Connect with us

Politics & Government

The GOP’s Radical Health Care Surgery

Days before House Republicans presented their American Health Care Act, health-policy experts discussed the current Affordable Care Act’s dismantling during a panel that was part of the California Budget and Policy Center’s annual conference.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Seth Sandronsky




Days before House Republicans presented their American Health Care Act, three health-policy experts discussed the current Affordable Care Act’s dismantling during a panel that was part of the California Budget and Policy Center’s annual Policy Insights conference, held at the Sacramento Convention Center.

Edwin Park, the vice president for health policy with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, focused on Republican threats to the ACA and Medicaid, a federal-state program that funds health care for disabled, elderly and low-income Americans. (In California the program is administered as Medi-Cal.)

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid under the ACA. Nationally, the ACA and the Medicaid expansion have provided health-care coverage to 31 million Americans.

According to Park, the GOP’s pending ACA repeal would cut recipients’ eligibility and raise their costs. (It also bars Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.) These outcomes would unfold mainly as a result of reducing ACA tax revenues. Currently, ACA taxes provide subsidies (based on earned income and health plan costs, now to be replaced with age-based subsidies) for purchasing health-care insurance.

Also See: Richard Kirsch on Obamacare’s Replacement

Who benefits from cutting ACA taxes? In short, those who earn over $200,000 annually would, with the top 400 highest-income Americans who earn over $300 million a year expected to receive an average savings of $7 million annually, said Park. Currently, ACA taxes provide subsidies for purchasing health-care insurance. Removing ACA taxes removes funding for the subsidies it provides, he added.

Park reviewed the potential effects of the GOP’s bid to reformulate Medicaid via federal block grants and per-capita (person) caps for states. Both policy options deliver fixed pots of money now.

Therein lies the problem with both proposed reforms: They lack funding for future cost increases due to medical inflation. Medicaid block grants and per-capita caps in effect limit federal spending for Medicaid, which matches state expenditures from 50 percent to 90 percent, according to Park. California, with a $100 billion Medicaid program, receives $66 billion for it from the federal government.

California is a high-cost state. But it has one of the lowest Medicaid federal matching rates, according to Anthony E. Wright, executive director of Health Access California.

He noted that over five million additional people have received health coverage under the ACA and Medi-Cal expansion. Wright claimed that repealing the ACA and reforming Medi-Cal as Park outlined would result in California’s uninsured population rising to eight million from the pre-ACA level of seven million people.

Further, ACA repeal and a Medicaid overhaul via state block grants and per-capita caps would have impacts beyond those directly affected. For instance, the 18 million Californians with employer-based health-care insurance will pay more for their coverage.

If the ACA is repealed and Medicaid changed under the GOP Congress and President Trump, Wright explained, insurers will be left with a smaller and sicker pool of paying customers, and will have to raise premiums to offset the departure of ACA and Medicaid enrollees. This trend would increase health-care costs for the remaining enrollees with health-care insurance.

This is basic math, according to Wright.

“Estimates are that within a decade,” he continued, “health-care premiums will double over and above medical-inflation. Many believe that would crash the individual health-care insurance market.”

Farrah McDaid Ting, the health and human services legislative representative for the California State Association of Counties, delivered one scenario’s effect of the ACA repeal and Medicare reform on the Golden State’s 58 counties. In this particular case, health-care responsibilities could be shifted back to the counties under California’s Welfare and Institutions Code §17000. That statute tasks counties with providing health care to indigent people, but without the benefit of the tax revenue stream of the ACA and Medicaid.

Much progressive public policy has been underway since the ACA became the law of the land.

“Under the ACA and Medicaid expansion we’ve been adding more doctors for rural areas, and providing behavioral and mental health services with state funds to incarcerated people,” according to Ting.

ACA repeal would weaken funding of such innovative health-care delivery and would defund county public hospitals which, under the ACA, are operating in the black for the first time.

Given the high cost of living in California, ACA cuts would be especially pernicious, Ting said. On that note, Medicaid reform, state block grants and per-capita caps, instituted over 10 years, would amount to health-care spending cuts from current levels. That would mean a downward spiral of less health care at higher prices for our counties’ most vulnerable populations.

In the meantime, opponents of ACA repeal and Medicaid changes are making their voices heard to GOP lawmakers, an encouraging trend, according to Wright. This earful of dissent from constituents in town hall meetings across the U.S. is growing.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Labor & Economy

Study: California Economy Unhurt by Progressive Policies

A new report shows that California, with its higher minimum wage, Medicaid expansion and ambitious climate policy, has done better than 19 Republican-led states with lower taxes and fewer regulations.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email




A California worker installing solar panels. (Photo: Danita Delimont/Alamy)

Reducing carbon emissions, raising low-wage workers’ incomes and increasing access to health insurance have not, as critics warned, led to job stagnation and lower GDP.


In a direct rebuke to anyone using the term “job-killing regulations,” a recent study shows that a group of progressive policies enacted since 2011 have had no negative impact on the California economy. If anything, the report, “California is Working: The Effects of California’s Public Policy on Jobs and the Economy since 2011,” shows that California has done better than several states that have lower taxes and fewer regulations.

The report’s author, University of California, Berkeley Labor Center researcher Ian Perry, examined 51 progressive policy measures – including environment, safety net, taxation, infrastructure and housing – that Perry coins the “California Policy Model,” or CPM. These policies include laws that provide a path to a higher minimum wage, expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act, raise taxes on corporations and promote California’s comprehensive and ambitious climate policy.

Perry chose 2011 as a starting point because that’s when Democrats captured majorities in the legislature as well as the governor’s office. Also that year, Proposition 25, which let Democrats approve a state budget with a simple majority vote rather than a two-thirds requirement, went into effect. That opened the floodgates to a wave of progressive policies that have been scorned by conservative politicians, pundits and think tanks.

Perry told Capital & Main that he set out to see whether critics of California’s progressive policies were correct — that, for example, California’s higher minimum wage would increase unemployment, or whether the state’s strict regulations on carbon would send businesses to other states in droves.

To do so, Perry compared wage growth and employment growth in California with statistics from 19 Republican-controlled states. But he also had to create a legitimate control group to weight factors like California’s tech boom, which might have skewed economic results, or a Republican-controlled state’s downturn, which may not have been due to conservative policies. To combat an apples-to-avocados comparison, Perry used a “synthetic control” method to weight data from Republican states to create an alternate California (or alt-California) in which CPM had not been enacted.

Perry found that California – the real California with its CPM – enjoyed higher total employment, private sector employment and GDP than the 19 Republican states and alt-California.

The study, by design, looked at the cumulative impact of policies instead of evaluating specific policies. “Still, one policy stood out to me,” Perry said. “My study found that the expansion of Medicaid through the ACA was one of the more pro-growth policies because it led to a greater demand in health care services and a growth in health industry jobs.”

