Switch to our mobile site

Top Stories

Open letter to readers: Today and tomorrow

By Lynda Waddington | 11.17.11

Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.

ACS lockout continues; plan emerges to repeal sugar protections

crystal_sugar_80
By Virginia Chamlee | 11.15.11

A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.

Cain campaign: Farmers know more about regulations than EPA

hermancain_80x80
By Andrew Duffelmeyer | 11.15.11

The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.

Mathis wins, Democrats maintain Senate control

Liz Mathis
By Lynda Waddington | 11.08.11

The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.

Press Release

PR: Nation should work to address veterans’ challenges

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

BRUCE BRALEY RELEASE — As US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan ends, it’s more important than ever that our nation works to address the challenges faced by the men and women who fought there.

PR: Honoring veterans, help in hiring

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

CHUCK GRASSLEY RELEASE — A difficult job market is challenging the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have protected America’s interests by serving in the Armed Forces.

PR: In honor of America’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

TOM LATHAM RELEASE — No one has done more to secure the freedom enjoyed by every single American than our veterans and those currently serving in the armed services.

PR: Honoring and supporting our nation’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

DAVE LOEBSACK RELEASE — Veterans Day is an opportunity to reflect on the service of generations of veterans and to honor the sacrifices they and their families have made so that we may live in peace and freedom here at home.

ITR: Culver’s bonding plan would result in low-salary jobs

By admin | 03.16.09 | 3:40 pm

Iowans for Tax Relief sent out a press release today analyzing the prospects for job creation under Gov. Chet Culver’s proposed bonding initiative.

Ed Failor, Jr., President of Iowans for Tax Relief said, “We need to ask the right questions of Governor Culver. If, by his math, $750 million will create 21,000 new jobs, for a three year program, the average annual salary is $11,905 for one year. That’s 21,000 below poverty level jobs. Something just doesn’t add up with Governor Culver’s numbers.”

Of course, Failor assumes that the only money that will pay to create jobs is the state’s $750 million, and that’s just false.  Any smart stimulus plan uses public money not just to directly fund projects, but to leverage investment capital from private sources and from local governments to have a greater impact.

If the state creates a fund to help cities build sidewalks, it can expect city governments to come up with some of the money themselves before they get any money from the state.  Culver’s bonding plan, I-JOBS, would work basically the same way.  So $750 million of state money could leverage significant investments from other sources, greatly increasing its impact and creating jobs that pay far more than $11,000 per year.

Ironically, it was only a couple weeks ago that Culver was arguing in favor of legislation that would require that workers on most state-funded construction projects were paid a ‘prevailing wage,’ well above the poverty line.  In that debate, ITR’s concern for workers’ salaries was somewhat less apparent.

Comments

  • concept03

    Your article may be dead on correct, but you provide zero evidence for it. You said that:

    “Any smart stimulus plan uses public money not just to directly fund projects, but to leverage investment capital from private sources and from local governments to have a greater impact.”

    Ok, which private sources have pledged support for this stimulus? You said it should happen, but this is a weak argument without examples. How about this, I will assume (for argument) that the $750 million is matched 50% by some yet-to-be determined private investors and other local governments (that makes a total of $1.125 billion).

    If we do the math, that works out to an average wage of $17,857 per year. Let's break that down even further. If we assume 50 weeks of work, at 40 hours per week, that $17,857 is equal to $8.93 per hour. As of July 24th, 2009, the US minimum wage will be $7.25.

    So in a very rosy scenario, at best we may be able to create 21,000 jobs that pay only $1.75 more than minimum wage. Wow, way to go Chet. Maybe we should just open up a few more McDonald's throughout Iowa, they'd probably pay more.

  • concept03

    I also wanted to comment on another portion of your article.

    > Ironically, it was only a couple weeks ago that Culver was arguing in favor of legislation that would require that workers on most state-funded construction projects were paid a ‘prevailing wage,’ well above the poverty line. In that debate, ITR’s concern for workers’ salaries was somewhat less apparent.

    That's comparing apples to oranges. The prevailing wage bill would have increased the cost of public works projects 10%-20%, according to the SUPPORTERS of the legislation (Iowa house and senate democrats and union officials).

    That means that if you were planning on 10 public works projects in your community (schools, roads, community centers, etc), you can now only complete 9, and possible 8. So that means taxpayers are paying 10%-20% more, and getting less in return.

    The prevailing wage bill primarily benefited union workers, of which 89% of Iowans do not belong to.

