Letter From thenHeartlandnby Jane GreernHawkeye Econ 101n”Directions for Iowa’s EconomicnGrowth” ought to be required readingnfor every local and state governmentnbody, to say nothing of the boys innWashington (the less said about them,nthe better).nDrafted by a University of Iowanresearch team under the direction ofnthe Iowa Department of EconomicnDevelopment and the Planning andnResearch Bureau, the 82-page documentnillustrates the best in Midwesternnstraight-thinking—and the 18-pagenexecutive summary is even better.nWhile Iowa is certainly not the firstnstate to put out a document and call itna “strategic plan,” this skinny littlenreport is one of the few to deserve thatnname. And there’s really nothingnnovel or sophisticated here: just commonnsense, plainly expressed andnmodestly packaged. It’s never beennfashionable for government at anynlevel to look beyond the present, butnforesightedness has become urgent,nand Iowa, let us pray, will help to set antrend.nWhat’s so astonishing about the report?nWell, for one thing, it acceptsnnothing at face value. Take an oldncomplaint of most states: that nativengraduates of state colleges find out-ofstatenjobs after graduation. All kinds ofnsolutions have been tried over thenyears; tax credits, tuition reimbursement,nand forgiven loans have all beennused as bait to get kids to stay at homenafter graduation. The Iowa report remindsnus that this doesn’t increasentotal employment of college grads; itnjust swaps one set—in-state grads,nabout which nothing is sacred—fornanother. What we need is more high-nCORRESPONDENCEnlevel jobs to interest college graduates,nperiod. It’s elementary, but I can’tnremember the last time I saw it innwriting.nOr take the old bromide of raisingnsales and income taxes whenever governmentnneeds more money. Does itnwork? No. It just drives the owners ofnmobile resources—those who are freento respond to better opportunitiesnelsewhere—out of the state. The writersnrecommend raising property taxesninstead. Property owners have thenmost to gain and lose from the economy,nand so should contribute the mostntowards its success. Besides, they can’tnleave. It’s tough, but it’s correct.nTwo years ago, my state made anlong-term commitment to give gasaholnnna big sales-tax break. It was an effort tonpromote what promised to be a thrivingnin-state ethanol industry thatnwould also use large amounts of damagedngrain. Our highway system isnfinanced by user fees, chief amongnthem the gas tax, so this tax breaknmeans that two very wobbly ethanolnplants take a huge bite out of thenhighway fund. The plants actually usenonly a drop of the grain produced innthe state, and ethanol produced outof-statenbut sold here gets the taxnbreak, too. Other fledgling industriesnare asking, with justification,n”Where’s ours?” Construction andnhighway-user groups are opposed to anmuch-needed gas-tax increase becausenpart of the money from the current gasnAUGUST 1987 / 31n