Federal Income Tax Preferences Favor the Very Wealthy
August 28, 2012
I really appreciate the service provided by NPR and WNYC in terms of trying to present a variety of positions and opinions on our economy, our country and a broad array of other subjects.
Tonight, I listened to an interview of former Gov. John H. Sununu by Brian Lehrer.
Gov. Sununu has some interesting perspectives based on years of academic and political leadership, as well as a sound educational foundation – including a PhD from MIT.
Gov. Sununu has some strong opinions, some of which he shared with listeners in the interview.
One opinion I heard revolved around federal income taxes on dividends and capital gains. As I understood Gov. Sununu, his posture is that we need to protect the favored tax status on dividends and capital gains because this rewards and encourages entrepreneurs to take risks, to create new enterprise, and to create and sustain new jobs.
I like this strategy for active equity investors who devote a substantial amount of their own personal time and energy, in addition to their capital investment, in the business.
Where I believe we ought to consider drawing the line is with passive equity investors.
Under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, Congress enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which essentially eliminated many of the tax preferences formerly available through real estate investment transactions. In the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993, Congress “relaxed” the rules somewhat for active real estate investors, allowing those who meet defined requirements necessary to be considered a real estate professional to bypass the passive activity rules for real estate investments in which they materially participated.
Today, we allow those who are essentially passive equity investors to treat significant amounts of passive income from equity investments in the form of dividends and capital gains as preference items for federal tax purposes. Meanwhile, hard working Americans – including most small business owners – are taxed at standard income tax rates, compounded by the mysterious “Alternative Minimum Tax”.
Our standard income tax system is indexed so that as taxable income increases, the effective tax rate increases.
As an example, an American family with 2 adults which had a taxable income of $100k from employment in 2011 were in the 25% tax bracket, but they didn’t have to pay 25% in federal income taxes on the full amount. Rather, they paid 10% on the first $16,050, 15% on the next $49,050, and 25% on the last $34,900. This works out to a federal income tax obligation of $17,687.50, or an effective rate of just under 18%.
Now, contrast this against a passive investor who receives most of his income from passive activities, and where there is no indexing in place. How is this rational, appropriate or equitable?
I would have hoped to hear a well-educated and knowledgeable individual like John H. Sununu give us a more informed and critical analysis of the overall situation here, versus trying to create what sounded on the radio to be a biased, inflammatory and very narrow interpretation of the facts.
Other People’s Money
August 25, 2012
On the eve of the Republican Convention in Tampa, I keep thinking back to the movie, “Other People’s Money” which starred Danny DeVito in the role of “Larry the Liquidator.”
Larry was a Vulture Capitalist who was noted for buying up under-valued firms; then breaking them up into component parts; selling off the parts; and making lots of money for himself and his partners.
In this scene from the movie, the essence of the dilemma emerges: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7rvupKipmY
Gregory Peck as the current executive in charge of New England Wire and Cable is immersed in a critical vote at the company’s annual meeting which could allow Larry and his Vulture Capital Firm to take control of the company, which would result in closing down the company and putting hundreds of people out of work. Permanently.
New England Wire and Cable was modeled on the many indigenous American family-owned small manufacturing companies which took root in New England in the 19th century. The inspiration for the theme of Other People’s Money was a real company in Seymour, CT which went through a fatal and permanent intervention by some Venture Capital Pirates around 1990.
Back in the Golden Age of Pirates (approx. 1650s to the 1730s), the pirates were self-declared. They typically didn’t dress up in suits, fly in private aircraft, or ride in chauffeured black cars. Today’s pirates operate openly in daylight; they pay taxes (albeit at greatly reduced rates vs. regular working people); and many own multiple mansions in delightful places around the world.
I imagine a shortened version of Other People’s Money (Part 1) where the name of Larry’s firm was changed to “Brain Capital.”
