Senate Democrats vowed Monday to pass a one-year budget, despite a promise from Gov. Terry Branstad to veto it if they do.
“I’ve said it very loud and clear that I intend to enforce a biennial budget, a budget where we spend less than we take in each year with a five-year projection in terms of revenue and keeping the expenses below that so what we have is sustainable for the long term,” Branstad told reporters Monday.
The statement comes after an appearance at a Republican Party of Iowa fundraiser over the weekend where Branstad declared in regard to a one-year budget: “I’ll veto it and I’ll veto it and I’ll veto it until we get a two-year budget.”
State Sen. Robert Dvorsky (D-Coralville) told The Des Moines Register that Iowa hasn’t passed a two-year budget since 1983, and the Senate wouldn’t do so this year.
Research on various state budgeting practices shows there are no clear benefits to designing a two-year budget over a one-year budget. In fact, a biennial budget would require officials to predict state revenues and expenditures as far as 30 months in the future, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. If the economy turns sour again, for instance, the state would find itself with fewer tax dollars than anticipated, making a biennial budget obsolete.
Cedar Rapids Gazette columnist Todd Dorman points out that predicting the state’s future revenue is hard enough to do months in advance, “let alone years.” Ultimately, he says, the move puts much more power in the hands of the governor, who has broad transfer authority and “can move money around in the budget while the legislature sits on the sidelines.”
“Even if Branstad says he won’t overuse transfer authority, the authority remains, and his promise won’t stop future executives,” Dorman said. “Handing the governor a two-year budget would also leave the Legislature in a much weaker bargaining position on other issues.”