The biggest takeaway from the study, Perry said, was that policies that make up the CPM – reducing carbon emissions, improving income for low-wage workers and helping more people access health insurance – have not, as critics warned, led to negative economic effects like job stagnation and lower GDP.

“There are warnings from conservatives that [progressive policies] will slow down economic growth, but California is a big piece of evidence that the fears are unwarranted,” Perry said.

Kansas, which went all in on supply side economics under Governor Sam Brownback, showed that the converse is true, that cutting taxes can sometimes kill growth, Perry said.

In a Washington Post op-ed, Jared Bernstein, chief economist to former Vice President Joe Biden, praised the study. He said that, while it didn’t convince him that there’s a direct line between progressive laws and job growth (a relationship Perry did not set out to prove), the study did, “in tandem with tons of other research, convince me that these progressive interventions do not hurt growth.”

The Berkeley study was released as Republicans on Capitol Hill pushed a tax bill heavily weighted to tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals, legislation that a majority of Americans are firmly against.

Despite the report’s generally rosy economic picture, Perry points out that some issues threaten California’s prosperity. First, progressive labor standards need to be enforced to combat rampant wage theft in California’s low-wage industries. Second, the effect of very high housing prices in much of the state could undermine some economic gains.

“High housing prices and lack of supply could force more people to live farther away from their jobs, which would increase carbon emissions and make it harder for [businesses] to attract workers,” he said.

And the possible repeal, or undermining of, the Affordable Care Act, could undo some of the economic benefits of the past seven years, Perry said. Another study from the UC Berkeley Labor Center earlier this year showed that California would have lost more than half a million jobs if the Graham-Cassidy repeal-and-replace legislation had passed.

Copyright Capital & Main

Continue Reading


2017’s Greatest Hits (and Misses)

The political journey between good intentions and the statute book was twisted even by Sacramento standards in 2017. But there was more — much more.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Bill Raden




Photo by Bruno Sanchez-Andrade Nuño

Working Californians’ biggest hope during Trump Year One: Sacramento’s Democratic supermajorities:

With a Democrat as governor and a legislature controlled by true-blue supermajorities, it seemed only logical for Sacramento to spearhead the Trump resistance. State Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) said as much the day after Donald Trump’s 2016 election, vowing to “set an example for other states to follow.” Twelve months later, a modest raft of new laws aimed at blunting the brazen bigotry of Trump immigration policies — including Senate Bill 54, de León’s hard-won sanctuary state bill — and checking the administration’s planet-killing orgy of climate deregulation.

Working Californians’ biggest disillusionment during Trump year one: Sacramento’s Democratic supermajorities:

The political journey between good intentions and the statute book was twisted even by Sacramento standards in 2017. Of the 2,980 bills introduced by state lawmakers, roughly 35 were drafted as “Trump resistance” measures. But by the time the dozen-plus resistance bills made it to the governor’s desk, they tended to be anodyne wisps of their original forms. Senate Bill 6, San Diego Democrat Ben Hueso’s effort to create a legal defense fund for undocumented workers scooped up in ICE raids, became so toothless that Hueso retitled his “Due Process for All Act” as the “Expanding Due Process Act.” A no-brainer by state senators Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) designed to force Trump to release his tax returns before getting on the state’s 2020 ballot earned a Brown veto. Most controversially, perhaps, Rendon tabled SB 520, a sweeping Medicare for All-styled measure by state senators Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), before it even received a hearing.

2017’s wannest excuse for a sanctuary state act:

It once virtually banned all state and local law enforcement cooperation with ICE agents. But the bill signed into law by Jerry Brown, which had promised to be the sharpest state rebuke yet to Trump’s mass deportations, now looked strangely familiar. That’s because to get the governor’s signature, the California Values Act had to first pass muster with the powerful California Sheriffs’ Association. The compromise gives ICE full access to prisons and jails, allows police and sheriffs to share databases and to detain and transfer people to ICE if they have been convicted of any crime from a risibly broad list of 800 “hold offenses” recycled from 2014’s California Trust Act. Those include the very serious offenses of “intentionally processing a milk product that is required to be pasteurized without pasteurization, manufacturing a milk product in an unlicensed plant, providing milk product for manufacture or resale to an unlicensed person, or falsifying records required.”

2017’s most unsurprising (if most ignored) Rx for national and California Dems:

Just over 46 percent of California’s registered Democrats turned out for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary. That’s nearly the same percentage that pre-election polling for the November vote indicated was motivated by anti-Hillary feelings — presumably disgust over four more years of the romance between Clinton-Obama “New Democrats” and Wall Street — rather than anything remotely pro-Trump. Unfortunately, that lesson was lost on state Democrats when they gathered in May and selected Los Angeles County Democratic chair Eric Bauman as state party leader — in spite of Bauman’s financial ties to Big Pharma. Progressive challenger Kimberly Ellis, who narrowly lost a vote plagued by irregularities, charged that a “clear conflict“ had developed among “those nestled in power.” That diagnosis was echoed in postmortems that urged the disentangling of Democrats — “ideologically and financially — from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and other corporate interests that put profits ahead of public needs.”

California’s most badly bungled headline of 2017:

The news in November was all about the great Silicon Valley sigh of relief that blew down from Palo Alto like a laissez faire Santa Ana wind: California’s Department of Motor Vehicles had issued its long-delayed driverless vehicle testing regulations that would allow autonomous vehicles on California highways. A potential global market of at least $42 billion by 2025, panted the L.A. Times business pages. But for 3.1 million U.S. truckers (who represent represent two percent of total employment), there was little to cheer. In May, Goldman Sachs became the latest to predict that autonomous vehicle technology will disrupt trucking jobs — one of the last middle-class occupations that doesn’t require a high school diploma — into obsolescence at a rate of 25,000 a month, or 300,000 a year. A far more apropos headline would have been, “Just Say No.”

2017’s poster child for neoliberalism: Elon Musk. Again.

Everything that’s wrong with Silicon Valley’s virulently anti-communitarian, anti-regulatory ethos seems to eventually get uttered by California’s favorite South African-born billionaire bad boy, Elon Musk. And in 2017, Musk did not disappoint. In February, the entrepreneur announced the creation of a new tunnel boring company and its first for-profit venture — digging an express tunnel that will bypass L.A.’s legendarily impenetrable rush hour traffic by connecting Musk’s Bel-Air home with his Space X headquarters in Hawthorne. Those lucky enough to be Elon Musk could see their morning hour commute cut to six minutes. Lest there be any confusion about who the free market best serves, this month Musk tweeted his Marie Antoinette-esque distaste for public transit and its twin aims of affordability and accessibility.

Continue Reading

Labor & Economy

How a Reporter Got a Corker of a Scoop About the GOP’s Tax Bill

At first David Sirota thought there was no hidden story behind the Republican tax bill. Then a tax lawyer called — it turned out there was plenty to reveal, thanks to the last-minute addition of a special loophole.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Bill Raden




Photo: U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)

Senator Corker’s defense was, “I didn’t know about the provision because I didn’t read the bill that I’m voting for.”