Then, I envision Part 2 as a take-off which is focused on ‘off-shore blocker’ strategies where the principals of Brain Capital explain their strategies:
http://news.yahoo.com/bain-documents-romney-offshore-investments-used-blockers-avoid-185957445–abc-news-topstories.html
Part 3 of the series could contrast one or more successful U.S. entrepreneur(s) who have invested their own money into a business that manufactures some product and where 50 to 500 people work full-time at decent wages with benefits, against a principal from Brain Capital. Part 3 would contrast the effective tax rate (and amounts paid) by the actual entrepreneur and all of the employees (year after year) vs. the tax rate (and amount paid) by the Vulture Capitalist in the current year. Don’t forget: once the Vulture Capitalist liquidates the company, there will be no further jobs; no further purchases; and no further local property tax, sales tax or income tax collections.
Part 4 of the series could be a lesson on the multiplier effect of all of those employees; the goods and services purchased by the manufacturing company; and so forth, vs. the absolute finality of the liquidation of a struggling but operating business.
To a great degree, the contrast between a real American entrepreneur and a Vulture Capitalist is very similar to the contrast between hard-core, tea-party conservatives and main-stream Democrats (plus what some might call ‘Centrist Republicans’).
The hard-core Right seems to be laser-focused on reversion to a society and economy that mirrors Medieval Europe and Feudalism, where the majority of main-stream residents in the U.S. seem to continue to favor the more egalitarian approach on which the United States was founded and has operated until very recently.
Through some very clever sound bites and an inordinate amount of attention on trivial but emotionally engaging issues, Tea-Party conservatives have polarized our society in an unprecedented way.
Best example of this would be Obama-care — which was inspired by the health care reforms enacted in Massachusetts under the leadership of former Gov. Mitt Romney.
Obama-care is not a perfect solution — primarily due to the amount of compromise that was required to get it passed — but the majority of experts tell us that it is a significant move in a positive direction.
Yet, there are a number of elected officials (and their disciples) — ‘Hard-Core Right’ — who continue to hammer on REPEAL!
What are their reasons, what are their real objections? Here is a synopsis: http://theamericandrivein.com/2010/11/21/why-repeal-obamacare/
As Jon Stewart may have already said — while stamping his feet and whining: “Just because!”
Westchester County & Source of Income Legislation
August 5, 2012
A modest article published in the August 4, 2012 issue of The Journal News provides some continuing details on the apparent impasse between Westchester County Executive Astorino and HUD on the need for “source of income legislation” in relation to the 2009 settlement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The terms of the settlement require Westchester County to take several steps to break down the effects of housing discrimination, including building 750 units of affordable housing in mostly white communities and marketing those units in areas with largely non-white populations. At the time of the settlement, the County also agreed to “promote” source-of-income legislation. The definition of promote has been and continues to be a “sticky wicket” in the discussions.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012308040029&nclick_check=1
Opinion
As a taxpayer in Westchester County, I am very puzzled as to how this constant bickering can possibly be productive. I am further concerned that the continuing obfuscation detracts from the ability of our County government to do the work of the people, and further, is wasting precious County resources on legal costs and other unnecessary expenditures.
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits credit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or source of income.
Housing Choice Vouchers (a.k.a. ‘Section 8’) are generally and widely accepted as a legitimate and stable source of income for housing purposes.
The great majority of people I’ve met who are eligible to receive Housing Choice Vouchers are people of good will who just want a decent and safe place to live and raise their children (or, in some cases, grandchildren) and to be able to feel confident their children have the same opportunity for a ‘free and appropriate public school education’ as other children in nearby neighborhoods and/or towns.
Landlords can most effectively screen potential tenants by: (1) employing a standard and uniform application; (2) run a credit report; (3) check references; and (4) verify income sources.
Using a consistent decision-making process for any prospective tenant is considered a “best practice” by a number of sources, including www.Landlord.com
Background & Definitions
The housing choice voucher program (often called “Section 8”) is a national program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Housing choice vouchers are administered locally by public housing agencies (PHAs). The PHAs receive federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer the voucher program. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are free to find their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses and apartments. The participant is free to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and is not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects. A family that is issued a housing voucher is responsible for finding a suitable housing unit of the family’s choice where the owner agrees to rent under the program. Rental units must meet minimum standards of health and safety, as determined by the PHA. A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the PHA on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program.
