Governor Chet Culver addresses the Iowa House and Senate this morning. Kathie Obradovich’s latest column emphasizes that Culver has broken with tradition this year by not submitting his draft 2011 budget to lawmakers before the big speech. (The governor submitted a draft budget for fiscal year 2010 in late December 2008.) Obradovich concludes that Culver needs to be in the “spotlight” without focusing on the budget.

She doesn’t mention other factors that seem likely to have delayed the budget draft. The Tax Credit Review Panel, which Culver appointed after the film tax credit fiasco, only just submitted its recommendations on January 8. I can’t imagine how the governor’s staff would put together a draft budget without knowing which tax credits deserve to be continued, scaled back or eliminated. Another possible source of delay is the State Government Reorganization Commission made up of Iowa House and Senate members, which voted on a list of cost-saving measures last month. Those measures would affect assumptions on state spending in the coming fiscal year.

Republican former governor Terry Branstad bragged to Obradovich that he always submitted his budgets early, adding that state legislators now face a shorter session without having the budget in hand.

However, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal told Radio Iowa this week that lawmakers will move a major bill on reorganizing state government before they start work on next year’s budget. It makes sense, because you can’t make accurate spending projections without knowing how state agencies will be restructured.

I’ll update this post later with more details of Culver’s speech.

UPDATE: The Burlington Hawk Eye posted the transcript. He asked legislators “to pass a supplemental appropriations bill early this session to restore some of the cuts to the Department of Public Defense” (Culver cut the current-year budget across the board in October.) For the fiscal 2011 budget, Culver asked lawmakers “to fully fund community college job training, and to adequately fund the Department of Workforce Development. And, to create more ‘green collar jobs,’ of the future, to fully fund the Iowa Power Fund.” Longer excerpts from the speech are after the jump.

Iowa voters handed Democrats the keys to run the state in 2006 and expanded the Democratic majority in the legislature this year. Now we have to prove that we are capable of governing well. Like almost every other state, Iowa is facing a deteriorating revenue base while demands for government services rise in a tough economy. Governor Chet Culver has already imposed two rounds of budget cuts, and more difficult choices will need to be made during the upcoming legislative session.

There is no perfect solution to the budget problem, but some proposals are so bad that they should be ruled out immediately.

Selling the Iowa Lottery is a terrible idea on every level.

I don’t often agree with Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen, but he is right about this:

Why would anyone want to sell their seed corn? And why would Iowa want to do something that may lead to expanded gambling? […]

We should privatize those governmental functions that cost the taxpayers, not the ones that make them a profit. […]

Since 1985, the Iowa lottery has netted state government $1 billion. Why would we turn some of those profits over to the gambling industry? It’s short-term thinking to give up $50 million in annual lottery profits for a lump sum now.

Also, this idea breaks faith with the promise made to Iowans when we started down the path of expanded gambling: If Iowa was going to get into legalized gambling, it was going to be heavily regulated.

Now we’re going to invite casino owners and others in the gambling industry to run our lottery? I’m sorry; the history of the gaming industry is just too checkered to put people from it in charge.

I have never bought a lottery ticket, and I hate to see the state encouraging people to throw their money away on the lottery. But now that Iowa has a lottery, we should keep the profits in state hands. Selling the lottery would bring in cash this year, but we’d need to replace the lost revenue in future budgets. It wouldn’t solve the problem, and it would make Democrats look incompetent.

By the way, State Auditor David Vaudt described the idea as “a very short-term Band-Aid approach.” The plan he described would involve

a lease of the lottery for up to 50 years in exchange for a lump sum payment of $200 million and some annual lease fee.

The lottery generates more than $50 million a year in profits for the state’s budget, and Vaudt predicted the lump sum would quickly evaporate.

Of course it would.

Vaudt may be the Republican nominee for governor in 2010, and he was warning about budget problems long before Culver and the Democratic leadership in the legislature started talking about budget cuts. Do we want to hand him another talking point on Democrats’ alleged fiscal irresponsibility?

If selling the lottery is bad policy and bad politics, why would anyone consider it? Here is Yepsen’s theory:

[T]he fact that Culver is entertaining sale of the lottery is an example of how big gambling money and influence slosh around Iowa politics.

The delegation that called on him to promote the idea included former Iowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell, who is a longtime friend, adviser and donor of Culver’s, and Jeff Link, a leading Democratic campaign strategist who also runs referenda campaigns for gambling interests.

Culver will need to show how selling the lottery is a good deal for taxpayers and not just his cronies and campaign contributors on the gambling industry’s payroll. Watch to see how much gambling money starts showing up in Culver’s re-election warchest – and in those of Democratic legislative leaders.

Democrats helped gambling interests last session by putting an unjustified exemption for casino floors into the smoking ban bill. If we care about workers’ health, why should casino employees be less protected than those who work in restaurants and bars?

Handing over the lottery would play right into Republican talking points about “special interests” controlling the Democratic Party.

Culver, House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal should nip this speculation in the bud by ruling out any plan to sell the lottery for short-term gain.

What else, if anything, should be “off the table” in the context of balancing the budget? I agree with Culver that going into debt should be considered.

I also believe that shared sacrifice requires some kind of action on the revenue side, such as closing tax loopholes that primarily benefit the well-off. When middle-income and lower-income Iowans bear the brunt of cuts in services, wealthier Iowans should also be asked to help bring the budget into balance. Some economists have shown that during an economic downturn, raising taxes on the wealthy does less harm to the economy than cutting government spending.

I understand the political arguments against raising taxes in any form now. There will be plenty of time to debate that later. For now, Democrat leaders should make the easy call: keep the Iowa Lottery in state hands.