As the House and Senate moved toward approving the final version of the GOP tax bill, the International Business Times (IBT) revealed in an explosive story Friday that a loophole slipped into the bill in the final minutes will directly enrich President Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, as well as wealthy senators and key members of Congress, including the provision’s writers.

Controversy swirled around the timing of the measure and the fact that deficit hawk Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee abruptly switched his vote in favor of the bill, whose tax cuts the Congressional Budget Office estimated will add $1.4 trillion to the deficit by 2027. Corker had been the lone Republican holdout in the Senate and had previously voted with Democrats against the bill. He has millions of dollars invested in real estate-related limited liability companies (LLCs) that could see a $1.1 million payday from the loophole. David Sirota’s IBT reporting quickly went viral as Corker’s apparent cushy accommodation was splashed across social media under the hashtag #CorkerKickback.

Capital & Main spoke to Sirota for a blow-by-blow account of the developing story, its implications and its consequences.

IBT had been closely following the debate over how the tax measure would treat income passed through a tax shelter known as an LLC, a “pass-through” tax entity because profits pass through to its owners who report them on their personal tax returns. The Senate version had limited tax cuts to pass through LLCs that actually employ people — the “job creators.” The House version has been far broader.

“We took a look at the key tax writers on committees that oversaw the bill as well as leadership,” Sirota said. “And we got a list of their real estate-related LLCs, and a day before the final bill came out, we put together this story about who could benefit. We found that between the conference committee, the Ways and Means Committee, the Finance Committee and the two leaders of the House and Senate, there were 13 members of Congress who owned and were earning income from real estate or from real estate-related LLCs. And depending on whether the final tax bill adopts the House version or the Senate version, they would stand to make a lot of money.”

IBT reported that the members of Congress — including House Speaker Paul Ryan — have between $36 million and $163 million invested in real estate-related LLCs. Between $2.6 million and $16 million in “pass through” income from those investments would benefit from the new provision.

Which version of the pass through would end up in the final tax bill would be determined by the joint House and Senate conference committee. At 5:30 p.m. on Friday, the committee released a final version that appeared to follow the Senate approach, the more rational version, according to tax experts Sirota spoke to.

“At 5:45 we were sort of like, ‘Okay, I don’t think there’s much to really write,’” Sirota said. “‘It looks like they kind of got it out.’ But I said, ‘I’ll talk to a couple of tax lawyers who have been following this.’ And what do you know? One of them comes back to me at 6:15 and is like, ‘You know, they added this one extra line that’s not in either of the bills. It talks about depreciable assets. This is the loophole.’ He said something along the lines of, ‘It’s narrow enough that it shows intent for a specific kind of investment vehicle.’”

Senator “John Cornyn on his Twitter feed is promoting a lobbyist’s talking points to defend this bill.”

The original House tax cut on pass-throughs, Sirota explained, was broad enough to argue that it was merely an ideological, across-the-board tax cut rather than something that picked specific winners and losers. But the additional line was included with one intent in mind. That line carved out a particular tax windfall for owners of rental-income generators like apartment buildings or commercial office complexes, depreciable property with few or no employees.

“That’s when we realized this is an absolutely enormous story,” Sirota said.

The real estate-specific windfall immediately raised the question of whether the LLC pass-through had been part of a deal aimed at influencing Corker to switch. When asked to comment on the pass-through for a followup story, Corker didn’t seem to be familiar with it, Sirota said.

“He called it ‘ridiculous,’” Sirota said. “But then he called back — he must have talked to somebody — and he said, ‘You know, I’m not sure I want to criticize it that way. You know, I need more information. I haven’t really read it. I’ve only read a summary of the bill. I haven’t read the bill.’ Which is, of course, another story: You’re the key vote on a $1.5 trillion [deficit] bill, and you’re announcing your support for it, admitting that you didn’t even read it. So your defense is, ‘I didn’t know about the provision because I didn’t read the bill that I’m voting for.’ That became another sort of huge story about how [Republicans] are rushing the bill through without even the pivotal vote having read it.”

What followed Sirota’s story was a firestorm of public outrage on social media. Under mounting pressure, Corker wrote a letter to Utah Republican Orin Hatch, the head of the Senate’s tax-writing committee, supporting the narrative that he didn’t know anything about the pass-through by asking for clarification of the provision, where it came from and how it got in the bill. To take the heat off Corker, Hatch replied on Monday, insisting that he had authored the loophole. Hatch added that Corker and his staff never contacted the tax-writing committee about the bill, in effect publicly admitting that a key swing vote on the tax bill wasn’t even communicating with the staff or the members of the panel writing it.

However, the Hatch alibi could not withstand new reporting that revealed Corker’s chief of staff, Todd Womack, had been investing heavily in a real estate LLC in the run-up to the bill and also stood to profit from the provision. Worse, Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn, in a Sunday appearance on ABC’s This Week, admitted that the decision to include the pass-through came from an effort to “cobble together the votes we need to get this bill passed.” With Cornyn suddenly under attack himself, his office aggressively tried to backpedal.

“They were upset that anybody viewed it that way,” Sirota noted, “but you can read the transcript. It was very clear that’s exactly what he said. It’s incredible: Cornyn is now defending the provision on his Twitter feed — I swear to god, you cannot make this up — by sending out an article written by a bank lobbyist who is lobbying on this provision. So John Cornyn on his Twitter feed is promoting a lobbyist’s talking points to defend this bill.”

But Sirota noted that the neither self-enrichment nor massive, deficit-hiking tax giveaways to corporations and the richest Americans are new. Republicans have been redistributing the country’s wealth upwards since the days of Ronald Reagan. What actually is precedent-setting about this tax bill, he said, is how explicit it is.

“There’s no pretense in this bill,” Sirota said. “There was a thing the Republicans put out in their summary when the bill came out. I tweeted out the graphic. It was sort of in a section about trying to prevent people from using their LLCs to put their wage income into their LLCs. They called it ‘safeguards’ — and I’m paraphrasing here — ‘We have put safeguards in to make sure that the business income taxes not go to wage earners.’ They are very crystal-clear that this is a tax bill not for workers. This is a tax bill for corporations and business owners. That is the ideology. They’re actually open about that. They want the public to know.”

Copyright Capital & Main

Continue Reading

Labor & Economy

State Senator Predicts “Sledgehammer Time” If GOP Tax Bill Passes

Holly Mitchell, a leading legislative advocate for children and low-income Californians, says the state may return to the days of budget cutting if the current Congressional Republican tax plan becomes law.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Bobbi Murray




State Senator Holly Mitchell (All photos by Joanne Kim)

Holly Mitchell, the state Senator who represents Los Angeles’ heavily blue-collar 30th District, has been called by one colleague the “social conscience of the entire Senate.” A personable policy wonk whose career included a stint as chief executive of Crystal Stairs, a child development nonprofit, Mitchell chairs the Senate Budget Committee — the first African-American woman to do so. She recently sat down in Pico-Fairfax with Capital & Main at the Paper and Plastik Cafe to talk about the possible effects of the Republican tax bill on California’s poor.

