Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts

Friday, May 15, 2009

Email to Californians: Vote NO on Prop 1E this May 19!



NO ON CALIFORNIA PROPS 1E AND 1D!!





Video: New America Foundation's Mark Paul on the California budget - "California educates, medicates, and incarcerates"






Brief summary of Propositions by the Guardsman
http://theguardsman.com/2009/05/california-may-19-special-election-proposition-breakdown

Legislative Analyst's Office: California's Cash Flow Crisis Update 


OIA! received the email below and is reposting it here.  Below the email is more info on the Props forwarded on from the Courage Campaign.  Read on:


Hey ALL

This email contains my argument for why you should vote No on 1E (Divert Prop 63 funds) and at the bottom of this email you can find info from the Courage Campaign (a progressive Cali-based grassroots organization) that contains a voter guide and their endorsements on what/what not to vote for.  Please find references below the email, if they don't go deep enough for you, please feel free to do further research.  Also, forward this email on if you like.  The more people who vote no on 1E the better I say!

Voting NO on Prop 1E:

I worked first hand all of last year on a project studying the access of monolingual Spanish speakers to services in their language (which is their right by law if they have Medi-Cal or Medicare) to publicly funded mental health care in LA County. In the process I learned A LOT about California and specifically LA County's public mental health system.  Apparently 1E would to divert funds from Mental Health Services Act Programs (MHSA - this is the web of programs created and funded by Prop 63) to pay for a program that is federally mandated (so states HAVE to fund this program) called Early Periodic Screening Treatment and Diagnosis Program, which screens and treats illness in youth who have Medi-Cal health insurance (insurance through the state of CA...vs Medicare which is federal) 

Info on Prop 1E, see this link: http://www.healthvote.org/index.php/history/C43/  

The link above will give you the following information:
Proponents of Prop. 1E

Proponents of Prop. 1E, led by Prop. 63 co-author, state Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg (D–Sacramento), say California's unprecedented fiscal crisis necessitates this effort to balance the budget. Proponents also claim that the delays in starting some of Prop. 63's mental health programs resulted in $2.5 billion being held in state coffers. They state that these reserves are more than enough to fund current Prop. 63 mental health services. While they agree that diverting the funds to other programs will reduce the availability of new mental health services, they contend it is necessary to avoid “deeper cuts in other vital state services.”

back to top

Opponents of Prop. 1E

Opponents of Prop. 1E say that diverting funds from Mental Health Services Act recipients at a time when state and local revenues are already waning will lead to thousands in need of mental health services going untreated. They contend that MHSA results in lower mental health costs by providing early, cost-effective care and treatment. They point to a recent report by the Legislative Analyst's Office indicating that cities and counties may have to pay more for homeless shelters, social services, medical care, law enforcement, and incarceration as a consequence of the defunding of mental health services.


I am not sending this email as a commentary on how important or not the Early Periodic Screening program is.  I am sending this email because I think it will be a TERRIBLE idea to cut Prop 63 funding for MHSA programs.  I can only imagine that the impact of diverting prop 63 funds would be HUGE.  Sure, maybe it would somewhat help in the short short run (as in...this year...maybe), but in the long run it is going to be devastating to some of the most vulnerable of California's citizens. Further, based on what I have learned, I would hedge a guess to say that the $2.5 billion in hold that they are talking about would likely be spent in a year max if Prop 1E were to pass, leaving us with the question in about 6 months of...what now?  Even further, it is likely that this money is on hold not because there was just a lot of extra money generated by Prop 63, but because the final phases of MHSA programs are still being put into action.  The last set of planning committees for ideas on how to structure the final phase of were just conducted last November.  I know this, because I was there and was able to participate in these planning meetings, which were open to the public and which represented a wide range of LA's cultures, language groups, ethnicities, religions, gender identities, sexual identities, etc.  These have been organically designed FOR the people BY the people, and cutting Prop 63 funding would kill that.

I further think it would be terrible to divert Prop 63 monies for the following reasons:

-  The money is used for programs to treat severely mentally ill patients (people with serious psychological disorders that are often compounded by drug addiction), who without Prop 63 programs would be in the streets.  They would be homeless and sicker than ever.  To give you an idea, some people are so sick that they require hours of treatment every single day.  This treatment is mostly paid for by Prop 63, but since mental health treatment services are so deeply in demand with a limited number of therapists (lower salary for public service = less ppl working in public services), therapists often have to work beyond the time that they get compensated for by Prop 63 funds and often end up putting in 'donated' labor anyway. 