    So, to lay it out clearly, 100% of Iowa taxpayers would have to paymore of their tax dollars for less public works project, in order to pay 11% of Iowans a higher GUARANTEED salary. That doesn't make much sense to me. But, hey, I'm just a public school kid.

  • concept03

    Your article may be dead on correct, but you provide zero evidence for it. You said that:

    “Any smart stimulus plan uses public money not just to directly fund projects, but to leverage investment capital from private sources and from local governments to have a greater impact.”

    Ok, which private sources have pledged support for this stimulus? You said it should happen, but this is a weak argument without examples. How about this, I will assume (for argument) that the $750 million is matched 50% by some yet-to-be determined private investors and other local governments (that makes a total of $1.125 billion).

    If we do the math, that works out to an average wage of $17,857 per year. Let's break that down even further. If we assume 50 weeks of work, at 40 hours per week, that $17,857 is equal to $8.93 per hour. As of July 24th, 2009, the US minimum wage will be $7.25.

    So in a very idealistic scenario, at best we may be able to create 21,000 jobs that pay only $1.75 more than minimum wage. Wow, way to go Chet. Maybe we should just open up a few more McDonald's throughout Iowa, they'd probably pay more.

  • concept03

    I also wanted to comment on another portion of your article.

    > Ironically, it was only a couple weeks ago that Culver was arguing in favor of legislation that would require that workers on most state-funded construction projects were paid a ‘prevailing wage,’ well above the poverty line. In that debate, ITR’s concern for workers’ salaries was somewhat less apparent.

    That's comparing apples to oranges. The prevailing wage bill would have increased the cost of public works projects 10%-20%, according to the SUPPORTERS of the legislation (Iowa house and senate democrats and union officials).

    That means that if you were planning on 10 public works projects in your community (schools, roads, community centers, etc), you can now only complete 9, and possibly 8. So that means taxpayers are paying 10%-20% more, and getting less in return.

    The prevailing wage bill primarily benefited union workers, of which 89% of Iowans do not belong to.

    So, to lay it out succinctly, 100% of Iowa taxpayers would have to pay more of their tax dollars for less public works projects; all in order to pay 11% of Iowans a higher GUARANTEED minimum salary. That doesn't make much sense to me. But, hey, I'm just a public school kid :-)

  • concept03

    Your article may be dead on correct, but you provide zero evidence for it. You said that:

    “Any smart stimulus plan uses public money not just to directly fund projects, but to leverage investment capital from private sources and from local governments to have a greater impact.”

    Ok, which private sources have pledged support for this stimulus? You said it should happen, but this is a weak argument without examples. How about this, I will assume (for argument) that the $750 million is matched 50% by some yet-to-be determined private investors and other local governments (that makes a total of $1.125 billion).

    If we do the math, that works out to an average wage of $17,857 per year. Let's break that down even further. If we assume 50 weeks of work, at 40 hours per week, that $17,857 is equal to $8.93 per hour. As of July 24th, 2009, the US minimum wage will be $7.25.

    So in a very idealistic scenario, at best we may be able to create 21,000 jobs that pay only $1.75 more than minimum wage. Wow, way to go Chet. Maybe we should just open up a few more McDonald's throughout Iowa, they'd probably pay more.

  • concept03

    I also wanted to comment on another portion of your article.

    > Ironically, it was only a couple weeks ago that Culver was arguing in favor of legislation that would require that workers on most state-funded construction projects were paid a ‘prevailing wage,’ well above the poverty line. In that debate, ITR’s concern for workers’ salaries was somewhat less apparent.

    That's comparing apples to oranges. The prevailing wage bill would have increased the cost of public works projects 10%-20%, according to the SUPPORTERS of the legislation (Iowa house and senate democrats and union officials).

    That means that if you were planning on 10 public works projects in your community (schools, roads, community centers, etc), you can now only complete 9, and possibly 8. So that means taxpayers are paying 10%-20% more, and getting less in return.

    The prevailing wage bill primarily benefited union workers, of which 89% of Iowans do not belong to.

    So, to lay it out succinctly, 100% of Iowa taxpayers would have to pay more of their tax dollars for less public works projects; all in order to pay 11% of Iowans a higher GUARANTEED minimum salary. That doesn't make much sense to me. But, hey, I'm just a public school kid :-)

Categories & Tags: Blog| Economy/Finance| | | | | | | |

Switch to our mobile site