Capital & Main: Taking the temperature between now and New Year’s, what’s your prognosis for the House and Senate tax bills?

Senator Mitchell: The GOP tax plan is a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich or semi-rich. It gambles away the health care of poor people and this is unacceptable.

I’m so disappointed with the work of the [U.S.] Senate Budget Committee. I can’t imagine being a legislator, getting a report from the Congressional Budget Office that says the things it says about these bills — and voting to pass it. Did they ignore it? Did they not care?

One Senator, when interviewed, expressed concern about the bill’s potential to make the deficit skyrocket. When asked if that was enough to make him not vote for it he said, “I’m not sure. I’m still working on it.”

Senator Mitchell: The whole point of having the support of fiscal analysts and the Congressional Budget Office, with their independent status, is to provide you with critical data to help you make a decision. How can you say, “Oh yeah, that’s bad, but I’m not sure if I’m going to go forward on this or not”? Politics is continuing to trump — lowercase T—what’s best.

Is Sacramento concerned?

Senator Mitchell: Am I concerned? Yes! But I think what I’m more concerned about now is the Healthy Families Program.

This is the entitlement for California families who aren’t poor enough for Medi-Cal — but don’t earn enough to have private insurance.

Senator Mitchell: It provides care for about two million kids [and] requires federal reauthorization. And [Congress] has not reauthorized it. That could have immediate impacts on California’s budget. It’s a separate process [from the federal tax bills] but they have already missed the deadline.

It’s also been said that the tax proposals could undermine affordable housing construction in California because they would affect the credits and tax breaks that developers receive.

Senator Mitchell: Yes, which are critical for developments to pencil out. Given how far behind we are in terms of our housing-unit need, it would be devastating. L.A. County has done amazing things — voters have said yes to Prop M, yes to Prop HHH. All of that could be compromised — this delicate balance where developers can come in, get these credits to build affordable units. We’re already behind the eight ball in terms of our need. This would be yet another blow.

Defenders of the tax bill say everybody will get their taxes cut initially. Then by 2027, according to the Congressional Budget Office, middle- and low-income people will experience a net loss.

Senator Mitchell: They claim that they’re protecting “the middle class” — folks who make $100,000 and over. But that’s not how we define the middle class in California—here the salary threshold is much lower. What they claim is good news, I think, masks the bad news. And they’re rushing it through the process.

What steps are needed to analyze and create a response for a new federal tax plan’s effect on California?

Senator Mitchell: It will be a process. Unlike [the U.S. Senate], I will rely on our Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Senate Budget Committee staff to have discussions, to have a full budget hearing.

What’s your sense of the tax proposals’ potential effect on the state’s economic health?

Senator Mitchell: How we earn income as a state government could be severely impacted. We are socking money away into rainy-day funds to try to prepare for the time at which our recovery will slow down — [but] we couldn’t save enough to prepare for these [federal] proposals and the kind of hole they could blow in the state’s general fund.

What’s your plan if California does take a financial hit?

Senator Mitchell: As budget chair, I would be forced, as painful as that would be, to go back to the days of cutting. We may not be able to use a scalpel. It may be sledgehammer time — it would be devastating. In terms of the trend we’ve experienced with investments in K through 12, early education, the investments we have made in the last couple of years in the University of California and Cal State University systems — all these investments that we’ve made to expand access to services, would be impacted.

We fund Opti-Cal and Dental-Cal [for eye and dental care] — those are the kinds of core, basic human services that we could potentially have to roll back again. Medi-Cal funding helps undergird and support our overall health-care delivery system. If that went away, everything would be compromised.

Copyright Capital & Main

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Labor & Economy

How the GOP Tax Bill Would Hurt Californians

The current House tax bill bestows Californians with incomes in the top one percent more than half of its cuts by 2027. It passed 227-205, on a mostly party line vote.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email




Changing the mortgage-interest deduction is not the only land mine in the House bill that would directly impact Californians.

No crowds of outraged demonstrators descended on Capitol Hill chanting, “Cut Corporate Taxes! Cut Corporate Taxes!” And scathing nonpartisan analyses uniformly showed that the biggest cuts in the GOP tax plan go to the wealthy and to corporations, while many middle- and lower-income families will face increases.

Nonetheless, the U.S. House version, giving Californians with incomes in the top one percent more than 50 percent of the cuts by 2027, passed 227-205, on a mostly party line vote with 13 Republicans opposing it.

The Senate’s version of the tax cuts is wending its way through that chamber, and the House bill will no doubt be changed substantially when a conference committee meets to reconcile the two versions if and when the Senate bill passes.

As matters now stand, the House version is the only one before the public, and it contains a bit of possibly welcome news for some taxpayers. It doubles the standard deduction from $6,350 to $12,000 for individuals and from $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples. The theory behind that change is that more taxpayers would likely take the standard deduction if it is higher than itemized deductions like mortgage interest. But mortgage interest is a deduction many Californians have come to depend on. And changing it is not the only land mine in the House bill that would directly impact Californians.

“Students would be taxed on income they literally don’t have. They will be even deeper in debt, or won’t be able to go to school.”

U.S. taxpayers can now deduct interest paid on mortgage loans up to $1 million for one or more homes. The House bill and the Senate’s current version slashes the cap to $500,000, and eliminates the deduction for second homes. That provision would disproportionately hit residents of states with high real estate values, like California, where finding a home under $500,000 in most urban markets is very difficult.

National Mortgage News estimates that five of the top 12 real estate markets that would be hardest hit by slashing the mortgage-interest deduction are in California.

The House bill also caps property tax deductions at $10,000 while the Senate is considering eliminating the deduction altogether.

Real estate organizations like the National Association of Home Builders have come out strongly against slashing the mortgage interest deduction, saying it would diminish incentives for buying a home.

The lowest income Americans now have some help with affording housing through a federal low income housing tax credit funded by tax-exempt private activity bonds issued by state or local governments. Those bonds are loaned to private companies to finance projects like affordable multifamily housing and for infrastructure projects, like roads and bridges.

If the final tax overhaul keeps the House’s removal of that exemption, money from investors, mostly banks, will dry up, according to Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Only three of 14 members of California’s Republican delegation voted against
the House’s tax overhaul.

However, Yentel said she doesn’t have an issue with cutting the mortgage interest deduction but with how the savings will be used. “The problem is the House bill would use the savings from slashing the [deduction], which would be $95 billion over 10 years, not to support low-income renters, but to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.”

Housing inequality is a huge problem in California, she said. “For every 100 extremely low-income renters that need housing in California, only 21 units are available. In Los Angeles, it’s 16 for every 100.”

Yentel’s organization has proposed federal renters tax credits and more funding for the National Housing Trust Fund.

Jonathan Kaplan, a senior analyst at the California Budget and Policy Center, agreed with Yentel that the mortgage-interest deduction needs reform and that any reform should generate funds to lessen housing inequality in California.

