Tuesday, September 4, 2012

PROP 38 AND PROP 30



COMPARING THE TWO MAJOR STATE SCHOOL FUNDING PROPOSITIONS: PROP 38 AND PROP 30

This Year voters will have to decide between two conflicting tax measures on the November ballot. One is Prop 38, also referred to as the Local Schools and Early Education Investment and Bond Debt Reduction Act, which has been funded almost exclusively by its proponent, wealthy tax attorney Molly Munger. The other is Prop 30, which is backed by Gov. Jerry Brown. Brown took his plan to the people after an earlier attempt to close the budget gap by raising personal income taxes failed in the state legislature. Both ballot measures focus on protecting education funding, but they go about it in different ways.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) would raise the income tax rate on almost all Californians, where   Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) targets only those who make more than $250,000 a year. The amount of the increase would depend on the individual's tax bracket (see "What Your Vote Means" below). The revenues would go into a special fund called the California Education Trust Fund, or CETF. From there, the money would have to be used for three specific purposes, in the following proportions:
pay for schools (60%)
pay for Early Care and Education (ECE) programs (10%)
pay down state debts (30%)

However, beginning in fiscal 2017, the proportions would shift. The amount allotted for schools and ECE would be capped using a formula that takes into account the average growth in Californians' per capita income during the first five years the law is in effect. Any revenues in excess of this cap would go toward debt payments. The rest would be split, with 85% going to schools and 15% going to ECE.
One critical point to consider is that the two November tax measures (Prop 30, Gov. Brown and Prop 38, M. Munger) would negatively affect the other should both pass. The state constitution already provides that when two measures conflict, the one with the most votes prevails. In addition, sections in both Prop 30 and Prop 38 explicitly bar the other from taking effect. Even if you vote for both, only one can win. However, if Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) loses, the much feared "trigger cuts," built into the current state budget, would go into effect.
Prop 38 (M. Munger) has a number of very specific rules about the distribution of funds, and it is well worth your time to read the summary from the Legislative Analyst's Office. And here's the full text of the prop.


Prop 38 (M. Munger) WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

Voting YES means that you approve of the new taxes and would like them to be allocated to schools, ECE programs, and state debt repayment. If Prop 38 prevails, then Prop 30 cannot, and a series of trigger cuts built into the state budget will go into effect. Taxes would increase according to the following table:
Single Filer
Joint Filer
Head-of-Household
Tax Rate Increase
<$7,316
<$14,632
<$14,642
--
$7,316-$17,346
$14,632-$34,692
$14,642-$34,692
0.4%
$17,346-$27,377
$34,692-$54,754
$34,692-$44,721
0.7%
$27,377-$38,004
$54,754-$76,008
$44,721-$55,348
1.1%
$38,004-$48,029
$76,008-$96,058
$55,348-$65,376
1.4%
$48,029-$100,000
$96,058-$200,000
$65,376-$136,118
1.6%
$100,000-$250,000
$200,000-$500,000
$136,118-$340,294
1.8%
$250,000-$500,000
$500,000-$1,000,000
$340,294-$680,589
1.9%
$500,000-$1,000,000
$1,000,000-$2,000,000
$680,589-$1,361,178
2.0%
$1,000,000-$2,500,000
$2,000,000-$5,000,000
$1,361,178-$3,402,944
2.1%
Over $2,000,000
Over $5,000,000
Over $3,402,944
2.2%
Source:

Legislative Analyst's Office

Voting NO means that you reject the tax increase. The school funding and debt repayment plan laid out by Prop 38 will not go into effect.
Prop 38 (M. Munger) WHO/WHAT IT WOULD AFFECT 
Taxpayers: Most Californians would be faced with at least some form of tax increase. See the table in "What Your Vote Means" above.
Public Schools: Public schools could receive as much as $10 billion in the first year. The bulk of that money (70%) would be distributed to schools on a per-student basis, with more money for students in higher grades levels. Additional money (18%) would be allotted to schools based on the number of low-income students enrolled. The final portion (12%), also distributed on a per-student basis, would be dedicated solely to technology -- allowing for the purchase of new equipment and teaching materials and also for teacher training. The money would be tied to a series of restrictions and mandates, including that school districts seek public input before deciding on how to spend the money.
Early Care and Education Programs: ECE programs are those that, like preschool, begin before kindergarten. Current funding levels don't come close to supporting the number of children eligible for subsidized programs in the state (of children ages five and younger, about half are eligible but only 15% are served, according to the legislative analyst's office). Prop 38 would restore some of the funding that was cut in a series of budget reductions since 2008. It would also create a rating system for ECE programs, establish a statewide database to support program management, begin an Early Head Start program modeled after the federal one, and would expand subsidized preschool for children of low-income families, among other things. ECE programs are expected to get about $1 billion a year for the first few years if Prop 38 passes.
State Budget: A share of CETF funds each year will go toward paying down state debts, with the priority on education debt-service costs. That means more General Fund money can go to other public programs and to balancing the budget, according to the legislative analyst.
Prop 38 (M. Munger) WHO'S BEHIND IT
Wealthy tax lawyer Molly Munger is the principal financial backer
and proponent of Prop 38. Other than her own contributions, only one minor donation has been reported as of Aug. 14 -- $25,000 from the Atlas Family Trust, compared with $13.8 million from Munger herself.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) WHO'S AGAINST IT                                              Those interests that have lined up behind Jerry Brown's tax measure, Prop 30, are naturally opposed to the Munger plan. In addition, the California Democratic Party has come out against the measure. However, no major donations to the opposition campaign have been registered with the Secretary of State's office