Considering that the economic and housing crises this last year are leaving people jobless and homeless - especially in LA at ever expanding rates, stopping the treatment of already really sick people and putting them back on the street makes no sense whatsoever.  Plus, as mentioned in the opposition section above, more homeless people = more people being put in jail, more people having crimes committed against them (homeless people are at high risk of being victims of violent physical or sexual assault), and potentially more people causing crime.  Considering that California prisons are already overburdened and cost upwards of $20,000 - $40,000 per person per year or $100,000 - $200,000 per person per year for juveniles and elderly prisoners (men and women) in need of meds/medical rehabilitiation, WHY would we stop a program that keeps people off of the streets and rehabilitates them?  Why would we put a whole bunch of really sick ppl back in the streets as prime targets to be arrested, feed into the prison cycle, and charge the state of California hundreds of thousands of MORE dollars per year above the trillions we are currently spending on the prison system?

-  Diverting Prop 63 money (based on the points above) will probably cost the state of California WAY MORE money than it will save.

-  Prop 63 monies are also used to train public mental health employees on how to provide culturally competent care to patients from every ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic background, of both or any gender, of any sexual preference, etc.  I think these trainings and the inclusiveness that they promote makes Cali (at least LA County) a leader in how to provide creative, competent, and caring mental health services.

-  Also, Prop 63 is going to create new, innovative programs if it can continue on without being 'diverted'.  The last phase of Prop 63 programs to be developed are prevention and intervention programs (these are what the planning meetings I attended were for) that will hopefully place mental health professionals in public schools and in general health doctors offices.  The purpose of this would be to identify, diagnose and treat mental illness in children and adults in its beginning stages, or to identify mental illness in people who wouldn't necessarily ever see a doctor beyond their general MD.  (This is important as general healthcare professionals don't necessarily recognize mental illness when they see it, considering that many times people manifest depression or other illness through physical symptoms such as fatigue or shortness of breath.) Similar to a physical illness, if you can identify and treat mental illness in the beginning stages, it is MUCH easier to treat than if caught years later. 

Prop 63 also funds infrastructure building, and investment in techonology to expand services to people (such as through creating televideo connections where mental health professionals can provide remote treatment to patients in cases of clinic short-staffing)

An important note on Prop 63 - the average taxpayer does not pay for it.  1% of the income of anyone earning over $1 million is taxed, which creates a revenue of billions of dollars which goes to create new mental health programs for severely mentally ill patients including housing, shelter, clothing, hours of therapy (per day), medication, etc.  If you earn at minimum $1 million, 1% of your income is $10,000.  If we're talking about millionaires, these are people who own houses with 4 car driveways that own cars that easily cost upwards of $30,000.  Next to an $11 trillion bailout, $1 million may not seem like a lot, but it is.  If you earn $40,000 per year, then a person earning $1 million is earning 25 times what you earn.

What I don't undertstand is if 1% of a tax on millionaires and billionaires will generate billions of dollars and these are wealthy way beyond the average American, why don't we vote on charging another 1% tax on millionaires or even a 2% tax to make up for tax loopholes they get already and to help close our deficit/pay for other programs that are lacking money, instead of sucking the life out of public mental health ESPECIALLY at a time when people are in crisis?  

Why don't we cut funding to our prisons system?  We spend upwards of $9 TRILLION a year on corrections - and this is a number that has rapidly and exponentially expanded over the last few years at the hands of the governator.  

Why don't we work with Obama to push for easier access for the average non-impoverished American to be able to access public health services, which we can pay for and which we are ALREADY paying for through our taxes???  

So.....point of the story is please don't vote yes on 1E.  If the Governator can be creative enough to bankrupt the Great State of California, him and his cronies can figure out creative ways to create money.  Maybe we should raise our voices some and help them out.   

One love...






---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rick Jacobs, Courage Campaign <info@couragecampaign.org>
Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Subject: IMPORTANT: Your May 19 election Progressive Voter Guide



Courage Campaign

The Courage Campaign empowers more than 700,000 members to lead the movement for progressive change in California on a variety of issues, including marriage equality. Before each election, the Courage Campaign produces a Progressive Voter Guide as a service to our members:

Dear Friend,

The statewide special election is less than a month away -- on Tuesday, May 19. Are you ready to vote?

You may have already received a vote-by-mail ballot for the May 19 election, but perhaps you haven't made your choices yet. The six initiatives on the ballot are complicated. Progressives are divided on the issues. Therefore, we are giving you as much information as possible so that you can make an informed choice.

That's why the Courage Campaign is providing our May 19 Progressive Voter Guide for the special election ballot. You'll see not only the Courage Campaign's recommendations, but also those of other leading progressive organizations like the California Democratic Party, the California Nurses Association, the California Teachers Association and the League of Women Voters.

Click here to download and print the Courage Campaign's two-page May 2009 Progressive Voter Guide from our web site (or click the image below to download a printable PDF document directly to your computer):

On Thursday, the Courage Campaign asked our members to vote on the following propositions and decide our final recommendations. 