Under certain circumstances, if authorized by the PHA, a family may use its voucher to purchase a modest home.
Source of Income Legislation in this context would cause “Source of Income” to become a protected class under Westchester’s Fair Housing Law, and would include any legal, verifiable income derived from social security, or any form of federal, state or local public assistance or housing assistance, including Housing Choice Vouchers.
Disparate impact is a legal concept used to describe situations where an apparently neutral practice has an unexpected or unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. Typically, a plaintiff must prove that the challenged practice or selection device has a substantial adverse impact on a protected group. Generally, this proof is offered through statistical comparisons.
Protected classes in the sale and rental of housing (as defined by the Federal Fair Housing Act) include: (a) race; (b) color; (c) national origin; (d) religion; (e) sex; (f) familial status; or (g) handicap.
Some clear and obvious examples of discrimination illustrated on HUD’s website include:
• Refusal to rent or sell housing;
• Refusal to negotiate for housing;
• Make housing unavailable;
• Deny a dwelling;
• Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling;
• Provide different housing services or facilities;
• Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental;
• For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting); or
• Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing.
Note: The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.
Selected Census Demographics for Westchester County
Westchester County is a county located in the U.S. state of New York. Westchester covers an area of 450 square miles and — according to the 2010 Census — has a population of 949,113 residing in 45 municipalities. A quick review of some demographics captured in the Census reveals:
• Median Household Income: $79,619
• % of Persons living at or below Poverty Level: 8.2%
• % Persons under 18 years: 23.6%
• % Persons over 65 years: 14.8%
• % White, not Hispanic: 56.9%
• % Black or African American: 14.8%
• % Hispanic or Latino Origin: 22.4%
Housing Choice Voucher recipients in Westchester County have a much different profile than residents of the County overall. Based on data submitted to HUD from PHAs in Westchester which administer these vouchers (Form HUD-50058) for the period 4/01/2011 through 7/31/2012 , the voucher recipients are:
• Average Annual Income: $20,236
• % of Persons living at or below Poverty Level: Not Available
• % Persons under 18 years: 27.0%
• % Persons over 62 years: 29.0%
• % White, not Hispanic: 48.0%
• % Black or African American: 50.0%
• % Hispanic or Latino Origin: 34.0%
Conclusion(s)
There seems to be sufficient evidence to warrant a statistical analysis to measure the probability that inaction by Westchester County on Source of Income Legislation has exacerbated disparate treatment of individuals protected under the Fair Housing Act and other protections guaranteed in the laws of our land.
Special Education Problems We Aren’t Solving
July 23, 2012
In the New York Times on July 23, 2012, Laura Klein posted a very provacactive and strong op-ed piece on the failures of special education programs in NYC.
While I absolutely agree with Ms. Klein, I have some additional thoughts I want to share.
Our current K-12 education model was really conceived around an agrarian society and has not been updated (in New York State) since 1907, or so.
Many changes have occurred in our economy and society since then, with accelerated change beginning in the 1960’s.
Today, even in “traditional” 2-parent households, it is quite unusual to find only one parent in the workforce, and that poses a challenge where the K-12 model is 8 AM to 3 PM, and the workplace model is 8 AM to 5 PM.
Now, factor in the growing number of single parent households in America.
If we look back to 1965, we find that about 10 percent of American children lived in single parent households.
In 2011, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) conducted an exhaustive study looking at changes in family structure in 27 industrialized countries.
That OECD study found that in the U.S., about 26% of children were being raised by a single parent, compared with an average of 15% across the other countries.
More telling: 72% of African-American children today grow up in a single parent household.
