Representative Van Fossen

Jamie Van Fossen


The Week In Review 
Printer friendly page    

February 29, 2008
E-mail: jamie.van.fossen@legis.state.ia.us 

 Session Week 7
Fax: 563-355-9954

HOUSE APPROVES FEDERAL REBATE EXEMPTION-
VAN FOSSEN PENSION TAX AMENDMENT FAILS

 

Thursday, February 28th, the House unanimously approved House File 2417, which was sponsored by all 100 members of the House.

 

House File 2417 exempts the 2008 federal income tax rebate, as enacted by federal Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-185

 

I offered the following amendment to phase out the Pension tax on Iowa pensioners.

 

H-8052 by Van Fossen.  This amendment phases out the state income tax on pension income.  The phase-out is as follows:

-Beginning January 1, 2009, exempts an additional 20% of pension income from Iowa income tax.

-Beginning January 1, 2010, exempts an additional 40% of pension income from Iowa income tax.

-Beginning January 1, 2011, exempts an additional 60% of pension income from Iowa income tax.

-Beginning January 1, 2012, exempts an additional 80% of pension income from Iowa income tax.

-Beginning January 1, 2013 (and each year thereafter), exempts 100% of pension income from Iowa income tax.

 

My amendment H-8052 failed on a party line vote 54 Democrats voting NO and 46 Republicans voting YES for pension tax relief. To view how your Representative voted see the House Journal here.

 

 

House File 2417 is necessary because under Iowa individual income tax, taxpayers can deduct federal income taxes paid during the tax year, which is adjusted by any federal income tax refund that the taxpayer received.  So, if a bill is not approved that exempts the federal rebate, Iowans would end up with a nearly $64 million tax liability, just on the rebates.

 

Information on the Federal Rebates

Beginning in May, the United States Treasury will begin sending rebate payments to individuals. The rebate payments will continue to go out through the late spring and summer. 

 

HOUSE REPUBLICANS WANT FULL DISCLOSURE AND BIPARTISANSHIP IN BUDGETING

 

Two weeks ago majority party Democrats released joint budget targets for roughly one-half of the state budget.  However, they have refused to release the entire budget including the target for supplemental appropriations, standing appropriations and all of the revenue adjustments and tax increases.

 

According to the schedule released by Democrats, budget bills were supposed to be approved by the subcommittees by the end of this week.  Because of the majority party’s refusal to allow Iowans to see the whole budget picture and the fact that Republicans have yet to actually see most of the budget bills, House Republicans will oppose all budget subcommittee bills.

The targets for this piece of the budget represent an increase of $95 million over FY 08.  Surprisingly, four of the seven budget subcommittee targets appear to be below estimated FY 08.  Without a full disclosure of their budget plan, it is unclear if these reductions are actual reductions or simply the results shifts within the overall budget.  Had the majority party released the entire balance sheet and acted in a bipartisan fashion there would have been the opportunity for House Republicans to support some of these budget bills.

 

The Revenue Estimating Conference (REC) meets on Friday, April 4, to review and revise the current revenue estimates.  Revenue through Tuesday was 12 percent above FY 07, significantly above the REC estimate of 6.9 percent.  If revenue continues to run such a high level, the REC could increase the FY 08 estimate.  That would allow the majority party to spend more via supplemental appropriations, which would not require the notwithstanding of the expenditure limitation.

 

Remember, the majority party approved $50 million in supplemental appropriations last session which was actually FY 08 spending.  In order to buy their way out of this session, they could easily approve at least that much in FY 08 supplemental spending in order to increase the amount available for FY 09.

 

House Republicans continue to push for sunshine when it comes to Iowa’s budgeting process.  It is also telling that an astonishing 12 percent revenue increase is not enough to pay for the spending approved by the Democrats in the Legislature.

 

BILL ENSURES CONFIDENTIALITY FOR BUSINESS INCENTIVES

 

House Study Bill 686 addresses concerns of some businesses looking for financial support in Iowa.  The bill would allow the Department of Economic Development (DED) Board to keep certain business details confidential during the application process.

 

This bill allows a business to apply to the Board to keep certain details of an application confidential.  Businesses are concerned about accessibility and availability of this information to competitors.  Applications can include strategic business plans, marketing concepts, financial information, or even new developments to an industry process.  As Iowa’s economy and bioindustries expand and develop, theses concerns have become more important.  Businesses such as ethanol plants are concerned about competitors all over the world utilizing information that may be contained in these applications.

 

Currently, DED’s procedures allow a business to call attention to specific information that should be treated as confidential.  The business can note these portions of an application on the forms being used by DED.  In addition, specifics about each project are safeguarded when an application process begins; this bill is aimed at the period of time after that, when information comes before the Economic Development Board. 

 

Under the bill, the business makes a written request to the Board to keep certain portions private.   However, a final determination about the data and whether it could be used by competitors, and therefore remain confidential, is made by the Board.  This way a company cannot arbitrarily keep everything in an application private, but the potentially valuable information is safeguarded.  

 

It’s also important to note that this bill does not impact intellectual property concerns.  Because intellectual property law is largely a federal issue, protections to that information is governed outside of the provisions of this bill.  This bill also does not extend to the application process with the Office of Energy Independence, but we may see that concern addressed in the future.

 

LABOR COMMITTEE MOVES CONTROVERSIAL LIVING WAGE STUDY

 

 The House Labor Committee has approved a living wage study. 

 

House File 675 which calls for a study on the economic, fiscal and social impact of enacting a living wage in Iowa was approved by the committee on a 9-6 vote on February 21st.  Typically, a “living wage” is enacted as an ordinance at the municipal or county level and sets hourly take-home pay above the federally defined poverty level.

 

A living wage ordinance requires employers to pay wages that are above federal or state minimum wage levels. Only a specific set of workers are covered by living wage ordinances, usually those employed by businesses that have a contract with a city or county government or those who receive economic development subsidies from the locality.

 

The living wage level is usually the wage a full-time worker would need to earn to support a family above federal poverty line, ranging from 100% to 130% of the poverty measurement.  The wage rates specified by living wage ordinances range from a low of $6.25 in Milwaukee, WI to a high of $12 in Santa Cruz, CA.

 

In addition to setting wage levels, many ordinances also have provisions regarding benefits (such as health insurance and paid vacation), labor relations, and hiring practices.

 

To date, living wage laws have only been enacted only on the local level, not in state legislatures

 

Ways & Means Update

Bills introduced in committee this week:


			

			

			

			

			

			

			

			
 
No bills in committee this week

Bills passed out of committee this week:

No bills in committee this week

 

   Week in Review Archives

2008 Session
02-22-08
02-15-08
02-08-08
02-01-08
01-25-08
01-18-08

 

2007 Session
02-23-07
02-16-07
02-09-07
02-02-07
01-26-07
01-12-07

 

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