Our View -- Careful steps toward medical marijuana

Printed in the Iowa City Press-Citizen, Feb. 27, 2010.

Back in 1979, then state representatives Dale Hibbs (R-Iowa City) and Bob Arnould (D-Davenport) helped shepherd a bill through the Iowa House that would have allowed marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes in the state. With bipartisan support, Hibbs said he and Arnould managed to get the bill out of committee and onto the House floor for a full debate.

After a few hours of grueling political circus, however, Hibbs said he decided to withdraw the bill because it was abundantly clear that there wasn't the support necessary to pass the measure in that legislative session -- nor in any session in the near future.

It turns out that Hibbs, Arnould and the other sponsors of the bill were a few decades ahead of their time. Their bill came two decades before the University of Iowa held the first ever conference on the question of marijuana's medicinal value in 2000. And their bill came three decades before the Iowa Board of Pharmacy, after hosting a series of public forums across the state, unanimously voted to ask the Iowa Legislature to legalize the drug for medical use to change the classification of marijuana from a Schedule I drug (the most tightly regulated category for drugs) to a Schedule II drug (a category that already includes substances such as Demerol, opium and morphine).

"It makes me happy," Hibbs said. "It shows we were right 30 years ago."

Reasonable people can disagree whether Iowa should approve marijuana for medical purposes. The medical marijuana supporters say marijuana can help underweight patients increase their appetites as well as reduce pain, reduce muscle spasms and relieve nausea. Those benefits would help many cancer patients and AIDS sufferers. Skeptics worry that legalizing the drug for therapeutic use would lead to more recreational abuse -- which in turn would lead to users trying other illegal drugs.

But after the public forums and the board's recent recommendation, it's becoming harder and harder for opponents to argue that marijuana has "no accepted medical use for treatment in the United States."

During the October forum in Iowa City, for example, Larry Quigley told the Board of Pharmacy that marijuana has quelled the pain and spasms better than any other prescription drug he has taken since suffering a spinal cord injury 28 years earlier. Local ophthalmologist John Stamler likewise touted the benefits of marijuana in treating glaucoma, the leading cause of blindness in the U.S. And Lisa Jackson of Crawfordsville, who has fibromyalgia, explained how marijuana is the only drug that has allowed her to function.

"I was taken aback by the chronic pain people are dealing with, and they have taken every narcotic man has made with no relief and major side effects," said state Sen. Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City), who has sponsored several bills on medical marijuana in recent years. "But everyone is in fear of the law."

Although only the Legislature can change a drug's classification, the pharmacy board's recommendation hopefully will be an important component of any changes that the Legislature makes.

We're glad the conversation about medicinal marijuana use has reached this high level -- both in terms of mature discussion and political visibility. But just as some local law enforcement and hospice officials recently said to the Press-Citizen, we think it's extremely important for lawmakers to be very careful in how they draft the bill that changes the drug's classification.

Our state legislators need to learn from the successes and problems seen in the states that have passed provisions for medical marijuana. They need to ensure that whatever bill they pass includes a well-regulated system by which the chronically ill can have access to the benefits marijuana provides but that can't be easily manipulated and abused by recreational users.

Our View - Budget-slashing Legislature convenes today

Printed in the Iowa City Press-Citizen, Jan. 11, 2010.

"No money! No money! No money!"

That's the rallying cry of this year's Iowa Legislature. With budget shortfalls forcing government-wide, cost-saving measures -- including cutting back the legislative session from 100 days to 80 days -- legislators have a lot of difficult decisions to make about which state agencies need to tighten their belts even further.

Budget shortfall

Although the specific numbers differ depending on who is estimating, the state is facing a shortfall of somewhere between $500 million and $1 billion. The specific numbers get slippery because the larger estimates include the money the Legislature already has promised to schools, cities and counties as well as money to replace one-time federal stimulus funds. But it's obvious that legislators are going to have to renege on many of those promises.

The situation, in fact, seems worse than last year, when legislators had to clean up after some of the worst flooding and tornadoes in the state's history. At least then, lawmakers from across the ideological spectrum could find common cause to help Iowans recover from and prepare for natural disasters.

This year, however, the legislators have to clean up after the worst global recession in recent history, and they have to do so while trying to set up themselves (and their parties) to do well in the November elections. Democrats will be trying to persuade recession-battered Iowans that the party's trifecta of power should be extended for another two years; Republicans will be pointing out as often as possible that the state's fiscal and political health would be improved by ending one-party rule.

Republicans already have criticized Gov. Chet Culver for implementing a 10 percent budget cut across the board rather than calling for a special legislative session -- they say he's cutting the budget with an executive sledgehammer rather than with a legislative scalpel. But it seems unlikely that legislators are going to backfill anything but the most absolutely essential government services if they hope to avoid ending the current fiscal year in the red.

No state agency should expect its current budget to be made whole.

Reducing expenses

Nothing, in fact, should be spared from this budget-cutting Legislature. Democrats and Republicans already have been working together to figure out ways to reorganize state government to become more efficient, especially in the areas of:

• information technology,

• joint purchasing,

• consolidating boards and commissions and

• standardizing the ratio for the number of supervisors per the number of state employees.