In the larger picture, females constitute about 83% of the total number of single parents, and single fathers around 17%, and years of evidence tell us that – although the wage gap has narrowed over time – today’s women earn 77.4 cents for every dollar earned by men.
Extensive research in child development over the past several decades has confirmed that the early years (birth to age 8) form the foundation for a full range of human competencies and are the time when young people are most receptive to the effects of both positive and negative experiences.
Researchers have identified several risk factors which – when present – predict adverse outcomes for children, and when absent (or carefully mitigated) can reduce or eliminate the long-term probability of negative outcomes for children, which include reduced economic success and lower quality of life in adulthood.
The single most predictive risk factor is poverty, which is often accompanied by limited parental education achievement; parental mental health problems; social isolation or neglect; and living in an environment where crime and violence regularly occurs.
Two widely-cited intervention programs, the Perry Preschool Program and the Abecedarian Program, used randomized child assignment and long-term follow up to study the effects of early interventions on social behaviors of severely disadvantaged children.
In both the Perry and Abecedarian Programs, there was a consistent pattern of successful outcomes for the children in the program compared with control group members.
Participants in the more intense Abecedarian Program had an increase in IQ which persisted into adulthood. This early and continued increase in IQ is important because IQ is a strong predictor of socio-economic success.
Effects of these interventions also reflected a wide range of positive social behaviors, including higher scores on achievement tests; achieving higher levels of education; the need for less special education intervention; placement into higher wage jobs; more likely to own a home; and less likely to go on welfare or be incarcerated (when compared to individuals from the control groups).
Many studies have shown that these aspects of behavior translate directly or indirectly into high economic returns.
One economist (Heckman) has estimated the rate of return (the return per dollar of cost) to the Perry Program is in excess of 17%, which is clearly higher than long-term returns on stock market equity and suggests that society at large can benefit substantially from these kinds of interventions.
It is my contention that investing in high-quality early education programs which are both reflective of the economic realities of today (read: 7 AM to 7 PM) and fully articulated with public schools and the expectations of kindergarten readiness will rapidly change the paradigm noted in Ms. Klein’s essay, and will also create a long term benefit to the U.S. economy.
If we continue to push children along through the K-12 system ill-prepared for future workforce opportunities, we will continue to wring our hands and despair that jobs are moving overseas.
In early July 2012, our national unemployment number came in at 8.2%, yet there were some 3 Million private sector jobs open and unfilled.
Why?
Jobs are open and unfilled for a number of reasons, often related to labor mobility and/or experience and training. A poorly educated individual is just not a good candidate to help bolster our domestic economy, and that is a tragic waste of our limited resources.
If even some of the research on the importance and economic return for investing in quality early childhood education is true, then why aren’t we demanding that our public school systems re-engineer themselves to address our 21st century economy?
Mitt Romney & the Military
July 13, 2012
There seems to be an increasing interest in Gov. Romney around his expertise and general views on war and the military.
Preface my comments from one who has never served in the Armed Services and one who was adamantly opposed to the War in Vietnam:
As the Vietnam War raged in the 1960s, Mitt Romney received a deferment from the draft as a Mormon “minister of religion” for the duration of his missionary work in France, which lasted two and a half years.
Before and after his missionary deferment, Romney also received nearly three years of deferments for his academic studies. When his deferments ended and he became eligible for military service in 1970, he drew a high number in the annual lottery that determined which young men were drafted. His high number ensured he was not drafted into the military.
If Mitt Romney avoided service because he was against the Vietnam War, fine.
However, he says he wants a Hawkish foreign policy that will involve the lives of many young Americans. How about any of his 5 sons joining up for service? Not so far.
Mr. Romney has expressed appreciation for the country’s “volunteer army” and said “that’s the way we’re going to keep it. He explained his sons had made different career choices in life and had not chosen to serve in the military but he mentioned a niece whose husband he said had just been called up by the National Guard.
As many from my generation have pointed out: Mitt Romney is a Chicken Hawk and is not fit to be President. If elected, Mitt Romney would be a Coward in Chief President and he would cause irreparable damage to our country.
