union rights is an indicator of all workers' rights in the state.
"When the unions are in there, protecting workers' rights, it's not just the unions themselves they're protecting," Small emphasized. "We are the gold standard and we set the wages and the packages for everybody else. So, if we start to fail, the rest of the workers also begin failing."
get more stories like this via email
Virginia ranks third behind only Maryland and Delaware among the worst states for the average amount of back wages companies owe to their workers. Virginia employers owe an average of more than $1,600 to nearly 3,500 employees.
A report from the financial training website Goat Academy analyzing federal data found since 2021, nearly 4,800 wage theft violations have occurred.
Paul Falabella, attorney and past president of the Virginia Employment Lawyers Association, said wage theft laws were passed only recently in the Commonwealth. He pointed out a lack of oversight combined with a construction boom may have contributed to Virginia's wage theft problem.
"Virginia had no state law on wage theft and didn't have the ability for workers to sue directly," Falabella noted. "Workers had to go to either the federal or the state Department of Labor."
It changed in July 2020, when the Virginia Wage Payment Act went into effect. The law gave workers the right to sue their employers in court for wage theft, which previously was impossible.
Falabella added more resources at the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry would help address wage theft issues. But he acknowledged labor law enforcement depends on who is leading the Commonwealth.
"The Virginia Department of Labor and Industry has been underfunded for a long, long time," Falabella asserted. "It's a little better now, but it depends on who's in charge, who's in the governor's office, how robust that enforcement might be, how much attention they're going to focus on workers' rights."
The report, which analyzed U.S. Department of Labor data, found in total, more than $128 million in back wages are owed to U.S. workers.
get more stories like this via email