The final Courage Campaign endorsements on the ballot measures, as voted on by our members, are:

  • Proposition 1A -- Spending cap: NO
  • Proposition 1B -- School funding: NO 
  • Proposition 1C -- Lottery borrowing: NO
  • Proposition 1D -- Divert First Five funds: NO
  • Proposition 1E -- Divert mental health funds: NO
  • Proposition 1F -- Legislators' salaries: NO

For explanations of our endorsements as well as the endorsements of eight other California progressive organizations, please click here to download our two-page Voter Guide from our web site (or click on the image above to download our printable PDF document directly):

http://www.couragecampaign.org/MayVoterGuide

With many vote-by-mail ballots already in the hands of voters, please help us spread the word to as many progressives as possible in California. You can start today by forwarding this email and Voter Guide to your family and friends.

No matter what the voters decide on May 19, we must be prepared on May 20 to fight for fair and progressive solutions to our budget and economic crisis.We will be contacting you soon to let you know what you can do to fix California's broken government.

Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign

 

..............

The Courage Campaign Issues Committee is part of the Courage Campaign's online organizing network empowering more than 700,000 grassroots and netroots activists to push for progressive change in California. 

Please consider making a contribution to help us push for progressive change:



Sunday, April 26, 2009

Economic Policy: 10 Big Ideas for a New America

Let's Wake Up to what's happening in the world!!!  Let's open our eyes!  Let's do it by putting down our differences and coming together for peace and prosperity!!!!



Below, please find 10 fascinating suggestions of how to renogotiate the social contract in the US.  That is to say, it is 2009 - the last serious remodeling of public investment into the social sphere occured during the last Great Depression, 80 years ago.  

You can link to the '10 Big Ideas' site by clicking HERE.  Also, check out the rest of this organization's site:  NewAmerica.net

We first present some food for thought and points of debate.  Please find the '10 Big Ideas' article below, which suggests ways to redesign how taxpayer money is spent so that all Americans can have a more equitable share of the American Pie of Wealth.    

Perhaps the set of policies suggested by these economists is what would have come out of the bailouts had we given the reigns of economic decision making to economists who spend comparatively more time contemplating the microeconomic need to invest in the People of America and the relationship between micro growth and macro growth.  It seems instead that the various players involved in finding solutions to our messed up economy have instead focused primarily on macrolevel interests, thinking that stopping macro failure by itself will solve collapses at the micro level. For people not versed in economic jargon, micro roughly translates into the economics of you and me, and macro translates roughly into the economics of government economies, big business, and international trade. So this is to say that 'solving the economic crisis' has focused on solving the collapses at the big money level and assuming that this will somehow solve issues of capital (money) scarcity at the micro level.  (Please correct us if we are wrong on any of the point contained in this paragraph.)  

A thought on this issue (up for debate with you) is that perhaps the Obama Administration got the direction of bailout money flows backwards - instead of creating a plan that urgently pumped money primarily into car companies, banks, and the financial sector while passing a set of legislation to overhaul public programs in the long-haul, perhaps the urgent flow of money could have been creatively distributed to the consumer (i.e. the people), while putting in place a long-term plan to overhaul the American economy generally, thereby getting at a reconstruction of the workings of the financial and auto industries. 

Interesting facts: thanks to the US taxpayer's generous bailouts, banks are bouncing back to booming and so are their outrageous executive salaries. What is even more interesting (found in the article that you can link to above) is that banking execs at Goldman Sachs (GS) are earning more than other banking companies. This is interesting considering that the US Treasury Secretary is linked to GS – a fact that some suspect has influenced the Obama Administration's decision to bail out AIG (while letting Lehman Bros fail), in which GS is heavily invested

Finally, while the policies suggested below are fascinating, the debate is (obviously) still open as to whether any or all of these policies would actually be good for America.  Feel free to leave suggestions or ideas in our comment box.   


Executive Summary

Ten Big Ideas for a New America

New America Foundation | February 2, 2007

The recent turnover in Congress, combined with a wide open presidential election cycle, creates a rare opportunity to bring new ideas into the political process. The spirit of this new era will be captured by those-from either party or no party-who embrace innovative yet pragmatic solutions to the foremost challenges facing our nation. We offer this collection of Big Ideas as fuel for an overdue bipartisan debate about how to update our national policies for the common good.

A PDF version of the full report can be downloaded below. To request print copies, please contact us directly. For details on the launch event for this report -- including video of the keynote addresses by Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) -- please click here.