Elected Officials
July 10, 2012
Back in 1776, our founding fathers felt that it was a good idea to have elected officials represent their constituents to do “the work of the people”.
There have been a number of transformational changes which have occurred over the last 236 years in our society, our economy and in technology.
Yet, we have not really stopped for a strategic planning session to see if our Federal (State & Local) governments are structured to meet the demands and needs of our current global society.
Is anyone else thinking that it might be time for some re-engineering in how our public sector is configured to give us optimum results at the most reasonable cost?
US Unemployment
July 8, 2012
There are so many ‘experts’ weighing in on the US unemployment rate, I find it’s increasingly hard to find thoughtful and objective opinions.
I feel that our domestic economy is doing pretty well, and that the White House has been more or less on-point, given the limitations imposed by folks like John Boehner and Eric Cantor.
The unemployment numbers released on July 6 painted a dismal picture to some, yet the facts reveal that some jobs have been created in the private sector each month since President Obama took office.
There are 2 issues no one seems to focus on. (1) Gross over-employment in the public sector, and (2) the 3+ million private sector job openings that are currently open and unfilled.
Jobs are open and unfilled for a number of reasons, often related to labor mobility and/or experience and training. (For example, a skilled manufacturing job in Raliegh would not be a good fit for a high school dropout living in Buffalo.)
Unemployment trends from April 2008 (@ 5%) to October 2009 (@ 10%), reflect that it took just 18 months for unemployment to double.
Who should we blame for that?
Since late 2009, we’ve seen a gentle but persistent upward trend in the overall employment rate, and during that time period the elusive cluster of unfilled job openings has grown steadily from around 2.6 million in 2009 to around 3.2 million today.
Following the release of June 2012 employment numbers, Governor Romney was heard to say this from the helm of his yacht on Lake Winnipesaukee, “The president’s policies have not gotten America working again, and the president is going to have to stand up and take responsibility for it.”
It is this sort of bad behavior that creates enough of a distraction to shield the real issues from the people.
A lot of blather with no constructive suggestions on how to move forward in a positive fashion, and a seeming unwillingness to look critically at the whole story.
This is very sad coming from a fellow who purports to be a leader.
Trouble in Paradise?
May 13, 2012
At an aggregate level, the population of Westchester County, New York is reasonably diverse: racially, religiously and economically. Get down to the details, and you will find classically segregated neighborhoods, towns and schools. There have been several attempts to break this socio-economic logjam, most recently a landmark consent decree between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Westchester County signed in 2009.
It is now May 2012, and Westchester County is in trouble. The County is in trouble with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development because of some alleged oversights in how the County managed federal CDBG funds. U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote has ruled that Westchester County Executive Robert Astorino is required to promote ‘source of income legislation’, which would prohibit discrimination against tenants using Section 8, disability income or other government income to pay rent.
Mr. Astorino vetoed the legislation in 2010 and that veto was one of several matters the monitor assigned to the case was asked to rule by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The monitor sided with HUD but the county appealed that decision.
U.S. District Court Justice Cote said in her most recent ruling, “Under no reasonable understanding of the term can the County Executive be said to have discharged the obligation to promote source-of income legislation when he vetoed the legislation. The veto was an unambiguous breach of the duty to promote…The County Executive’s action constituted the very opposite of what was required under the Settlement, and placed the County in breach.”
County Executive Astorino has vowed to fight the federal government because – despite the written agreement and the court affirmation of his duties under the settlement – he says that he believes he is right.
HUD is withholding federal funding from the County until the County is in compliance with the settlement, an amount that has now reached $12 Million combined for 2011 and 2012, all because of this seemingly foolish ongoing legal stalemate.
Most unfortunate: The withheld money is for affordable housing; new sidewalks; and nonprofits including A-Home ($30,000); Westchester Residential Opportunities ($145,000); and the Housing Action Council ($120,000); each of which is working closely with Westchester County to meet its obligations under the settlement.