“Not only are the benefits of cutting the [deduction] going to corporations and the very wealthy, it would raise taxes on many homebuyers, and create disincentives for moving in an already difficult market,” Kaplan said. “That in itself will also exacerbate California’s housing affordability crisis.”

In a cost-sharing arrangement between the state and federal governments, individuals can now deduct state and local property taxes, and either state and local income taxes or sales taxes. The House GOP tax overhaul eliminates state and local tax deductions for all Americans.

More than five million California households claim state and local tax deductions on their federal returns, according to the California Budget and Policy Center. Someone with a gross income of $60,000 who owes $5,000 in California tax, now would pay federal taxes only on $55,000. Under the GOP plan, that individual would pay federal taxes on the entire $60,000, essentially being double taxed.

The House GOP tax bill eliminates the $7,500 federal tax credit for people who buy a hybrid or battery electric vehicle.

The center estimates that eliminating state and local tax deductions would not only raise taxes on millions of Californians, but would put a burden on local governments to fund services like schools and public safety.

“State and local governments will no longer be able to say, ‘We need to raise taxes in order to pay for schools, but don’t worry because you can take a portion of that off your federal taxes,’” Kaplan said.

The House bill affects higher education in three ways. It eliminates the student loan deduction that reduces taxable interest on loans for up to $2,500. It also eliminates a $2,000 lifetime learning credit.

Possibly the biggest hit to students is that tuition waivers would be considered taxable income. This would affect many graduate students who receive reduced or free tuition in addition to a small stipend.

“These are significant tax increases on students,” said Kaplan. “These students would be taxed on income they literally don’t have. They will be even deeper in debt, or won’t be able to go to school.”

Just over a million Californians file tax returns with a student loan interest deduction, amounting to $1 billion, Kaplan said.

The House GOP tax bill also eliminates the $7,500 federal tax credit for people who buy a hybrid or battery electric vehicle. A recent study by the non-profit environmental organization Next 10 showed that five percent of new car sales in California are electric, and a survey by CleanTechnica showed that California accounted for nearly half of all electric vehicles sold in the U.S. between 2011 and 2016.

Given the hits to Californians in the House tax overhaul, it might be surprising that only three of 14 members of California’s Republican delegation — Darrell Issa of Vista, Tom McClintock of Elk Grove and Dana Rohrabacher of Costa Mesa —voted against it.

Upon passage of the House bill Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent a message to California Republicans:

“After their deafening silence, any California Republican who votes for the GOP tax scam will be forced to answer why they care so little for their constituents.”

Copyright Capital & Main

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading


Study Shows Limits of Cap-And-Trade in California

California succeeded in lowering greenhouse gas emissions last year. But a new study finds the state’s ambitious cap-and-trade program may have had nothing to do with it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email




Protesters assemble after being removed from the UN climate summit in Bonn, Germany. (Photo: Rebecca Fuoco)


On November 11, shortly after he began his speech at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany, California Governor Jerry Brown encountered jeers and chants from Native American and climate justice activists who denounced fracking and the state’s market-based solutions to greenhouse gas emissions by yelling, “Keep it in the ground.”

A visibly rattled Brown snapped at the protesters, saying “Let’s put you in the ground so we can get on with the show here,” before he softened and thanked them for “bringing the diversity of dissent.”

Brown has been hailed as a climate hero for signing the ambitious California Senate Bill 32, which mandates the statewide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as his public opposition to the regressive climate policies of the Trump administration. But he’s also drawn scorn for his lack of opposition to fracking, his refusal to close the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility, and for his ardent support of cap-and-trade, which some environmentalists say shouldn’t be the lynchpin of progressive climate policy.

In an email, Jean Su, associate conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups organizing the Bonn protest, countered Brown’s assertion that cutting oil demand is more urgent than cutting oil supply. “California can’t be a model of climate leadership while oil companies continue to produce millions of barrels per year of some of the dirtiest crude on the planet,” Su said.

Coinciding with the Bonn protest comes a new study examining cap-and-trade, Brown’s signature greenhouse gas trading program. In a report released the day before the Bonn speech, the nonprofit think tank Near Zero found cap-and-trade, a key strategy for achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions under Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, has fallen short of its promise.

Cap-and-trade is a market-based program that allows companies to buy and sell credits to emit a certain amount of pollution, based on a state-imposed cap on emissions across an industry. The theory is, companies would want to save money by cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions. Brown has said the program will reduce climate-changing gases by requiring covered facilities to factor the cost of carbon into their business operations. The Near Zero study found that California greenhouse emissions have been cut – by five percent in 2016 alone – but through changes in the mix of sources generating electricity, including hydropower and solar, rather than cap-and-trade.

The study’s lead author Danny Cullenward said research found that the current limits on pollution set by cap-and-trade are far above actual emissions. The result is an oversupply of allowances that keep the price of carbon cheap and, critics contend, give companies little incentive to slash emissions. That build up of unused allowances enables companies “to maintain their emissions farther into the future than post-2020 program caps might nominally suggest,” he wrote in the report’s summary.

Cullenward told Capital & Main cap-and-trade needs to be tweaked in order to meet California’s goal of reducing emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. “Emissions have fallen pretty quickly and that’s good news. But a lot of people are saying, ‘See, the cap and trade program is working,’ and our analysis shows that it’s too soon to say that.”

Cullenward added that the promise of cap-and-trade is real, but that there is “more work to do” to make it effective. “The state is pursuing an ambitious 2030 climate target, and regulators expect cap-and-trade to play the single biggest role in reducing emissions.”

Earlier this year, California extended cap-and-trade through 2030.

In an email, Stanley Young, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board (CARB), disputed Near Zero’s findings that the state’s cap-and-trade program is not driving observed reductions.

Young cited the Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power as an example that cap-and-trade can directly lower carbon emissions. “From 2013 to 2016, overall CO2 emissions from LADWP’s portfolio of generating resources decreased 26 percent (3.6 million metric tons) due to the increase in renewable energy and use of the carbon cost adder. This represents a 42 percent reduction from 1990 levels, which exceeds Los Angeles’ 2030 goal,” Young explained.

Liza Tucker, a consumer advocate with Consumer Watchdog, said that cap-and-trade is a bust because the “approach is too lax.”

Tucker also criticized the law extending the program because it directs CARB to regulate refineries only through cap-and-trade and prevents local air quality boards from more aggressively regulating industry. “But [the law] bans CARB and other agencies from imposing new greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations.”
The Near Zero report is not the first study showing the limited impact of cap-and-trade. Last year, researchers from the University of Southern California and the University of California at Berkeley found that California’s cap and trade program had not cut greenhouse gasses. Preliminary evidence suggested that cap-and-trade had, in fact, led to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions in several industries.


