Des Moines Police Chief Judy Bradshaw has been an exemplary public servant. She has served us very well as a police officer and as an administrator. It’s too bad that we are losing her services in the Des Moines Police Department because of the overly generous pension benefit that we have provided for her.
It is no coincidence that she is “retiring” at age 55, and yet will be taking another job very soon. The current pension benefit provided for all police officers and firefighters in Iowa’s largest cities allows them to retire at age 55 with full benefits if they have worked at least 22 years. The maximum benefit is 82% of their highest three year’s pay if they have worked at least 30 years.
Bradshaw has worked for the DMPD for more than 30 years. So, her benefit, payable for the rest of her life, beginning as soon as she retires, will be about $130,000 per year! The fact that she will immediately begin working at another job will not reduce that benefit. I don’t blame her one bit for doing the best she can for herself. She is playing by the rules that we have set for her. I would do the same thing if I were her.
Most Iowa taxpayers work for private employers that do not offer such a generous retirement benefit in either the dollar amount or the retirement age. If we offered police officers and firefighters the same dollar benefit at age 65 it would still be very generous but it would also save taxpayers a lot of money.
In order to fund these benefits, our municipal governments are currently being required to pay over 30% of the employee’s pay into the retirement system. This is causing great stress on city budgets and pushing up property taxes. We clearly need to reform this system to bring it more in line with the kind of retirement benefits that most Iowans receive. Please urge your state senators and representatives to do something about this during the next legislative session.
Link to source material regarding police and firefighter pension benefits: http://www.mfprsi.org/site_media/pdfs/Benefit_Handbook_2.pdf
A bill is quickly moving through the Iowa Legislature that would exempt veterans pension benefits from Iowa Income Tax. I appreciate the service and sacrifice that veterans have given to our country, but such a benefit should only be given to those veterans who are in need. Some veterans are millionaires. We don’t need to exempt their income from Iowa Income tax. The current bill should be amended to exempt pension payments received only for those veterans whose Adjusted Gross Income is less than $50,000 for individuals and $75,000 for married couples. Those with incomes above those levels can afford and should help to pay for services provided to Iowans by the State of Iowa..
Thanks to the Des Moines Register for the article, “Crop insurance payment soar” on 3/14/2013. It is not right that we taxpayers are required to subsidize crop insurance premiums for farmers. I can accept our government administering a crop insurance insurance program if there is no viable private market. But I cannot understand why taxpayers should subsidize the crop insurance program. Farmers make higher than average incomes. Many farmers and farm owners are very wealthy. Both large corporate farms and wealthy absentee owner investors get Insurance premium subsidies. Fees and commissions paid to crop insurance companies and sales representatives appear to be very generous. We need to stop the farm welfare. Charging the full cost of the insurance to farmers will cause farmers to help keep cost down and prevent abuse.
Both current Iowa law and the proposed “right to work” amendment to the Iowa Constitution prohibit a private business owner from voluntarily agreeing to hire only union members.
In a free society that respects private property rights and freedom of association, business owners should be free to choose whether or not to bargain with anyone or group about any terms of employment. Government should not get involved either for or against the employer or the employees except to stop either party from using force or fraud against the other. If an employer wants to hire only union members and bargain with a single group, then government should not prohibit it. In that case, individuals who don’t want to join the union can simply refuse to work for that employer.
Just as an employer should be free to agree to hire only people who are members of a union, an employer should also be free to not bargain with any individual or group, including unions, regardless of what employees or union members might vote for. Unless the parties agree by voluntary contract to the contrary, employees should be free to strike, quit, protest, organize boycotts, etc., and employers should be free to fire, lock-out, hire replacements, etc. – as long as neither party uses force.
The whole issue of whether “union certification votes” should be by secret ballot or by a written card check method should not exist. There should be no law to force employers to bargain with unions, even if 100% of the employees vote for it. All employment relationships and contracts should be entered into voluntarily by both parties. The only proper role for government in private business relationships is to stop the use force or fraud against, and to resolve disputes.
In the special case of government as the employer, there should be no requirement that employees join a union, and there should be no requirement that a government bargain with any union. Government is paid for by all taxpayers under threat of force. Therefore, government, as an employer, should not discriminate in its employment practices except on the basis of job requirements or job performance.
The proposed amendment to the Iowa Constitution should die, and current Iowa law should be changed to reflect the voluntary nature of any employment relationship.
Contrary to the letter by Jack Hatch, the Obama administration and Congress were wrong in the way they handled the auto manufacturer’s bailout. (See The Des Moines Register, 11/3/2012, “Auto bailout saved many Iowa jobs, too”) Romney is correct that we should have followed established bankruptcy laws. The bankruptcy process would have allowed the companies to remain open and the jobs to not be lost. The companies could have reorganized their debt and equity and emerged from bankruptcy stronger. What actually happened was that politically favored creditors, such as unions, were given unfair preferences, and some unfavored creditors were cheated out of their lawful security. It is quite likely that Iowa manufacturers would have continued to supply their parts to the industry even if the law had been properly followed.