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

As President Donald Trump crosses the 100-day mark of his second term, a Michigan political expert is taking a closer look, especially at the executive orders issued early on.

President Trump has signed 139 executive orders, more than any president in their first 100 days. Some of his most controversial moves include banning transgender women from female sports, ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, and pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement. So far, more than 255 lawsuits have been filed against the president's policies and orders.

Matt Grossman, director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University, said many of Trump's first-term executive orders were symbolic, but recent ones have "more teeth."

"They've been followed with a lot more executive action," Grossman explained. "The record so far is very poor in terms of getting pretty immediate restraining orders and other blocks and pauses on the administrative's actions."

On Tuesday, Trump rallied in Michigan, where supporters praised his accomplishments, from mass deportations to tariff enforcement and cutting federal bureaucracy.

Grossman pointed out in contemporary society, countries often move toward authoritarianism or democratic backsliding when elected leaders push the limits of executive power. He argued the growing concentration of power is a key reason for widespread global concern.

"They see this global pattern, where it's not the case that you have to have a revolution to change the, the governing system," Grossman observed. "The Executive Branch takes more and more power; you sort of slowly descend from a democratic starting point."

Many political analysts said early legal challenges are common when presidents issue controversial executive orders, especially when changes are rolled out quickly.


get more stories like this via email

A new report showed Montana receives a larger share of federal funding than the national average and the effects of continued cuts could be "dramatic."

For every dollar Montana contributes in federal taxes, the state receives $1.40 in return, according to the Montana Nonprofit Association report. In 2024, it totaled more than $14 billion disbursed, a number trending down in 2025 as President Donald Trump and Elon Musk make more cuts in the name of government efficiency.

Adam Jespersen, executive director of the Montana Nonprofit Association, warned "even microreductions would have dramatic impacts."

"We're all for eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse," Jespersen acknowledged. "But those conversations need to be had with care, with planful action and with communication around the 'what' and the 'why' and the 'how.'"

Federal funds reach Montanans through federal jobs, nonprofits, social programs and state and local government revenue, as well as the services they provide. It includes aid to schools, farms, housing, infrastructure, health care and more.

There are more than 650 nonprofits in Montana employing more than 60,000 people, or nearly 12% of the state's workforce. Among those organizations, 64% would be in financial peril without government funds, according to the report. Jespersen called the early cuts a "canary in the coal mine."

"Because those impacts are de minimis compared to other impacts that may come from cuts to social security, to Medicaid, to education, to local government, things like that," Jespersen explained.

Cuts could affect rural Montana in more ways, as 89% of Montana counties are more reliant on Social Security and veterans benefits than the national average, as are 86% of counties on Medicare.

In line with tribal treaty rights, 58% of revenue to tribal governments in Montana came from federal funding between 2003 and 2009.


get more stories like this via email

Federal workers in the Commonwealth are part of a national labor union lawsuit filed against President Donald Trump's executive order to strip collective bargaining rights from nearly one million federal employees.

The Trump administration had already ended collective bargaining agreements with Transportation Security Administration employees.

Scott Robinson, president of AFGE Local 448 in Virginia, said federal workers like himself are not the enemy, adding that these actions threaten protections from unfair disciplinary actions or firings without cause.

"There's a huge effort to portray federal employees as guys in gray suits, who make hundreds of thousands of dollars and work in a fancy office in D.C. That's not the case," Robinson explained. "The federal employees that you interact with are park rangers. They're TSA officers. They're the SSA clerks. They are the VA nurses."

The Trump administration has said the order is needed to protect America's national security interests and defend the president's agenda.

The order revokes the collective bargaining rights of federal workers involved in national security issues. That spans federal employees at nearly two dozen agencies, including the Defense Department and Justice Department.

Federal employee unions have filed multiple lawsuits to stop the administration from shrinking the federal workforce and shuttering government agencies. These employees have also used their union rights to file grievances over certain policy decisions by Trump.

Robinson pointed out those collective bargaining agreements protect employees trying to serve their country - and provide continuity long after a president is out of office.

"There's no reason to oppose the concept of working people working towards a common goal, whether that's better pay, better working conditions or societal change," Robinson said. "Working people know what's best for them, and they don't need to be told what's best for them by an administration or by biased media."

Trump is taking action as labor unions experience a surge of public popularity. A Gallup poll found 70% of Americans have a favorable view of unions - one of the highest approval ratings since 1965.