ARGUMENTS BEING MADE FOR                                                       restores education money that was cut from the budget in recent years, guaranteeing billions of dollars to local schools based on enrollment -- an average of $10 billion annually over 12 years.
It will prevent more cuts by setting aside $3 billion a year through 2017 to help repay state education bond debt.
It prohibits the legislature from diverting or borrowing the money, and the money cannot be used to replace current education funding.
Money is distributed on a per-pupil basis and must be spent at the school.
The money cannot be spent to increase salaries or pensions of school personnel.
Spending decisions will be made locally and will require public input.
School districts will be accountable for improvement at each school and must report how they money was spent.

ARGUMENTS BEING MADE AGAINST
Prop 38 is a massive tax hike for middle-class taxpayers and small businesses. It would damage small businesses that pay income taxes as individuals rather than as corporations.
It would kill jobs in small and family businesses where most job growth is taking place.
It can't be changed once it's passed, so it will continue for 12 years even if there is evidence of fraud or waste.
It gives Sacramento $3 billion a year for four years to spend without restriction.
It creates a costly new bureaucracy by forcing schools to go through complex red tape just to receive basic funding, and it creates new programs even while necessary school functions have been cut back.
It will do almost nothing to improve student performance.


Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

Voting YES means that the personal income tax would go up for those earning more than $250,000 as well as a quarter-cent sales tax increase would go into effect. Also, the state would continue to fund certain public safety programs it handed over to counties in 2011.
Single Taxable Income
Joint Taxable Income
Head of Household Taxable Income
Tax Rate Increase
Under $250,000
Under $500,000
Under $340,000
--
$250,000-$300,000
$500,000-$600,000
$340,000-$408,000
1%
$300,000-$500,000
$600,000-$1,000,000
$408,000-$680,000
2%
Over $500,000
Over $1,000,000
Over $680,000
3%
Source:
Legislative Analyst's Office

Voting NO means that no new taxes will be introduced. The following trigger cuts would go into effect. Schools and other programs would face billions in reduced funding as follows:
Schools and community colleges
$5.35 billion
University of California
$250 million
California State University
$250 million
Department of Developmental Services
$50 million
City police department grants
$20 million
CalFire
$10 million
DWR flood control programs
$7 million
Local water safety patrol grants
$5 million
Department of Fish and Game
$4 million
Department of Parks and Recreation
$2 million
DOJ law enforcement programs
$1 million
Source:
Legislative Analyst's Office

Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) Who/What It Would Affect

Taxpayers: The first chart above shows how the personal income tax increase would affect those in each bracket.
Consumers: Everyone would pay an extra quarter cent sales tax at the point of sale.
Public Schools: If the measure passes, schools could see up to $6.6 billion in increased funding. If it fails, funding could go down by as much as $5.4 billion.
State Government: If it passes, the state would see an increase of billions of dollars to help cover education and balance the budget. If not, it would face a serious shortfall and begin making a series of trigger cuts to government programs to reduce overall spending.
Local Governments: Local governments, mainly counties, have already been required to take on new responsibilities in public safety, including supervising parolees and handling incarceration for some adults. The state helped by providing funds for these programs last year, but Prop 30 would ensure that these payments continue annually.

Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) Who's Behind It
This is the tax increase Gov. Jerry Brown has been trying to get approved for more than a year, part of his strategy to close the budget gap. It has the support most notably of the League of Women Voters and the two major teachers unions. The teachers unions have together donated millions to the campaign. Key financial backers include:
California Teachers Association
California Federation of Teachers
Service Employees International Union's Local 1000
Democratic State Central Committee

Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) Who's Against It
So far only a small amount has been donated to the opposition campaign, with the largest contribution so far from the Small Business Action Committee. Joel Fox, the president of that group and editor of the political blog Fox&Hounds, is actively involved in the campaign to defeat Prop 30 and has put his name to the official arguments against that will appear on the ballot. So far the key financial contributors are:
Small Business Action Committee
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

  
Arguments Being Made For
§  Prevents an additional $6 billion in school cuts and provides new funding for education this year.
§  Establishes a guarantee for public safety funding in the state's constitution, where it can't be changed without voter approval. "It keeps cops on the street."
§  Balances the budget and pays down California's debt.
§  Only the highest income earners pay more income tax. Couples earning below $500,000 a year will pay no additional income taxes.
§  It's temporary. PIT goes up for 7 years and quarter-cent sales tax for 4 Years.
§  The money goes into a special account the legislature can't touch.
§  Mandatory, independent audits will ensure funds are spent only for schools and public safety.