Copyright Capital & Main

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Culture & Media

Years of Infamy: A New Documentary About the Japanese-American Internment

And Then They Came For Us is not the first film to tell the story of Executive Order 9066. Rarely, however, has any account of this shameful history been presented with such persuasively contemporary urgency.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Bill Raden




Truck, San Pedro. Photo by Clem Albers.

On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which authorized the War Department to declare much of the West Coast to be military exclusion zones, resulting in the arrest, removal and incarceration of 120,000 law-abiding residents — including roughly 70,000 birthright American citizens — for the offense of being of the wrong race during wartime. Civil rights vanished for Americans of Japanese descent who were forcibly uprooted and deprived of their property without due process.

Social justice filmmakers Abby Ginzberg and Ken Schneider’s powerful new documentary, And Then They Came For Us, is not the first to tell the story of one of modern America’s most ignominious mass violations of civil rights. Rarely, however, has any account of this shameful history been presented with such persuasively contemporary urgency.

From Ginzberg’s opening shots of protest at San Francisco Japantown’s February 19th Day of Remembrance march, to the film’s concluding call for solidarity between the survivors of 9066 and the Muslim immigrants who now find themselves targeted by yet another baldly racist executive action, it is always harrowingly apparent who is behind today’s clear and present danger to bedrock civil liberties.

Woodland, California. Photo by Dorothea Lange.

In fact, as Ginzberg explained to Capital & Main, it wasn’t until the days following Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory that she became convinced she had a compelling enough hook on which to hang an otherwise oft-told tale. That’s when she saw Trump surrogate Carl Higbie appear on TV and cite the wartime internment as a precedent for candidate Trump’s calls for a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” which included surveillance against mosques and establishing a database for all U.S. Muslims.

“I could suddenly see the politics of the film, I could understand its importance to today,” she recalled. “It didn’t become [a] dry history based on post-World War II analysis. It made me get very excited about it and decide that this film had to be done. We needed to find a way to get it out into the world as quickly as possible.”

Her idea was to approach the internment as if it were a breaking news story. By keeping it lean, forgoing lengthy fundraising or complicated locations, the film might get from script to screen while the headlines were still fresh enough to have an impact. That’s when the Jonathan Logan Family Foundation, which funds progressive investigative journalism, ponied up for the entire budget — a rare stroke of fortune in the social justice filmmaking world: “I was able to create a budget, give it to them and say, ‘I will do this film if you pay the bills.’ And they did. We started filming in October of 2016. And we finished it kind of mid- to end-of-April, 2017. For me that is record time.” (Disclosure: The foundation is a financial supporter of this website.)

The Mochida family. Photo by Dorothea Lange.

The heart of And Then They Came for Us lies in the trauma and unreconciled anger of the incarcerated — including the articulate testimony of former camp children like actor-activist George Takei. The experiences of now-deceased adults survive in an extraordinary trove of documentary images taken by photographers hired as government propagandists by the War Relocation Authority (WRA). The photographers, among them Ansel Adams and the magnificent Dorothea Lange, were carefully monitored by minders lest they violate rules against taking photos of camp barbed wire, guard towers and heavily armed military police. The prisoners themselves were forbidden cameras of any kind, and it is ironic that the only images of the Japanese-Americans behind barbed wire are those taken by internee Toyo Miyatake, using smuggled equipment and film.

“We tapped into a reservoir of stories,” said Ginzberg, “and we were able to kind of cobble the film from everybody contributing something. But the two people who lead the film are George Takei and Satsuki Ina, who really have spent a lot of their lives working on this. … A third person, who’s not related at all to George, is Barbara Takei, who’s part of the Tule Lake Committee.” Local authorities, she added, “are now threatening to build an airfield sorta smack in the middle of the Tule Lake camp, which would mean that any notion of sacred space, or being able to [honor] it as a historical site, will go to hell.”

Eschewing the usual newsreel footage, Ginzberg sought — and was given — unrestricted access to recently unearthed and previously unpublished photographs, and research culled by photo historians Richard Cahan and Michael Williams for their 2016 coffee-table tome Un-American: The Incarceration of Japanese Americans During World War II. The book includes 170 images drawn from a 7,000-shot archive of the “evacuation.” Ginzberg mostly narrows that to the work of Adams and Lange. And it is the unwavering gaze of the Lange portraits — part of an almost legendary, 800-image cache that was immediately impounded and “lost” for 60 years by the U.S. Army — that drives home the human scale of the tragedy. Many of Lange’s photos were impounded for too truly reflecting the emotional reality of the camps.

Manzanar, Owens Valley. Photo by Toyo Miyatake.

“We try to let the photos in a certain way speak for themselves,” Ginzberg pointed out. “We’re letting people sort of read it in the faces of the Dorothea Lange [images], and something — “magical” is not the right word — but something deep happens in the experience of looking at those photos that are up there a little bit longer than they might be in some other setting. [Audiences are] able to read, as Takei says, the resilience and the stress. And so there’s something happening that becomes a first-person experience.”

In one of the most haunting scenes, internment historian and filmmaker Satsuki Ina, who was born in 1944 at the Tule Lake Segregation Camp near the Oregon border, a maximum security facility reserved for “troublemaker” activists, pensively encounters a Lange portrait of her mother, Shizuko, taken in 1942. Capturing an attractive, immaculately dressed young woman, the picture freezes a moment when her features are visibly drawn in worry as she waits with other first- and second-generation Japanese-Americans on a long sidewalk queue underneath government posters announcing their imminent removal.

Shizuko Ina, foreground. Photo by Dorothea Lange.

Other speakers describe remarkably similar memories of the pain of witnessing their parents undergo the humiliation of gradually being shorn of their freedom and independence. Within a matter of weeks, the WRA froze bank accounts, limited movement and finally stripped internees of their automobiles and other property through forced sales. Los Angeles families were shipped to the Santa Anita racetrack and housed in horse stalls. Orwellian euphemisms ran through a government narrative that spoke soothingly of “evacuations” and “relocation centers,” rather than forced removals and concentration camps.

According to Ginzberg the film has been well received by audiences at the handful of film festivals it has entered since its May premiere. She’s been offering it for sale on the movie’s website for activist groups that have already hosted a number of screenings around the country, and it has played particularly well with teachers. Ginzberg’s strategy is to market the film as a classroom-friendly component (the runtime is 46 minutes) to lesson plans about the incarceration.

“Let’s see if we can’t educate people, organize people and have this film be as relevant as possible to what is going on, particularly with the Muslim travel ban, and then with other really repressive immigration policies.”

The November 27 Los Angeles premiere for And Then They Came for Us, at the Downtown Independent Theater, is sold out.  Other screenings can be found at

Copyright Capital & Main

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Labor & Economy

Robert Reich on Trump’s ‘Dangerous Tax Bill’

“All of this rhetoric about a middle-class tax cut,” Robert Reich tells Capital & Main, “is just an absurd lie when you look at the numbers.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email




CC BY-SA 3.0

In little more than six months the Republican-proposed tax bill has grown from a one-page White House press release promising financial relief for middle-class Americans to a colossal amoeba containing everything from massive corporate tax cuts to the repeal of Obamacare. Capital & Main’s Jessica Goodheart recently spoke to economist Robert Reich for part of an upcoming series on corporate responsibility. During Goodheart’s interview, Reich spoke about the current tax proposal that many experts see as a dire threat to the very households its sponsors are pledging to protect. Reich’s comments are excerpted below.