Every Baby a Trust Fund Baby

An American Stakeholder Account (ASA), established for every child at birth, would build a savings and ownership culture in America, promote financial literacy, and fortify the American economy for the long haul. Every child would automatically receive a $6,000 deposit into an ASA at birth-and also be eligible for dollar-for-dollar matching funds for voluntary contributions up to $500 a year. Over time, ASAs will evolve into a broad system of saving accounts that all Americans, and especially low-income Americans, can tap to meet their asset needs throughout their lives, enabling them to invest in higher education and lifelong learning, purchase a first home, start a small business, and build a nest egg for retirement. [More on This Idea]

Mandatory, Affordable Health Insurance

We need both universal health coverage and a more efficient delivery system. These are not competing objectives; achieving each of these goals is necessary to make the other possible. The most promising and politically feasible path to universal health coverage is to make an adequate level of insurance mandatory and affordable for all individuals. The new system would be citizen-based instead of employer-based, thereby making health insurance fully portable from job to job. Once all patients are insured, providers can be expected to assist-rather than resist-the efficient redesign of our delivery system. This will entail an electronic health information superstructure, performance-based payments, and comparative technology assessment that will enable us to buy and deliver high-quality health care far more efficiently than we do today. [More on This Idea]

A Universal 401(k) Plan

For those with access, America's private pension system provides powerful saving incentives: tax breaks and employer contributions, as well as the convenience and discipline of automatic payroll deduction and professional asset management. Unfortunately, this employer-based system covers only half of all workers. Moreover, two-thirds of the tax breaks for retirement saving go to the most affluent 20 percent who would save anyway. The solution is a Universal 401(k) plan. All workers would have the option to contribute automatically to their own plan by payroll deduction-and the government would match voluntary deposits with refundable tax credits deposited directly into the worker's account. This supplemental system would make retirement saving easier, automatic, fully portable, and fair. [More on This Idea]

Tax Consumption, Not Work

For more than 70 percent of American families, the payroll tax is the largest tax they pay. Yet the tax is regressive, inefficient, and insufficient to fund the programs it finances. As a 15.3 percent wage tax levied on employers and employees, it deters job creation and depresses wages at the low end of the scale. By replacing the payroll tax with a national and progressive consumption tax, the United States could stimulate job creation, higher wages, and higher levels of personal saving at the same time, all in a revenue-neutral manner. Families would pay taxes on what they spend each year, rather than on what they earn. Higher levels of spending would be taxed at higher rates, encouraging saving, strengthening the economy, and increasing the overall progressivity of the tax code. [More on This Idea]

An Energy Efficiency Trading System

Reducing the economic and environmental risks of excessive energy use must become one of America's most important national goals. The most promising way forward is to reduce energy demand by spurring a revolution in energy efficiency. Indeed, efficiency is America's largest and most cost-effective potential energy resource. Phasing in tough new energy standards for America's biggest energy users and making energy efficiency tradable-much the way we now trade oil and natural gas-would quickly reduce total energy consumption while limiting carbon emissions. A market for standardized efficiency credits (white tags) will give utilities, builders, and vehicle manufacturers flexibility in meeting strict efficiency goals while stimulating new technologies, creating jobs, and improving the nation's overall productivity and competitiveness. [More on This Idea]

A College Access Contract

America's financial aid system imposes too much debt on college graduates, provides too much taxpayer support to banks making college loans, and demands too little of students assuming them. A new "College Access Contract" would allow low-income students to graduate with zero federal student loan debt-and middle-class students to graduate with interest-free federal student loan debt-if they: (1) work hard in high school to prepare for college-as evidenced by completing a college prep track or scoring college-ready on a placement exam; (2) work or engage in community service while in college an average ten hours a week; and (3) evidence a minimum level of competency in an academic area upon completing college. The program's cost can be paid for by reducing excess lender subsidies and embracing market mechanisms in the delivery of federal student loans. [More on This Idea]

Closing the $700 Billion Tax Loophole

While it appears the federal government will spend around $2.8 trillion this year, there is another $700 billion that is "spent" through the tax code in the form of tax expenditures. This shadow budget represents subsidies disbursed by way of taxes not collected. While politically popular, tax expenditures are an inefficient, poorly targeted, and needlessly expensive way to achieve the programmatic goals of government. Tax expenditures need to become part of the regular budget and appropriations process. They should be dramatically reduced, consolidated, and capped. The result would be a simpler, fairer, more efficient tax code. Equally important, hundreds of billions of dollars in potential savings can be freed up and redirected to meet the nation's most important needs. [More on This Idea]

Universal Risk Insurance

In recent decades there has been a massive transfer of economic risk from shared institutional arrangements, such as unemployment insurance and basic benefit coverage provided by employers, onto the fragile balance sheets of families. Yet public programs have largely failed to respond. "Universal Insurance" is a new response to this growing problem. It would provide short-term, stop-loss protection to families whose income (after taxes and public benefits) suddenly decline by a fifth or more due to job loss or catastrophic health expenses. All but the richest families would be eligible, but the program would be most generous for low-income families. This type of broad-based insurance-covering a range of risks but focused on substantial income drops or losses-would provide a flexible new platform of security in a world of rapidly changing risks. [More on This Idea]