The governor has implemented some of the recommendations through executive orders. Now we'll get to see whether a majority of the Legislature actually has the political will to implement some of the less attractive cost-saving measures.

And while state leaders say they don't want to raise any taxes during this time of economic uncertainty, they need to keep in mind that the Legislature is convening at a time when many members of the public are questioning why our cash-strapped state budget is bleeding hundreds of millions of dollars through tax credits to film producers, research companies and a host of other special interests.

We want our legislators to keep every cost-saving measure on the table, and that means they must improve the state's oversight of tax credit programs and begin cutting those tax credit programs that don't have any tangible benefit to the state.

Advocating for UI

Our local legislative delegation also needs to remind their colleagues regularly of the important role played by the University of Iowa and the other regent institutions in the state.

In November, an Iowa poll commissioned by the Des Moines Register found that only 31 percent of respondents favored sparing public universities from further budget cuts -- a number smaller than for many other essential state services. They need to tell the story of the good work being done at the university and the opportunities being opened up through the efforts of UI faculty, staff and students.

At the same time, they need to be more than mere UI cheerleaders. We also need our local legislators to step up and help ensure that UI is spending all of its public money responsibly.

Public business

Finally, with a shortened session, we fear that too many important budget decisions are going to be made quickly, behind closed doors and without enough of an opportunity for the public to highlight any unintended negative consequences.

Our local legislators say that they don't think this session will be any more (or less) secretive than usual, and they say all of the policy bills going through the normal committee process will be open for public review and comment.

But we again urge the state's legislative leaders to let the sun shine on their own proceedings and to increase the penalties against those officials who try to keep the public in the dark.

Our View - Iowa should cap interest rates for payday loans

Printed in the Iowa City Press-Citizen, Jan. 8, 2010.

When the Iowa Legislature reconvenes on Monday, lawmakers will be focused primarily on figuring how to balance the state's budget in a way that spreads the pain around and that causes the least amount of damage possible. And with the session shortened from 100 days to 80 days, there won't be a lot of time for lengthy debates on other issues.

Although we want our legislators to manage their time effectively, we also think that there are a number of non-budget issues that require their attention -- especially in this time of economic uncertainty. One of those issues involves setting caps of the interest rates for payday loans.

Lobbyists from the payday loan industry often defend their product as a means of "protecting consumer options." Temporarily cash-starved people, they argue, should have the option to take out a short-term loan at a higher percent rate -- especially when the interest paid would add up to less than the fee for a bounced check or a late payment. Having government set artificial limits on this free market, they argue with fist-pounding indignation, would hurt both consumers and businesses.

Perhaps the defenders of this industry would be right in making such statements -- and in expressing such indignation -- if the majority of payday loans actually were taken out by people who need only a temporary infusion of cash to get through an unexpectedly harsh economic period.

But the Iowa Division of Banking statistics for 2008 found that about half the payday borrowers in Iowa take out 12 loans a year, or one per month. And the Center for Responsible Lending reports that nationally the average payday loan borrower takes out 8.7 payday loans per year. The center also reports that about 60 percent of payday loans go to people with more than 12 transactions per year, and about 24 percent go to people with more than 21 transactions per year.

It would seem that the industry is designed not to help people get back on their feet but to ensure that people stay within a cycle of debt.

The industry defenders are right when they say that a $15 fee on a two-week, $100 loan is less than the fee a bank may charge for a bounced check or a credit card company for a late payment. But that's only if the fee is paid right away.

While the industry defenders would like to describe such a fee as being a mere 15 percent, it actually represents a 390 percent annual percentage rate. If the borrower is unable to pay back the loan right away, then that interest rate begins to add up and to start transforming "the cash-strapped" into simply "the trapped."

With more Iowans and other Americans facing financial uncertainty, we think our state legislators should take some time to talk about the dangers inherent in this loan option. We're glad to hear our local legislators pushing so hard to encourage borrowers and other lenders to develop workable alternatives to payday loans -- such as credit-union loans, small consumer loans, emergency-assistance programs and consumer-credit counseling.

During the next legislative session, we hope the Iowa Legislature does for the payday loan industry what it did for the car-title loan industry a few years ago: Set a reasonable cap on the annual interest rate that such lenders can charge.

Printed in the Iowa City Press-Citizen, Dec. 17, 2009

Our View - Tax credits need more openness, caps and sunsets

If there is any good that can come from this year's film tax credit scandal, it's that the state government now is paying much closer attention to the dozens of tax credits offered in Iowa -- tax credit programs that too often have been run under minimal financial oversight at best. And given the extensive mishandling of the film tax credit program, we weren't surprised to learn that a report from the governor's office, released Monday, found no clear documentation that the state gets any return on its investment for more than half of 32 active tax credit programs.