Jessica Goodheart: Do you think that reform-minded CEOs are taking any risks?

Robert Reich: If CEOs were really courageous . . . they would be speaking out right now against the shortsighted and dangerous tax bill that is coming through Congress, even though their own corporations might benefit. Over the long term, everyone will lose.

Some have suggested that the anti-free trade, nationalist movement that Donald Trump represents at home might place pressure on corporate leaders to address the widening wealth and income gap. Do you see that as a possibility?

Reich: Some leading corporations could decide to support specific public policies and reduce inequality, such as higher minimum wages, a bigger earned income tax credit, maybe even a universal basic income. They’re not going to do it individually, as companies, but they might come together and act politically, and lend their political clout to this kind of legislation.

What do you think the prospects for that are right now?

Reich: It’s hard to say. The Republican Party is split between its corporate and Wall Street wing, and its Steve Bannon/nationalist/Trump wing. For the time being, those two wings have come together around getting tax cuts for the corporate, Wall Street wing. What will the Bannon/nationalist/Trump wing want in return? Will they be satisfied with Trump’s tweets and nationalist tantrums? I don’t know.

What role are corporations playing in tax reform efforts, both visible and not visible, to the public?

Reich: Well, most of it’s invisible. Right now, there are lobbyists swarming over Capitol Hill, trying to get the largest tax breaks they possibly can for their companies and industries. You have large business groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and others who are trying to keep the direction of the bill going in very large tax breaks for corporations, overall.

What the public sees and hears is just the talking points that Republican leaders have put out there in order to mollify the public, and to disguise what’s really going on. All of this rhetoric about a middle-class tax cut is just an absurd lie when you look at the numbers. I mean, the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that most Americans will discover the truth — which is why the Republican leadership wants to move quickly, and get this done before Christmas.

On Monday, Trump tweeted a request that the repeal of the Obamacare health insurance mandate be included in the tax reform proposal. How would that impact Americans, and how do you think it affects the prospect of the bill’s passage?

Reich: The removal of the health mandate would cause four million Americans to lose coverage in the first year, 13 million by 2027, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. I don’t see how Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and John McCain — who voted against repeal of the Affordable Care Act — could possibly vote for the tax bill with this poison pill inside it.

Yesterday, Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn received a tepid response after asking CEOs at a Wall Street Journal conference whether the tax reform bill would cause them to spend more on growth. Does that surprise you? 

Reich: It doesn’t surprise me, because American corporations are flush with cash. If they wanted to invest more in growth, they could have done so already. They’re using their profits to buy back their shares of stock, and pad executive pay. That’s what they’ll do with even more profits that come their way because of the tax cut.

Copyright Capital & Main

Continue Reading


California Bill Would Bring Climate Change Battle to State Construction Projects

A new bill awaiting Governor Jerry Brown’s signature could use the state’s massive purchasing power as the world’s sixth largest economy to address greenhouse gas emissions far beyond its borders.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email




Construction laborers work on a section of the San Francisco-Bay Bridge in San Francisco, California, U.S., on Tuesday, July 12, 2011. (Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

With California doubling and tripling down on climate change as a reality in 2017, a new bill awaiting Governor Jerry Brown’s signature could use the state’s massive purchasing power as the world’s sixth largest economy to address greenhouse gas emissions far beyond its borders.

Assembly Bill 262, the Buy Clean Act, would require all state departments and the University of California and California State University systems to buy steel, rebar, flat glass and mineral wool board insulation for its infrastructure projects from low-carbon producers. Currently, the state usually buys at the lowest price, meaning that materials can come from companies in China and elsewhere, where the carbon footprint is almost certainly higher.

“We can’t forget our commitment to the environment in pursuit of the cheapest state infrastructure project,” said the bill’s lead author, Assembly Member Rob Bonta (D-Alameda). “We have to pursue getting the best value and protecting our environment at the same time. This is the next step in global climate change leadership in California.”

The bill would require the state to determine the average greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit from the manufacture of those four infrastructure products. Bidders on state projects would then have to submit Environmental Product Declarations, or EPDs, proving they are at or below the average. EPDs are commonly available on many construction materials today.

The Buy Clean bill, co-authored by Assembly Member Marc Steinorth (R-Rancho Cucamonga), has bi-partisan support in both legislative houses and is backed by a massive blue-green coalition of labor, business, environment, and the building trades, many of whom see this as a boon for California. Businesses in the state are already required to meet the most stringent climate regulations in the nation and are thus well-poised to get these contracts. Still, not everyone is on board.

“Small business is going to be adversely affected,” said Tom Holsman, CEO of Associated General Contractors of California, an advocacy group for the building trades. He points out that contractors are required to hire a certain percentage of small businesses known as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, or DBEs, owned by individuals from socially or economically disadvantaged communities, who may not be able to meet the requirements of the bill. This could hurt local businesses and put contractors out of compliance. “We had to oppose this bill in order to get that point across.”

California would be the first state in the U.S. to have such a policy, though the idea behind Buy Clean is already widely in practice in California and beyond. Buildings certified by LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), a green building rating system, already require EPDs on materials. The California High Speed Rail Authority adopted a sustainability policy that similarly requires EPDs on steel and concrete. Oregon and Washington State have also recently started developing a statewide policy.

We can’t forget our commitment to the environment in pursuit of the cheapest state infrastructure project. We have to pursue getting the best value and protecting our environment at the same time.

Businesses already investing in clean tech, however, are seeing this policy as an opportunity to showcase their green credentials. Gerdau Steel, which runs the state’s only full-production steel plant, making steel reinforcing bar, or rebar, at its facility in Rancho Cucamonga, has already put $33 million into switching its power source to renewable energy, and helped craft the bill.

“We compete with neighbors in Arizona, Oregon, Washington, and then in Asia, that use less clean processes and haven’t made the investments we’ve made,” said Gerdau Rancho Cucamonga Vice President Mark Olson. “And then we get underbid by a nickel and we lose out. That was very frustrating to us. We believe it’s a way for California to really push climate goals to surrounding states.”

It is also a way to create and keep jobs in California. Purchases previously made out of state or overseas may shift to California, where not only environmental regulations but also labor standards are more stringent. Just about every major labor union, including the California Labor Federation, SEIU California, the Communications Workers of America and the United Steelworkers support the bill, as does the labor-environmental BlueGreen Alliance.

Kathryn Phillips, of Sierra Club California, points out that the Buy Clean Act is a first attempt to address a huge source of GHG emissions. An estimated 22 percent of all global emissions that contribute to climate change are embedded in the supply chain and are attributable to manufacturing.