Instant Runoff Voting

Americans want a more representative and responsive government capable of addressing the nation's challenges, yet our electoral system is founded on antiquated practices that inhibit voter choices and encourage a politics of polarization and paralysis. It's time to bring our electoral system into the 21st century by adopting instant runoff voting (IRV). IRV elects winners with majority support in a single election by allowing voters to rank a first, second, and third choice on their ballots. If no candidate wins a majority, and a voter's first choice is eliminated, the vote goes to the voter's second-ranked candidate as his or her runoff choice. IRV encourages more electoral competition, solves the "spoiler" problem, enables voters to choose the candidate they really want, and encourages candidates to win by building coalitions rather than tearing down opponents. [More on This Idea]

A Capital Budget for Public Investment

The federal budget needs to prioritize spending that will make our economy more productive in the future. Yet, over the last several decades, the portion of the federal budget going to current consumption has increased, while that devoted to public investment has declined. As a result, the federal government does not adequately fund either the physical infrastructure or knowledge capital upon which a more productive economy rests. We are underinvesting not only in traditional infrastructure, but also in high-speed broadband networks, in basic science research and development, and in training skilled workers, scientists, and engineers. Just as private businesses and most states use capital budgeting, a federal capital budget would allow us to separate our nation's public investment, which expands our capacity to grow, from our government's current consumption outlays. [More on This Idea]


Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Article: Federal Judges to Rule on CA Prison Crowding






All the little bits of orange you see in the picture above are people.

This is not cool.

Can you imagine being stuck for 5 years living in a situation like this? How about 10 years? How about your whole life?

The *US has the largest prison population in the world*. On average, 1 out of every 32 people in this country are in jail.

In California, we spend close to $14,000 per inmate per year (see article below). This is money that could be invested in our school system to keep people out of jails and prisons in the first place. Some sources cite that it costs up to $46,000 per year per prisoner in a California prison.

The kicker is, by paying our taxes year by year, each individual American (or in this case, Californian) is choosing to use the money he/she earns everyday to keep people locked in jail--again, money that could be used to fund schools and scholarships to higher education to keep people out of jail in the first place.

This post presents you with an article on a case that is pending in the California judicial system.

Three judges are about to rule on whether the CA prisons are overcrowded, and if they rule that this is the case, then they will also rule that a large chunk of prisoners should be pardoned early, so that there are less people in jail.

Now, there are many opinions one could have on this ruling and this situation in general. We put it out to you all to discuss thoughts, and to share any extra information on this situation that you may have.

Please read the article on this issue, which you can find below.

Further reading - on Prisoner's Rights and Hurricane Katrina:
*Click here* to link to an expose done by the *American Civil Liberties Union* on the subhuman, cruel and unusual treatment of prisoners in New Orleans during the Katrina Hurricane.



Article:

Federal judges to rule on Calif. prison crowding
By DON THOMPSON
Associated Press Writer
Monday, December 01, 2008
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's day of reckoning has finally come for three decades of tough-on-crime policies that led to overcrowded prisons and unconstitutional conditions for inmates.

The federal courts have already found that the prison system's delivery of health and mental health care is so negligent that it's a direct cause of inmate deaths.

A special three-judge panel reconvenes Tuesday and is prepared to decide whether crowding has become so bad that inmates cannot receive proper care. If they do, the panel will decide if lowering the inmate population is the only way to fix the problems.

That could result in an order to release tens of thousands of California inmates before their terms are finished, a move Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Republican lawmakers say would endanger public safety.

"The time has come: The extreme, pervasive and long-lasting overcrowding in California prisons must be addressed," attorney Michael Bien, representing inmates, told the judges during the opening of the trial.

Bien and other civil rights attorneys want the panel to order the prison population cut from 156,300 inmates to about 110,000. That still would be above the capacity of California's 33 state prisons, which were designed to hold fewer than 100,000 inmates.

To relieve some of the crowding, state corrections officials have transferred nearly 6,000 inmates to privately run prisons out of state and have another 11,000 living in conservation camps or private prisons within California.

The overcrowding is apparent in many prisons. Nearly 14,000 inmates sleep in three-level bunk beds in converted gymnasiums and classrooms. The arrangement gives each inmate about six square feet of living space while increasing the risk of violence and the spread of disease, according to testimony from prison guards.

Some inmates are forced to use water stored in garbage cans to bathe because there are too few showers.

Sick inmates can wait in line for hours to receive medical care, while the mentally ill can wait more than a year for a bed in a treatment unit. The state's inmate suicide rate is double the national average, yet suicidal inmates are held for hours in cages the size of telephone booths because there aren't enough crisis cells.

Two of the three judges hearing the case previously ruled that the state is violating inmates' constitutional rights by providing such poor medical and mental health care.

Jeffrey Beard, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, blamed California's adoption of tough drug laws and three-strikes sentencing laws since the 1970s. The state has added more than 1,000 felony sentencing laws during the past 30 years, and its criminal code gives judges little leeway in deciding punishments.

