Representative Van Fossen

Jamie Van Fossen


The Week In Review 
Printer friendly page    

February 16, 2007
E-mail: jamie.van.fossen@legis.state.ia.us 

 Session Week 6
Fax: 563-355-9954

SPEAKER MURPHY’S REAL AGENDA ON RIGHT TO WORK:  A PLAN 14 YEARS IN THE MAKING

 Speaker Murphy has been claiming since the election that he does not plan to repeal Iowa’s Right to Work

law.  Yet Murphy is on record supporting a repeal since early in his legislative career.  In 1993 Murphy told the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald that supported repealing Iowa’s Right to Work law.

“Rich Bean, executive vice president of the First National Bank of Dubuque, asked if the legislators foresee any effort to repeal Iowa’s right to work law.  Both Murphy and Connolly said they would support such a move, but Connolly said, ‘I doubt that will be an issue.’”  (Dubuque Telegraph-Herald, January 7, 1993)

That 1993 admission is different from recent public statements he has made in regards to a repeal:

  • “I don’t think we’ll be repealing” the right-to-work law, Murphy said.  (Des Moines Register, November 21, 2006)
  • “Democrats aren’t going to repeal the right to work; we’re not going to force people to join a union.” (Des Moines Register, February 10, 2007)

Speaker Murphy has been waiting 14 years for his opportunity to repeal Iowa’s Right to Work law.  His long standing public support of a repeal is in direct contrast to his comments since the 2006 election.

Furthermore, Murphy’s voting record indicates that he favors a full repeal not the mere tinkering he has recently peddled to media outlets.  In 2001 he defended then Governor Vilsack’s decision to ban all promotional material from the Department of Economic Development from mentioning Iowa’s status as a Right to Work state.  In 2002 he again took organized labor’s side when the Legislature attempted to ban Project Labor Agreements which violate Iowa’s Right to Work law.

2001:  Opposition To Right-To-Work Promotional Material

Murphy voted against legislation, HF 103, supported by business groups to require “Right-to-Work information be included in written promotional materials distributed by the department of economic development.”  (Iowa ABI, 2001 Legislative Scorecard)

2002:  Taking Labor’s Side In A Right-To-Work Dispute

In March, Murphy criticized an effort to regulate labor contracts for public construction that Republicans argued would buttress right-to-work from labor attacks. 

House lawmakers were close to approving a bill regulating labor contracts for public construction on Wednesday, although the governor has warned that he will veto it. The issue surfaced when Polk County made an agreement with local construction unions for an events center. . . . The project is partly funded by the Vision Iowa Fund. The county agreed to limit bidders on the project to companies offering wages and benefits comparable to what the unions have negotiated. In exchange, the unions agreed to a no-strike provision. Construction groups later filed a lawsuit seeking to block the agreement. Critics said the agreement violates the state’s right to work laws and will drive up bids. “There’s state money involved in this,” said [Rants]. . . . [Murphy] said government shouldn’t tinker with this issue. “We shouldn’t be telling local governments that this is the best way to run it,” Murphy said. “Now we’re coming in when there’s a court case ... and we’re going to interrupt this process and say it’s improper.”  (AP, March 13, 2002)

“Fair Share” Provides Unions With Influx of Cash

According to Unionstats.com, an internet data resource on private and public sector union membership, about 39,000 non-union Iowa workers will be forced to pay union dues under HF 324.  Of those non-union workers, 28,000 are public employees.  (Note: Informaton about unionstats.com is listed at the end of the article.) 

If forced union dues are conservatively estimated to be about $500 per year then the unions stand to collect about $19 million for their political coffers if “Fair Share” is enacted.

Under the so-called “Fair Share” legislation, public employee unions like AFSCME and ISEA would be able to garnish the wages on non-union government employees and non-union teachers.  Private sector unions like the AFL-CIO would be able to legally bully non-union workers into joining the union or paying dues or face termination for refusal to pay.

Some unions like SEIU have both public and private members and stand to benefit greatly from forced unionism legislation.