Arguments Being Made Against
§  Legislature can take existing money for schools and use it for other purposes, replacing it with money from Prop 30, effectively resulting in no new money for education.
§  There are no requirements or assurances that any more money actually goes to classrooms. 
§  Prop 30 rewards the dangerous behavior of spending more than the state has by giving politicians billions of dollars more with no real reforms.
§  The governor, politicians and special interests are threatening voters by saying, "vote for our massive tax increase or we'll take it out on schools," but they refuse to reform the education or pension systems to save money.


Source: Legislative Analyst's Office

No comments:

This is the fight of our professional careers. Are You In or Out?

What's taking so long? This is the fight of our professional careers. Are You In or Out? "Hell has a special level for those who sit by idly during times of great crisis."
Robert Kennedy

The Art of SETTING LIMITS, Its not as easy as it looks.

Art of Setting Limits Setting limits is one of the most powerful tools that professionals have to promote positive behavior change for their clients, students, residents, patients, etc. Knowing there are limits on their behavior helps the individuals in your charge to feel safe. It also helps them learn to make appropriate choices.


There are many ways to go about setting limits, but staff members who use these techniques must keep three things in mind:
Setting a limit is not the same as issuing an ultimatum.
Limits aren’t threats—If you don’t attend group, your weekend privileges will be suspended.

Limits offer choices with consequences—If you attend group and follow the other steps in your plan, you’ll be able to attend all of the special activities this weekend. If you don’t attend group, then you’ll have to stay behind. It’s your decision.
The purpose of limits is to teach, not to punish.
Through limits, people begin to understand that their actions, positive or negative, result in predictable consequences. By giving such choices and consequences, staff members provide a structure for good decision making.
Setting limits is more about listening than talking.
Taking the time to really listen to those in your charge will help you better understand their thoughts and feelings. By listening, you will learn more about what’s important to them, and that will help you set more meaningful limits.
Download The Art of Setting Limits

SYSTEMATIC USE OF CHILD LABOR


CHILD DOMESTIC HELP
by Amanda Kloer

Published February 21, 2010 @ 09:00AM PT
category: Child Labor
Wanted: Domestic worker. Must be willing to cook, clean, work with garbage, and do all other chores as assigned. No contract available, payment based on employer's mood or current financial situation. No days off. Violence, rape, and sexual harassment may be part of the job.

Would you take that job? No way. But for thousands of child domestic workers in Indonesia, this ad doesn't just describe their job, it describes their life.

A recent CARE International survey of over 200 child domestic workers in Indonesia found that 90% of them didn't have a contract with their employer, and thus no way to legally guarantee them a fair wage (or any wage at all) for their work. 65% of them had never had a day off in their whole employment, and 12% had experienced violence. Child domestic workers remain one of the most vulnerable populations to human trafficking and exploitation. And while work and life may look a little grim for the kids who answered CARE's survey, it's likely that the most abused and exploited domestic workers didn't even have the opportunity to take the survey.

In part, child domestic workers have it so much harder than adults because the people who hire children are more likely looking for someone easy to exploit. Think about it -- if you wanted to hire a domestic worker, wouldn't you choose an adult with a stronger body and more life experience to lift and haul and cook than a kid? If you could get them both for the same price, of course you would. But what if the kid was cheaper, free even, because you knew she wouldn't try and leave if you stopped paying her. Or even if you threatened her with death.



Congress Aims to Improve Laws for Runaway, Prostituted Kids

by Amanda Kloer

categories: Child Prostitution, Pimping

Published February 20, 2010 @ 09:00AM PT

The prospects for healthcare reform may be chillier than DC weather, but Democrats in the House and Senate are turning their attention to another warmer but still significant national issue: the increasing number of runaway and throwaway youth who are being forced into prostitution. In response to the growing concerns that desperate, runaway teens will be forced into prostitution in a sluggish economy, Congress is pushing several bills to improve how runaway kids are tracked by the police, fund crucial social services, and prevent teens from being caught in sex trafficking. Here's the gist of what the new legislation is trying to accomplish:

Shelter: Lack of shelter is one of the biggest vulnerabilities of runaway and homeless youth. Pimps will often use an offer of shelter as an entree to a relationship with a child or a straight up trade for sex. In the past couple years, at least 10 states have made legislative efforts to increase the number of shelters, extend shelter options, and change state reporting requirements so that youth shelters have enough time to win trust and provide services before they need to report the runaways to the police. Much of the new federal legislation would make similar increases in the availability and flexibility of shelter options.

Police Reporting: Right now, police are supposed to enter all missing persons into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database within two hours of receiving the case. In reality, that reporting doesn't always get done, making it almost impossible for law enforcement to search for missing kids across districts. This hole is a big problem in finding child prostitution victims and their pimps, since pimps will often transport girls from state to state. The new bill would strengthen reporting requirements, as well as facilitate communication between the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the National Runaway Switchboard

We Must Never Forget These Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen and Women

We Must Never Forget These Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen and Women
Nor the Fool Politicians that used so many American GIs' lives as fodder for the fight over an english noun - "Communism"