"They went from being one of the most progressive systems in the country to one of the most overcrowded," Beard testified. "California has this problem that has just been going on for years and years and years, and nobody seems to be willing to step up to the plate and fix the problem."

Most inmates live in prisons with populations the size of small towns. Nearly half the prisons hold 5,000 prisoners or more, while nine exceed 4,000 inmates. Beard said the limit should be 3,300.

The administration argues that conditions are improving, in part because of the out-of-state transfers and because the state is spending more on medical and mental health care.

It will spend $2.2 billion this year to treat, house and guard physically and mentally ill inmates, a 550 percent increase since 1995. The prison's population grew about 30 percent during the same period.

Annual health care spending has increased from $2,714 per inmate in 1995 to $13,778 this year, according to the state Department of Finance.

Administration lawyers credited a court-appointed receiver's oversight of inmate health care for many of the recent, if costly, improvements. But the administration is fighting the receiver's demand for an additional $8 billion to build seven inmate medical and mental health centers at a time when the state faces an $11.2 billion budget deficit.

Schwarzenegger and Republican state lawmakers promise an appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court if they lose the case.

The state is trying to focus the judges' attention on the consequences of ordering prisoners freed before they complete their full sentences.

"Releasing 50,000 inmates to the streets is obviously a public safety risk and it doesn't fix the problem," Corrections Secretary Matthew Cate said in an interview. "There are still underlying problems and we want to fix them. Early release, though, isn't the way to do that."

The judges are acting for the first time under the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The act requires the judges to initially find that crowding is the main cause of substandard conditions, a ruling they are likely to make this week.

They then can order inmates released only if they find there are no other options for improving care. The judges hope to complete the second phase of the trial by Christmas.

"No one's on the same track as California at this point," said Amy Fettig, a prison lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "It tells you they're in deep, deep trouble."


Tuesday, November 25, 2008

SO YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT TAXES?????




Let us know what you think about this post!

The picture above comes with a story.  The story is very interesting, but also very common, sadly, for people who depend on publicly funded health insurance.  The people in the picture above are protesting the fact that private clinics such as Carle Clinic are refusing to accept public funds, which means that many people are going without healthcare.  If you depend on public healthcare, there are no clinics around directly run by the government, and private clinics refuse to accept Medicare/Medicaid, then that leaves a bunch of people totally screwed by the system that is supposed to be caring for them.

 *Click here* to read the Statements declaring the purpose of the protest above. 

This blog post will start by providing information to those who may not understand what the world is like when you depend on public (tax funded)  insurance, namely *Medicare* or *Medicaid*. If you did not know that these are the names of our public health programs, you pay all your taxes AND you fight actively to pay less taxes, then you should think twice about your logic. 

This is because:

if you know nothing about what your taxes pay for, then how can you even possibly understand what the impact is of every dollar less that you pay in taxes?

Taxes are the price that we pay to live in America.

It's the price we pay to live in our cities and in our particular neighborhoods. 

If you work hard everyday and take pride in what you do--which you should, considering that you spend all day doing it--then you should fully understand that your income taxes are going, at least in part, to fund things like the public health system

Making "change" in the system ultimately means being proactive in the system.  Being proactive means CONSTANTLY and CONSISTENTLY voicing to the government that WE WILL NOT TOLERATE failed public policies!!!

We will not tolerate a failed healthcare system!!!!  Or a failed public education system!!!!  Or any failed public entity that is supposed to be created and paid for by the people, for the people.

Fortunately for us, Obama's election changes the game a whole lot.  This man has made himself open to caring.

So, for those of us (and there really need to be MORE) who care, we can hopefully have a good shot of getting our frustrations through to an Obama Presidential administration, and enact real change.  

We must all understand that by electing Obama, we have gone through a MAJOR paradigm (era) change.  We took the red pill, we took the plunge.  We now need to SOAR with it!!  We need to start caring about each other.  

In terms of taxes, this means that we must remember and understand that our daily work pays for:

Healthcare (including mental health and dental care), schools, building roads and bridges, having/maintaining a plumbing and a sewage system (to take care of our waste and our poop), electricity, clean water that is germ free, public education campaigns (to raise awareness about things like STD's and what to do in case of a natural disaster), the salaries of public officers (police officers, politicians, people who clean our streets), the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, the War on Drugs, the cost to build a massive defense and weapons systems (including atom and hydrogen bombs), the cost to keep military bases up and running in countries around the world, funding our prisons and the death penalty, public transportation, building parks, using to conserve nature and the wilderness,  etc etc etc etc.  

The list of what our taxes pay for goes ON AND ON AND ON.  This is why it is important to be AWARE and VIGILANT.

When you pay private insurance, you are paying for insurance on top of what you already pay to the government.  

This is because public healthcare is stereotyped as being 'welfare' - only for the needy and the poor who can't afford better health services.  