It is also money for homelessness prevention; scholarships for disadvantaged youth; summer evening programs for teens; and a medical van for seniors. It adversely affects communities that aren’t even part of the settlement.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development invests a great deal of time and resources each year to ensure that eligibility for various housing-related subsidies is carefully indexed to local markets.
In Westchester County, HUD defines a 2 person household as “low-income” if their gross annual household income is $58,250 or less. That is almost 400% of the Federal Poverty level.
One of the HUD programs available to low-income residents in Westchester County is the “Housing Choice Voucher Program” (a.k.a ‘Section 8’) which assists low-income households by limiting their contribution to their monthly housing expense to 30% of their gross monthly income. There are 17 Section 8 program offices in Westchester County. Each office is an independent program with its own waiting list for assistance, program guidelines and areas of assistance. The availability of apartments which accept Section 8 assistance for renters is limited due to the lack of non-discriminatory ‘source of income’ requirements for landlords.
Westchester County is also in trouble because it is planning to increase the amount that lower income working parents are required to pay for subsidized child care. Westchester County’s plan to increase this share from 20% to 35% of “above-poverty income” will severely and negatively affect many households which are already struggling with the high costs of housing and transportation. Safe, affordable and quality early learning is a societal mandate if we are to have a productive workforce today, and for the future.
We know from 2010 Census data that 30% of Black (or African American) households were headed by a female householder, no spouse present, three times as high as White alone households (9.9 percent), and the “majority of female family households with no spouse present contained own children of the householder…”
2010 Census data for Westchester County tells us that 36.9% of households headed by a single female with children under 5 years are living at or below the federal poverty level.
For a 2-person household, the 2012 definition of living at 100% of the Federal Poverty level anywhere in the continental U.S. is an annual income of $15,130. (Note the disparity between this definition of poverty, and HUD’s definition of “low-income” at $58,250 or less.)
Some will say that there is no connection or correlation between the housing case and the child care subsidy case.
What I see here are two seemingly unrelated actions which will have disparate negative impact on people of color, particularly single female heads of household.
This sort of behavior by an elected official is not only wrong, it seems to be a clear violation of the purpose and intent of federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
Elected School Boards?
April 7, 2012
Very frustrating, very disappointing, very stupid….
The Mount Vernon City School District (NY) has been an underperforming district for at least 2 decades.
Instead of finding ways to improve student outcomes, our elected Board of Education demonstrates their collective incompetence by mysteriously ‘suspending’ Superintendent Dr. Welton Sawyer in early November 2011.
Now (fully 5 months later), we learn that the reason for the suspension was something called, ‘irreconcilable differences’.
We also learned that we, the hard working, money earning Mount Vernon Taxpayers, will continue paying Sawyer’s $269,403 yearly salary through May 31, even though he hasn’t worked full time since Nov. 4, when the Board of Education suspended him.
Further, we will also have the privlege of covering five years of Sawyer’s post-employment health insurance, as well as 50 percent of his health insurance bill in the second five-year period. (That is what he would have received under his employment contract after working a minimum of five years.)
Other financial perks for Sawyer include 10 unused vacation days and $42,500 in tax-deferred annuity retirement payments.
If this isn’t proof that our Elected School Board is a recipe for disaster, what more evidence do we need?
Oh, wait! There’s more!
In another bone-headed move, our elected School Board members decided that because the newly created and state-approved Amani Charter School would take “money away from financially distressed public schools”, they refused to fund it.
Amani appealed to the State (which had approved the Charter after an incredible uphill battle) and the State agreed to pay Amani directly by intercepts of state aid to the MVCSD since it opened in the fall of 2011.
Our elected Board of Education filed legal papers in state Supreme Court last year asking for a reversal of state education officials’ original approval of a charter.
Ruling on the suit in October 2011, the judge vacated the Charter, but the Regents reapproved it a week later, followed almost immediately by the District appealing the Regents decision, and renewing the legal battle.