The lack of evidence of any return is especially problematic at a time when the state faces falling revenues and massive budget cuts. If legislators and other state leaders are serious about recovering some lost state revenue, they need to the report carefully -- especially the parts that explain:

• How there is no clear proof of economic benefit to the state for at least 18 of the programs -- including the credits for young farmers, biodiesel-blended fuel, retail dealers of E85 gas and research by Iowa companies.

• How a $45 million training program for new jobs, which is very popular with employers and Iowa's community colleges, has provided very little evidence that it is a benefit to the state despite costing more than $10,000 per job.

• How some programs have never gathered the appropriate data to demonstrate what kind of bang the state gets for its buck.

And as a newspaper, we are particularly disturbed with the report's documentation of:

• How state law often keeps much of the information about the credits from being public -- making it difficult, if not impossible, for the public to know who is applying for the credits and how much gets paid out.

The report did note benefits for some of the tax credit programs. But those modest benefits seem nothing like the grand promises being offered by the industries-- from film makers to research and development companies -- that receive millions diverted from the state coffers.

Spokesman for those industries were out in force Tuesday in Cedar Rapids and Wednesday in Urbandale as a Tax Credit Review Panel held hearings.

We can only hope that state lawmakers pay more attention to the report than they do to the people who stand to loose money if the state start to staunch the bleeding of tax credit money from its coffers.

We agree with state Sen. Joe Bolkcom, D-Iowa City, that the state needs to switch off its current "automatic pilot" oversight of many of these credits and, at the very least:

• Create a comprehensive database of all incentive recipients to compare all the incentives received.

• Create a permanent joint appropriations subcommittee to regularly review them like other expenditures.

• Add regular sunsets for all incentives tied to job creation and development.

• And add caps so that the credits' impact on the state budget never again gets out of control.

Our View - Update Iowa's inheritance law for 21st century

Printed in the Iowa City Press-Citizen, Dec. 7, 2009

Our View - Update Iowa's inheritance law for 21st century

A federal judge recently ruled that 6-year-old Brynn Beeler of West Branch is entitled to her father's Social Security benefits even though her father died two years before she was born.

That's long overdue good news for the Beeler family, but it also highlights how the Iowa Legislature needs to update the state's inheritance laws for the 21st century.

"We're the first in Iowa, but we won't be the last," said Patti Beeler, Brynn's mother. "You either deal with it now, or a year or 10 years later when there are more cases."

When Brynn was born six years ago, Patti knew that Brynn's father would not be a daily presence in the child's life. But she also knew the father wanted to have children -- and wanted to have children with her. (Patti's husband, Bruce Beeler, had died of leukemia on May 4, 2001 -- nearly two years before Brynn was born.)

The couple had been planning to marry on Memorial Day weekend in 2001. And when Bruce discovered he would have to undergo chemotherapy, he banked sperm before beginning his treatments so that he and Patti could have children after he recovered.

After Bruce's condition grew worse rather than better -- and after doctors determined that his leukemia would require a bone marrow transplant -- the couple bumped up their wedding date to December 2000. Because the procedure came with only a 50 percent chance of survival, Bruce began making funeral arrangements and signed a number of forms granting Patti the legal right to use his sperm to conceive children in the event of his death.

After Bruce died, Patti underwent intrauterine insemination in July 2002. It was a decision supported by Bruce's parents, Ken and Mildred Beeler, who now live next door to Patti and her daughter in West Branch. Patti became pregnant on the first try, and nine months later Brynn was born.

Now Brynn is one of a small number of cases of posthumously conceived children who are applying for survivor benefits from Social Security.

"You can probably count the cases on both hands," University of Iowa law professor Sheldon Kurtz said earlier this year. "The concern is that over time we are going to start seeing more and more of these cases. It would be a good thing, before we get too far along, if we have laws to address this specific issue."

Kurtz is one of three Iowans on the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, a group working to have states update and harmonize their laws concerning probate and inheritance when it comes to children conceived through artificial means. Making those laws more uniform is important because Social Security, although a federal program, defers to state law when determining whether a child can be considered an heir.

Most state laws were written long before posthumous conception was a possibility. And few states that have updated their laws vary widely in terms of the limitations they place on when and whether such children can be considered heirs.

Iowa's laws on the matter, for example, are basically as old as the state. Because those laws don't provide any language on the specifics in a case such as the Beeler's, good empathetic judges can come to completely different conclusions about how the 19th-century legal language and 20th-century precedents apply to 21st-century reproductive technology.

In Brynn's case, Social Security determined that she could not be considered an heir under Iowa law and thus her claim was denied. The recent ruling stands to set legal precedent in the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which covers Iowa, Arkansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. The Social Security Administration has until Jan. 11, 2010, to appeal.

We think the Iowa Legislature should consider the model legislation proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws as a starting point for updating the state laws. On the question of posthumous conception, Kurtz said, the conference suggests a compromise that would allow a child be considered an heir if the father gave his consent to the process before he died -- as Bruce Beeler did.

But however people come down on when and whether children like Brynn should be able to be considered heirs, all the stakeholders agree that the state laws must be clarified before more and more grieving families get caught up within this bureaucratic and legal confusion.