The Editor of Obama IS America! argues that universal healthcare would be a good thing, even though it would require some MAJOR restructuring of our public healthcare system--which is we need to do anyway and which WE are going to have to ultimately pay for.  We should restructure our public health system in a way that incorporates ALL Americans. This would make the most sense, considering that every tax paying citizen ends up paying for it anyway through our tax system.

It makes no sense that some of us end up forking over all this money to private health companies (private meaning that a vast minority of people make a huge profit), or going without any healthcare at all when we could ALL be getting GOOD healthcare just by paying our taxes, which we have to pay anyway! 

The thing with setting up a system of universal healthcare is that we already have the groundwork set up for us, but on the small scale.  This fact is well demonstrated by the case of the Protest against Carle Clinic in Champaign, Illinois highlighted in the photo and story above. 

Private clinics can accept public money.  If they accept public money, this means that the price that they get paid per client will be lower since public funding cannot afford to pay for care in the way that private insurance can.  

Public insurance pays for the health care of people who are involved in the Medicaid/Medicare programs.  However, right now, to access these programs you either have to be under the federal poverty level, have young children, be disabled somehow, or be over the age of 65.  So, as you can imagine, this creates another problem with the Medicare/Medicaid system:

It leaves about 37 million taxpaying Americans without any health insurance whatsoever.

If you add the 9 million uninsured children to the figure above, that means that 46 million Americans are going without any healthcare whatsoever. 

This is a disgrace, especially since we are already PAYING for a healthcare system through taxes.

In general, the Editor of this blog thinks that a well planned universal healthcare system is a real possibility based on our existing healthcare structures.  It could mean that EVERYONE would be taken care of, and the treatment we'd get would be GOOD!  We just have to make sure that the program is well designed, not overly (and unnecessarily bureaucratic), is actually in the interest of ALL the people, and has good oversight. 

As a united voice, the American people can pretty much work together on anything and have it be good.  So why not work together to build a new, sustainable, fair, and well-structured public health system?

It has yet to be seen whether or not Obama truly does care about making fundamental changes for American growth in a positive direction.   His stances are especially important considering how bad things are right now in certain ways...
  • Racial rioting is as bad as ever if not WORSE for some communities, like the Latino community, which has seen a *RISE* in hate crimes over the last year.  In New York, an Ecuadorean man who had been in the US for 20 years got STABBED TO DEATH by seven teenagers, because some kids were out looking to *kill a Mexican*.
  • The American economy is in the dumps right now, we are at the brink of failure as a nation, and we--like big dolts--keep pumping money into the pocketbooks of rich bankers and jet flying auto-makers who want US to pay for their failures.
  • We are at war, and have caused the mass killings of millions of people across the planet, sparking an all out global WAR on terrorism, which is supported at home by hateful rhetoric toward Muslims, Muslim looking people like Sikhs (who aren't even Muslim at all--Sikhism is its own religion).

Times are crazy!

And Obama happens to be the man in the middle, holding everyone together with his message of hope--and WE are the ones that have to make sure he gets the job done, and gets it done well.

THIS CANNOT BE EMPHASIZED ENOUGH : CHANGE WILL NOT HAPPEN UNLESS WE GET INVOLVED IN THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, 

which translates into : THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR OWN LIVES!!  

WE NEED TO START TAKING SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE STUFF GOING ON IN THE WORLD THAT WE DON'T LIKE IF WE WANT THINGS TO GET ANY BETTER!!!!!!


So the point of this blog post ultimately is:

BE AWARE of where your money goes, especially when you fork out a large chunk of your monthly paycheck to TAXES!!

Pay attention to the things going on in your life, and all of the world around you!!

Be considerate of the other people around you, and how they you, your opinions, and the things that you value affect them.

Also, please click on the links above and check out the sites they lead to.  They have been included to take you to the source sites, which can provide you with lots of interesting information.

DON'T HATE, EDUCATE!
DON'T HATE, COMMUNICATE!

YEAH!!!!


 

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

The Financial Crisis: You Gotta be Kidding Me





This blog entry was sent in by a friend of Obama is America! who is an investment banker at a prominent investment banking and securities firm that does major trade both domestically and internationally.  

The first part is commentary on the financial crisis and on an article related to taxes and the bailout.  This article is copied below the commentary.  

Below the commentary and the article please find some clips from Bill Maher.

Thank you.



You Gotta be Kidding Me

Read below…stay informed.


This article enrages me. No wonder ppl feel like we're greedy b@stards in the finance industry.


(1) Those companies shedding more than $300mm in bad assets obviously weren't managing their risk very effectively; so why shouldn't they lose some tax breaks since they're directly benefiting from the bailout?