Why is organized labor so intent on pushing through forced unionism legislation like HF 324?  The answer lies with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.  The BLS reported on January 25 that in 2006, “12 percent of employed wage and salary workers were union members, down from 12.5 percent a year earlier.  The number of persons belonging to a union fell by 326,000 in 2006 to 15.4 million.  The union membership rate has steadily declined from 20.1 percent in 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available.”

Unionstats.com

Union Membership and Coverage Database from the CPS (Documentation)

 The Union Membership and Coverage Database, available at www.unionstats.com, is an Internet data resource providing private and public sector labor union membership, coverage, and density estimates compiled from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly household survey, using BLS methods.  Economy-wide estimates are provided beginning in 1973; estimates by state, detailed industry, and detailed occupation begin in 1983; and estimates by metropolitan area begin in 1986.  The Database, constructed by Barry Hirsch (Trinity University) and David Macpherson (Florida State University), is updated annually.

 

REP. VAN FOSSEN FIGHTS FOR SCHOOL PROPERTY TAX  RELIEF

The following is a press release from Wednesday.

(DES MOINES) – Last night (Tuesday) during the debate on allowable growth, Rep. Jamie Van Fossen offered an amendment which would have granted Iowa taxpayers $31 million in school property tax relief.

Van Fossen and 45 colleagues of the House authored Amendment H-1047 to the state’s K-12 allowable growth bill, Senate File 109.  The amendment would have increased state funding for schools by $108 million and given $31 million in school property tax relief.

The opportunity to debate the amendment failed on a party-line vote with 53 Democrats, including Elesha Gayman, voting against the measure.  Democrats broke a major campaign promise.

“Legislators continually talk about property tax relief, but when it comes to taking action and making real progress for Iowa taxpayers, 53 Democrats walk away,” said Rep. Van Fossen.

After defeating the property tax relief amendment by a vote of 46-53 on a procedural vote, the House unanimously approved the $108 million or 4% increase in school funding for the 2008-2009 school year.

AUDITOR: FISCAL CRISIS LOOMS IF SPENDING LEFT UNCHECKED

Recently, State Auditor David Vaudt released his latest review of the state’s finances.  The bottom line of the review is that spending must be put back in line with revenue or the state will end up in a fiscal crisis.

The first issue that the Auditor raises is a lack of clarity in General Fund spending.  He states that while the General Fund balance sheet shows spending only went from $4.886 billion to $5.028 billion from FY 01 to FY 06, the actual spending went from $4.973 billion to $5.425 billion.  This is due to spending being shifted from the General Fund to other funding sources, including the Senior Living Trust Fund (SLTF).

The Auditor’s next issue is how budgets have been balanced.  For instance, using the surplus to fund the property tax credits is okay when there are budget surpluses but will spell disaster if there is a downturn and there is no surplus.  The Auditor is concerned about the lack of a long term focus on the budget.   

The Auditor states that over the past seven fiscal years, $1.3 billion has been shifted to fund General Fund programs but is not required to be repaid.  Rep. Sands has filed a bill which would require a portion of the surplus be used to repay all funds that were borrowed with the exception of the two that have already been addressed by the Legislature – the SLTF and the Tobacco Endowment.

The next issue that the Auditor is critical of is that the 99 percent expenditure limitation does not apply to supplemental appropriations and is therefore not a true spending limitation.  Rep. Sands has filed a bill to require the 99 percent expenditure limitation to apply throughout the entire fiscal year.

The Auditor gave his recommendations on what should be done to improve the budgeting process:

  1. Align revenues and expenditures in same fiscal year.
  2. Eliminate reliance on one-time and limited-time resources for on-going expenditures.
  3. Incorporate a longer-range focus into the budgeting process.
  4. Enhance clarity of the budget - set forth the “true total General Fund expenditures”.
  5. Consider adoption of a two-year budget.
  6. Develop a long-range plan (3 to 5 years) – set specific financial goals and establish timelines.
  7. Implement a real spending limitation - 99% or 98%.
  8. Set a timeline and repayment schedule for the monies borrowed from other funds and accounts.

The Auditor does give House Republicans credit for the strides that were made in the past few years -- refilling the reserves to 10 percent, repaying the SLTF, and using fewer SLTF dollars for Medicaid.

