Representative Van Fossen

Jamie Van Fossen


The Week In Review 
Printer friendly page    

April 21, 2006
E-mail: jamie.van.fossen@legis.state.ia.us 

 Session Week 15
Fax: 563-355-9954

 IOWA CELEBRATES TAX FREEDOM DAY ON APRIL 18 TH !

  Six out of the ten states with the heaviest tax burdens and the latest Tax Freedom Days are in the northeast: Connecticut (May 12), New York (May 9), New Jersey (May 6), Massachusetts (May 2), Maine (May 1) and Rhode Island (May 1).  The other four are Washington (May 4), Minnesota (May 3), California (April 30) and Illinois (April 30). 
  Many of these states are taxed the heaviest and celebrate Tax Freedom Day later because of the progressive federal income tax.  States with large metropolitan areas offer higher-paying jobs, and as a result, many of the citizens earn enough to pay income tax at the highest rates—currently 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%.  As a result, they must work longer to pay their disproportionate share of the tax burden.  Maine stands out as the exception.  Its total tax burden is high despite low income and below-average federal taxes because of its unusually high state-local taxes.
  The ten states with the lightest total tax burdens celebrate Tax Freedom Day the earliest.  Alabama’s April 11 is the earliest of all.  The next nine are Alaska (April 12), Mississippi (April 13), Oklahoma (April 14), Tennessee (April 14), New Mexico (April 15), South Dakota (April 16), Montana (April 16), Idaho (April 16), West Virginia (April 17) and Iowa (April 18).
  In most of these states, Tax Freedom Day is early because of a large number of low-income taxpayers who pay most of their federal income taxes at the lower rates, 10% and 15%.  Alaska stands out as an exception: income and federal tax payments are above average there, but state-local taxes are extraordinarily low. Click here to see State and Local Tax Burdens by State, 1970-2006

 

IOWA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT/ CIETC SCANDAL: OVERSIGHT HEARINGS PART III

Bargman defends his salary…

Former Chief Operating Officer (COO) John Bargman, with Attorney Charles Gribble in tow, met with the Joint Government Oversight Committee on Thursday, April 13 in a marathon two-hour discussion of his role in CIETC’s rise and fall.  Bargman was quick to defend his high salary and bonuses by detailing his years of experience and expansive oversight duties within the CIETC organization.  Bargman is reported to have been making close to $400,000 in the last 2 years.  He wasn’t so quick to discuss his educational background, however, which consists of 2 years in college.  Bargman’s duties spanned from accounting and book keeping to personnel matters and awarding grants and/or funding for programs.  When probed further on how the bonus and salary system worked within the walls of CIETC he said he relied solely on Ramona Cunningham

to tell him who would get the bonuses and how much they would receive.  He then would work the budget around whatever amount Ms. Cunningham provided.  Bargman claims to have had only one personnel review on his job performance in the time he was employed at CIETC.  This review was given by Ramona Cunningham and Archie Brooks and he was never offered any goals or performance standards to achieve his bonus’s other then the goals that are set for each individual program he administers.
  Bargman stated that everyone one of the CIETC employees received a bonus and the schedule of the bonus was listed out in the information provided to the committee by Bargman.  According to the documents provided, personnel may be given a bonus of no more then 15% per quarter.  When questioned about the bonus schedule that he and Cunningham had been receiving he then backpedaled and explained that if your employment contract could specify for supplemental bonuses. 
  Bargman, prior to his position at CIETC, worked for Iowa Workforce Development and at one point was in a supervisory role over former Deputy Director and Legislative Liaison Jane Barto.  Bargman states that he left the job at Workforce Development when Rich Running  was appointed Director and he wasn’t sure he would “fit in” with the direction the agency was headed.  He then moved to CIETC and took a pay cut going from approximately $70,000 to $55,000. 
  Bargman openly confessed to his inability to “do numbers” and claimed he relied solely on his Chief Financial Officer Karen Tesdall to balance the books, even though his job title specifically calls for his oversight of accounting and accounts payable, payroll, IT management, projects, budgeting and anything Ramona Cunningham told him to do concerning CIETC.  In his own words Bargman said, “I don’t do credits and debits well, I counted on my CFO to do all the nitty gritty accounting work”.  Bargman appeared before the Government Oversight Committee on Wednesday, April 19, and will appear at least one more time.  On Tuesday, April 18, DHS Director Kevin Concannon expressed his displeasure with the CIETC fiasco, saying that the $200,000 in Promise Jobs funds that went to CIETC at the end of a fiscal year for should not have been used for a “fire sale” of salary bonuses, but instead should have been returned to IWD and, ultimately, the TANF block grant fund.  The money, which stays with the state, would then have been available for eventual re-appropriation by the General Assembly the following year – for program services, salary/training needs or other purposes.  Concannon also said that under the department’s direct contracts with local service providers, salaries paid by those providers are limited to 110% of an equivalent state position.  Meanwhile, the Government Oversight committee is working diligently to put together a Global Accountability bill that will address all state agencies as well as quasi-state agencies practices concerning oversight and auditing.  Input has been taken from both parties in order to further the bipartisan effort to assure that this type of abuse will not occur at a state agency again.  However, it appears that Democrats are intent on using government accountability as a political issue for the fall elections so it is uncertain if the amendment they are drafting will be offered in good faith or simply for political reasons.

 

Ways & Means Update

Bills introduced in committee this week:

Bills passed out of committee this week:
 

   Week in Review Archives

2006 Session
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