(2) Why should an exec who was overpaid in the boom not have to forego some current income, given that the fallout of his choices are occurring now? (and his "boom time" compensation obviously didn't reflect the the risks he was exposing his company to begin with...as evidenced by Dick Fuld getting paid like a madman - think circa $100mm per yr - during the boom, only to have his company, Lehman Brothers, file for bankruptcy the next year)

(3) Any greedy exec who doesn't participate in the plan just because it'll cut down his compensation package should be jailed. (I'm not saying this figuratively.) As a shareholder of a company, if you tell me you're not going to participate in the plan bc you won't get to deduct your overweight compensation package for tax purposes, I will tell you (1) f*ck you and your lack of morals, (2) deal w/ it by just not compensating yourself so much. That solves the problem of having a non-tax-deductible expense! (Get rid of the EXPENSE, idiot.)

(4) Vote Obama. I was shocked and disgusted that Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke even initially opposed this idea of having executives pay for their actions. Their whole rationale was, "If we make executives get paid less, they won't participate in healing the financial system." To this we should all respond, "Then do we really want these people running the financial system?" Thank God the democrats called Bush and the other Republicans out on their bullsh*t. After 8 yrs of Republican rule, suppressing taxes for the uber-wealthy (TRUST ME…it's happening. If you're unaware of private equity being taxed at 15% or tax shelters for hedge funds or the repeal by Bush of the Estate Tax, designed to only tax estates > $20mm…you really should be. Because you're paying top dollar marginal rates, my friends), de-regulation and lack of oversight of the financial system, etc etc…aren't you tired of it?

McCain was there this WHOLE 8 yrs, seeing the bubble grow, helping write the policies that fueled the fire we're experiencing now. We should have learned that this whole ridiculous notion of the "trickle down" effect that Republicans teach isn't right…it just isn't happening. Because you know what really happens? While Henry Kravis (co-founder of KKR), who is literally worth half a trillion dollars, pays 15% in taxes, his maid is paying closer to 40%. Our GDP is growing alright (well, it was), but the top 1% of income earners in this country are capturing most of this growth. And for what? We get a promise that we'll be protected from "terrorism" and "terrorists." Last I checked, we're way more f*cked now than we ever were right after 9/11 (I'm not downplaying the emotional effects, I'm talking purely economic impact)…last I checked, there are more terrorists after we attacked Iraq than before…and last I checked, 9/11 happened during a Republican regime. What "national SECURITY" are we really hoping for?

I'm stepping forward to say that I'd happily vote in a leader who may raise taxes for my firm, which would translate to lower comp for me. The point of the matter is, we need leadership that will restore the ethics of the financial system (which lead to a restoration of trust…which is the ONLY way to fix this problem…not by throwing more rescue packages at it). When we let people play willy-nilly for a decade, this is the mess we get ourselves into. And on that note…if you know any person in the financial industry that wants to debate this point, have them call me. If they truly don't believe the Republicans got us into this mess, they're probably not that smart anyway…and I love debating stupid people. (Thought I'd end on a lighter note :P)



US pay curb to hit shareholders
Financial Times - 13 Oct 2008 - By Francesco Guerrera, James Politi
(c) 2008 The Financial Times Limited. All rights reserved 


Banks participating in the US government's $700bn bail-out package could suffer a significant rise in their tax bill because of a little-noticed provision designed to curb outsized executive pay.

Wall Street bankers and compensation experts say the new rules, coupled with other measures to reduce executive pay, could dissuade companies from taking part in the rescue plan.

"It puts companies in a difficult position," said James Reda, founder of James F. Reda & Associates, a compensation consultancy. "If they participate in the bail-out, they will get hit with a large tax bill."

Under the new provision, companies that sell more than $300m in bad assets to the US government would lose the tax breaks they receive on the multi-million dollar bonuses paid to their executives.

In addition, the bail-out bill reduces the amount of an executive's salary that is tax-deductible from the current $1m to $500,000.

The change could increase companies' expenses and reduce their earnings by millions of dollars and prevent executives from collecting their large remuneration packages for as long as the company participates in the programme.

The legislation also states that the pay restrictions, which apply to top executives but not to other employees such as traders, remain valid even if the executive resigns or retires.

This means the rules would apply to deferred compensation, such as the large pension payments and severance packages often awarded to outgoing executives.

The provisions are part of measures designed to defuse criticism that taxpayers' money is being used to bail out millionaires on Wall Street - a key concern of several Washington politicians, especially among the Democratic ranks.

But Wall Street executives argue that the rules are misguided as they will burden companies, rather than their executives, with millions of dollars in higher tax payments. "It is a crazy measure because instead of punishing Wall Street executives, it takes it out on shareholders, who will end up paying for this," a senior banker said. "It is a progressive tax on companies that pay executives more than $500,000."

US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, a former Goldman Sachs chief executive, had initially resisted measures that would reduce executive pay, amid fears that they would deter companies from participating in the bail-out plan.

But he later relented and Treasury officials say they do not believe the executive pay clauses will keep companies away from the plan