The Auditor will be releasing his review of the Governor’s budget recommendations in the coming weeks.  No doubt he will share the concern of House Republicans that the Governor and majority party are spending at a rate that just cannot be sustained in the future.

Ways & Means Update

Bills introduced in committee this week:

 

 HF 14-  A bill for an act increasing the taxes imposed on cigarettes and tobacco products and providing for deposit of the increased revenue generated in the senior living trust fund, and providing an applicability date and an effective date. 

HF 180-  A bill for an act increasing the taxes imposed on cigarettes and providing for appropriation of the revenue generated to the medical assistance program and for tobacco control and prevention, and providing an effective date.

HF 293-  A bill for an act relating to the state earned income tax credit by making the tax credit refundable and including effective and retroactive applicability date provisions. 

HF 297-  A bill for an act providing that any increase in the tax on cigarettes and tobacco products be deposited into the healthy Iowans tobacco trust. 

HF 306-  A bill for an act providing a tax credit under the individual income tax, corporate income tax, franchise tax, or insurance premiums tax for continuation of salary, wages, or health benefit coverage for employees that are members of the national guard or military reserve and are ordered to active duty, and for payment of certain replacement worker costs, and including effective and retroactive applicability date provisions. 

HF 318-  A bill for an act providing volunteer fire fighters and emergency medical services personnel with an individual income tax credit and providing effective and retroactive applicability dates.

HF 322-  A bill for an act relating to a tax credit for pollution-control and recycling property connected to property used for the care and feeding of livestock, and providing for the Act's applicability. 

 HF 326-  A bill for an act requiring combined corporate tax returns for unitary businesses and including a retroactive applicability date provision.

HF 346-  A bill for an act increasing the taxes imposed on cigarettes and tobacco products and providing for deposit of the increased revenue generated in the healthy Iowans tobacco trust, and providing an effective date.

HF 348-  A bill for an act providing for a business property tax credit for property taxes due, making appropriations, and including effective and applicability date provisions.


Bills passed out of committee this week:

No bills passed committee this week

   Week in Review Archives

2007 Session
02-09-07
01-12-07
01-26-07
02-02-07

2006 Session
05-05-06
04-28-06
04-21-06
04-14-06
04-07-06
03-31-06
03-24-06
03-17-06
03-10-06
03-03-06
02-24-06
02-10-06
02-03-06
01-27-06
01-20-06
01-13-06

2005 Session
05-20-05
05-13-05
05-06-05
04-29-05
04-22-05
04-15-05
04-08-05
04-01-05
03-25-05
03-18-05
03-11-05
03-04-05
02-25-05
02-18-05
02-11-05
02-04-05
01-28-05
01-21-05
01-14-05

2004 Session
09-07-04
04-28-04
04-16-04
04-09-04
04-02-04
03-26-04
03-19-04
03-12-04
03-05-04
02-27-04
02-20-04
02-13-04
02-06-04
01-30-04
01-23-04
01-16-04

2003 Session
06-04-03 Special Session
05-30-03 Special Session
05-02-03
04-25-03
04-18-03
04-11-03
04-04-03
03-28-03
03-21-03
03-14-03
03-07-03
02-28-03
02-21-03
02-14-03
02-07-03
01-31-03
01-17-03
01-24-03

2002 Session
05-28-02 Special Session II 
05-10-02 Special Edition
04-22-02 Special Session I
04-12-02
04-05-02
03-29-02
03-22-02
03-15-02

03-08-02

03-01-02
02-22-02
02-15-02
02-08-02

02-01-02
01-25-02
01-18-02

2001 Session
05-04-01
04-27-01
04-20-01
04-13-01
04-06-01

03-30-01

03-23-01
03-16-01
03-09-01
03-02-01
02-23-01
02-16-01
02-09-01
02-02-01
01-26-01
01-19-01

01-12-01

2000 Session
04-28-00
04-21-00
04-14-00
04-07-00
03-31-00
03-24-00
03-17-00
03-10-00
03-03-00
02-25-00