Governor Brown had already demanded in an executive order that state agencies take climate change into account in their planning and investment decisions, and “employ full life-cycle cost accounting to evaluate and compare infrastructure investments and alternatives.” That order means agencies had to look at whether any infrastructure decisions would mean increased costs due to climate change remediation actions later. AB 262 is an attempt to codify that order and put it into action, with identifiable goals and standards.

“The Department of General Services and the Department of Finance are concerned that it could lead to millions in increased costs,” said Phillips. “There’s no reason that the price should have to go up. Unless what they’re admitting [is] that the state has routinely gone out and bought the cheapest and dirtiest products, and I say: shame on them! What hypocrisy!”

Buying cheap has occasionally led the state to environmental embarrassment. One outstanding example that stuck in the craw of lawmakers was the reconstruction of the San Francisco Bay Bridge which re-opened fully in 2013. The structural steel used to rebuild that bridge was purchased from a Chinese firm that did not meet California environmental or climate standards. It was just less expensive.

Mike Mielke, senior vice president at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, noted that even if the bill did create some front-end cost for new infrastructure in the state, it would pay for itself. He drew a parallel to those LEED-certified buildings. “They last a lot longer, people are happier in them, they are healthier in them, and there’s been lots of research that point to the fact that that additional up-front cost is more than borne out over the life of the building,” he said. “So I think that is not so different here.”

It’s not rocket science. It’s just basically saying you have to buy from the cleaner half, instead of the dirtier half.

Materials covered by the bill leave a couple of glaring exceptions: cement and concrete. They were in the bill until it went into the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee where they were then stripped out. Bonta notes there was “significant opposition” from the cement and concrete industries, and also from Caltrans, who argued that compliance would significantly increase their concrete costs.

This cost increase is way overblown, said U.S. Concrete Vice President Jeff Davis. His firm was a major backer of the bill and is still supporting it. “For 12 years we have been focused on developing the most sustainable, lowest-carbon footprint concrete in our marketplace and for that matter, leading the entire industry in low-carbon concrete,” Davis said. “But I can tell you that here, in the SF Bay Area, our low-carbon concrete is selling competitively with standard concrete.

“We see the value of this bill and the value for our industry. It provides the incentive for the industry to continue to focus on innovation, and to continue to advance that goal of lowering our carbon footprint.”

Bonta sees the bill as a foundation to be built upon later. “Sometimes you start with a significant stake in the ground and get a program started, and then you can build on that program going forward and include more materials,” he said “The political pathway this year didn’t include concrete, but that’s not to say that it won’t be included in the future.”

It seems like a bill like this would be a slam-dunk with Governor Brown, but reading Brown can be very difficult. It’s already been a banner year for the state’s climate policy, with Brown successfully extending his hotly debated cap-and-trade program from 2020 to 2030. Cap and trade requires companies to buy permits allowing them a certain amount of greenhouse gas pollution. A monumental bill requiring 100 percent clean energy production in the state by 2045 was rolled over into the next legislative session. But legislators are pushing ahead.

“It’s not rocket science,” said the Sierra Club’s Phillips. “It’s just basically saying you have to buy from the cleaner half, instead of the dirtier half. And it’s notable that I think every California company will fall into the cleaner half.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Politics & Government

California Controller Betty Yee: Trump Tax Plan Will “Exacerbate Pervasive Inequality”

In an interview with Capital & Main, the California State Controller offers her assessment of the president’s proposal, and concludes that it is not genuine tax reform but largely a giveaway to the wealthy.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Gabriel Thompson




California Controller Betty Yee. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

As the CFO of the country’s most populous state and the world’s sixth-largest economy, Betty Yee has a keen interest in any tax proposal coming out of Washington, D.C. So it didn’t take long for California’s controller to issue a response to Donald Trump’s tax plan, which she characterized as “a tool to play partisan politics” that will “exacerbate our nation’s pervasive inequality.” Capital & Main spoke to Yee and asked her to amplify on her concerns about Trump’s proposal.

Capital & Main: There’s a lot that we still don’t know, but can you lay out the most important changes?

Betty Yee: First, I would not call this tax reform. His plan has various provisions that benefit certain taxpayers, but it certainly doesn’t provide broad-based benefits. It eliminates the death tax but doesn’t do much with respect to middle-class tax relief. It repeals the alternative minimum tax – that’s a gift to state taxpayers who still have a liability after taking advantage of all the special tax treatments that they’re entitled to. It reduces the top marginal income tax rates. It seems to be heavily favored towards the wealthy, but there’s not much with respect to middle-class and lower-income taxpayers.

So how do you define the difference between tax reform and tax cuts?

BY: One of the tenets of tax reform is that you look at how to broaden the base and reduce rates. That’s a starting point for any conversation. I don’t see that here. Whether it involves simplifying the system or trying to incentivize economic activity, there’s a bigger purpose with tax reform than just targeting specific types of taxpayers with benefits. You’re looking at the overall system, not just providing windfalls.

There’s a lot in this proposal that is left unanswered. What will you be paying attention to in the weeks to come?

BY: We need to see who truly benefits. Look at the proposal to double the standard deductions, for example. Is that really a tax cut for everyone, or just limited to some? How is the plan going to help small businesses? The details will give us a better sense of just how broad-based these proposals are going to be. What we’ve seen so far suggests that it could be like the tax cuts under President George W. Bush, and not a real reform of the tax code. What we see are some pet provisions that would be revised to accrue benefits to the wealthy.

It seems to be heavily favored towards the wealthy, but there’s not much with respect to middle-class and lower-income taxpayers.

Are there particular concerns that you have in terms of how the tax proposal would affect Californians specifically?

BY: One of the biggest problems that we’re already pushing back against is the proposal to repeal what is called the state and local taxes deductible. For high income-tax states like California, this repeal would have a dramatic effect on our economy and people’s purchasing power. It would increase the burden on so many Americans who have limited incomes. We love this state, but it’s a high-cost state, so anything that exacerbates affordability for Californians will be a tremendous issue.

In 2015, you pulled together a group of experts to study the problems of California’s tax system and propose avenues for reform. Where do things stand now in your efforts to encourage comprehensive tax reform?

BY: For now I’ve put that effort on hold until we know more about the federal proposal, because I don’t want to get out too far ahead. In California, we have an outdated tax system, the structure of which I don’t believe really does the job of encouraging economic development and sustaining economic growth. We have a very progressive tax system, and so anything at the federal level that would look to impair top income tax rates or benefit the wealthy will just exacerbate the volatility. The more the rich make, the more we will get in revenue, but it makes the system all the more volatile. And so we have to figure out a better way to manage the volatility.

I haven’t seen anything yet about how they’re going to pay for their tax proposal.

BY: It’s incomplete. And it’s not just the tax proposal, but how it will be paid for, that could have an impact on programmatic funding. It will diminish the purchasing power of those at the lowest end of the income spectrum and could lead to reduction in the services they receive from the government. Those are the people who will be disproportionately hurt.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Top Stories