Amani Executive Director Debra Stern said recently she hopes the state will, once again, reinstate the Charter saying, “This school has been under attack since its inception. We view this as an attack on the basic civil rights of high-needs, high-poverty kids in Mount Vernon.”
Now, those who know me know that I’m not a big fan of Charter Schools in New York State.
I mostly don’t care for them because they tend to create plenty of tension between the parents of students who ‘win the lotto’ and those who don’t — see: “Waiting for Superman”.
I also am not fond of the way charter schools are funded in New York State — but that is a state legislative / policy issue, not a local issue.
In fact there are some examples of fabulous School District & Charter School partnerships and cooperation that have led to great outcomes.
Public School #68 in Buffalo had deteriorated to become one of Buffalo’s worst performing elementary schools serving students in a very low-income neighborhood. Now known as the Westminster Charter School, it’s charter was sponsored by the Buffalo Board of Education and it has become a nationally recognized model of school transformation — now the inspiration and centerpiece for a recently awarded $6 Million federal Promise Neighborhood grant.
We — the taxpayers of the City of Mount Vernon– need to get involved in our schools. We need to look at what is working elsewhere; what is being done and spent here; why; who is making the decisions; and what are the outcomes?
Most people from inside (and outside) our city assume that the School District and the City are one in the same.
Some of us know the School District and the City are two completely independent entities which — for the most part — are not working in harmony to create efficiencies, champion best practices, and to achieve optimum outcomes for the children and taxpayers in Mount Vernon.
We just can’t allow this to continue for one more week — we need radical change in the City Charter and in our School District governance model — NOW!
Our Congressional Representatives
February 12, 2012
Our U.S. economy is still shaky. A payroll tax cut was enacted to help increase the spending power of middle-class Americans, and it is due to expire at the end of February.
Class action lawsuits and medical malpractice lawsuits have driven up costs across our health care system, and could potentially be ameliorated through comprehensive tort reform.
There are dozens – probably hundreds – of serious domestic issues that our Congress could be working on.
Instead, they are currently focused on contraception.
Let’s set the record straight: Members of Congress who seek to limit the availability of affordable birth control all enjoy contraception insurance as part of the government managed Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB).
This benefit has been in place since 1998, and it “…ensures that federal employees participating in FEHB have insurance coverage of FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related services.”
Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on February 10 that ‘insurance plans shouldn’t cover contraception services because birth control “costs a few dollars” and is only a “minor expense” for women.’
Good to know.
In my job – in my life – I am forced to prioritize my time and my efforts. Wouldn’t it be nice if I could spend all my time focused on minor issues that I think are “fun”?
That seems to be what our leaders in Congress are all about these days.
To paraphrase an old fable, “Rome is burning while our Congressional leaders are fiddling.”
We pay each and every member of Congress a base annual salary of $174,000, plus deluxe health care and pension benefits, and perks for things like travel and mail. There are various stipends for leadership roles as committee chairs, majority leader, minority leader, etc.
Most recent estimates of the total annual costs of our federal legislative body – Senate and House of Representatives — are in the $5 Billion range.
Now, some might point out that spending for the House and Senate, which includes salaries, mailings, and committee expenses, represents only .07 percent of total federal spending. The entire legislative branch includes additional expenses for the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, the Library of Congress, and some other functions.
That seems like a really good deal — if we are getting focus on critical issues and real results.
There are some – including voters, political scientists and lawmakers themselves– who have said that the 112th Congress (which convened on January 3, 2011) was our worst ever.
The 2011 session began with a House vote to repeal President Obama’s health-care law and ended with a flip-flop over the 60-day tax-cut extender — with detours in between for the two parties to flirt with shutting down the government, jeopardize the nation’s credit and various assorted legislative mayhem.
As a citizen, a taxpayer and a voter, I don’t much care what political party a person claims as their own.
What I do care about is: When they run for public office and get elected, our representatives put aside their personal agendas and work for the best long-term interests of our country.
Is that too much to ask for?
walrus51 