Yes on Proposition 30--San Bernardino Phonebank

When: Every Saturday from 10:00-2:00 p.m. Monday 5:00-8:30 p.m.

Where:

El Sol Promotores--Neighborhood Center

972 N. Mt. Vernon Avenue

San Bernardino, CA 92411

Cross Streets: Mt. Vernon Avenue Between 9th and 10th Street

Food and Beverages will be provided.

Proposition 30 "Local Schools and Public Safety Protection Act"

-10.3% income tax bracket for singles who make $250,000-$300,000 and couples who make $500,000-$600-000

-11.3% income tax bracket for singles who make $300,000-$500,000 and couples who make $600,000-$1 million

-12.3% income tax bracket for singles who make $500,000 and more and couples who make $1 million and more

-A four year temporary sales tax increase of 1/4 of a percent, equaling an increase of 1 penny for every four dollars spent

-This would raise an estimated $9 billion dollars which would mostly be earmarked for realignment and the Prop 98 funding guarantee

If Prop. 30 Does not pass:

We can either ask the wealthiest in the state to pay a fairer share or we can further shift the burden of cuts onto the rest of us.

With your YES vote on Prop 30, we can:

K-12

-Stop another $6 billion in cuts to our schools this year.

-3 week reduction and elimination of summer school Higher Ed

- Prevent steep tuition hikes for college students and their families.

-Invest in our schools and colleges so we can prepare the next generation for the jobs of the future.

Health and Human Services

-Low income children and adults will lose access to medical care and medicine due to higher co pays

--reduced funding

-Elderly and Disable Adults will see reduced access to critical medical and support services which may include: In Home-Support Services, wheelchairs, oxygen tanks, hearing aids, prosthetics, and physical and occupation therapy

Event Sponsored by: California Partnership and Students/Staff/Faculty from Colton and San Bernardino City high schools.

For further questions or want to volunteer contact:

Maribel Nunez: (909) 300-1478

Do Lower Taxes Create Jobs? Let’s Look at the States

In the ongoing debate over tax cuts, both sides make arguments that sound plausible. Progressives and liberals claim that a state with low taxes can't invest in schools, roads, and other improvements that boost productivity. Conservatives claim that high taxes discourage entrepreneurs and push businesses to flee the state. Both arguments are logical—but both cannot be true.

This argument reminds of a sign I once saw a sign in a client's office which read, "In God we Trust. All Others Must Bring Data." What does the data tell us about taxes and incomes?

How higher taxes affect personal income

The Tax Foundation, a respected conservative-leaning group, has analyzed tax issues since 1937. They publish reports showing the average income and average tax load for all 50 states. Their analysis includes all state and local taxes.

I've charted this data (below) and added a green line to separate the states with high incomes from the rest. Aside from a few outliers, the trend is obvious: All but one of the states that enjoy higher incomes (greater than $50,000 per person) also impose higher total taxes (above 9 percent). At the same time, all but one of the states that keep taxes low (less than 9 percent) have lower incomes.

There is no evidence in this chart to confirm that low taxes lead to prosperity. In contrast, higher taxes accompany higher incomes, not the other way around.

Higher incomes or higher taxes: Which come first?

Although the chart shows high incomes and high taxes go hand in hand, it raises the question of which comes first: Do higher taxes enable higher incomes, or do higher incomes simply make high taxes acceptable? Frankly the evidence here is mixed.

One important state on the high-income side of the chart is Massachusetts, which owes its prosperity to great universities and to the successful technology companies spawned by their alumni. Massachusetts shows that taxes, when invested in leading educational institutions, can create prosperity even without other economic advantages. Northern California, if it were a separate state, would illustrate this point as well. Stanford University provides essential support for Silicon Valley. The leading private universities do not take direct support from state or local taxes, but they take a great deal of indirect state taxpayer support, since they are exempt from taxes on their property and income.

The other high-income states fall into two distinct clusters: the financial services cluster of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (fueled by Wall Street), and the government cluster of District of Columbia, Maryland, and to a lesser extent Virginia (fueled by the U.S. capital and its lobbyists and government contractors). Wall Street and the nation's capital exert such strong magnetism on talent that these states may not need top quality education and infrastructure to maintain their prosperity. People who live there pay higher taxes because they value the things that higher taxes provide (better roads, schools, parks, transit, cultural amenities and more.)  In turn, these services and amenities attract tourists who bring even money to these already-prosperous areas.

How some states with low taxes generate healthy incomes for residents

A few states—Alaska, Nevada, Florida, Wyoming, and New Hampshire—impose very low tax rates yet their residents enjoy solid mid-range incomes. Do these states blaze a trail that other states can follow?

Unfortunately these states' success is tough to copy. Both Alaska and Wyoming have abundant and valuable natural resources (energy and minerals) coupled with small populations and little need for public services. Nevada, Florida, and Wyoming benefit greatly from tourism as well. And New Hampshire gets a free ride from Massachusetts-based high tech companies without paying the corresponding taxes.

How do low taxes really affect growth in income?

A new study by the Institute on Taxation and Economy Policy provides additional perspective. Researchers at this respected, progressive-leaning group looked at the net change in income from 2001 to 2010. They compared the nine states with the highest income tax against the nine states with the lowest income tax. The results, in the chart below, show that the states with the highest taxes actually had the strongest economies throughout a difficult decade.

There are no guarantees when it comes to taxes and economic development. But without abundant natural resources or heavy tourism or the generosity of a neighbor, no state in the United States has been able to sustain high prosperity without a robust tax base. The data speaks clearly on this point.

Let's trust it.

Via: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/05/03/do-lower-taxes-create-jobs-lets-look-at-the-states

BUDGET: Brown wants cuts, higher taxes

via Press Enterprise

BY JIM MILLER

SACRAMENTO BUREAU

jmiller@pe.com

SACRAMENTO — Programs for the poor and sick take the brunt of $4.2billion in spending cuts proposed Thursday by Gov. Jerry Brown in a budget that hinges on voters approving higher taxes this fall.

Another $5.4 billion in reductions would be imposed if voters reject Brown’s planned November ballot measure to temporarily increase the sales tax and raise income taxes on the wealthy. School funding would be slashed by more than $4.8billion, equivalent to cutting the school year by three weeks.

“This is not nice stuff, but that’s what it takes to balance the budget, and that’s assuming we get our tax revenues,” Brown told reporters at the Capitol, calling on lawmakers to act on some of the cuts by March.
2012-13 state budget
The $94.3 billion general fund plan closes an estimated $9.2 billion shortfall through June 2013. That is significantly less than a nearly $13billion gap projected in November by the Legislature’s nonpartisan fiscal analyst. Brown said his plan will help end the chronic shortfalls once and for all.

“We've cut the structural deficit substantially, and we now have the possibility of eliminating over the next couple of years the deficits that have plagued California,” Brown said. He spoke at a hastily called news conference after aides mistakenly posted the budget on the Internet, five days before its scheduled release.

Brown’s proposal changes the state’s welfare-to-work program known as CalWORKS. People who do not meet federal requirements of looking for work could be dropped from the program after two years, down from four. The plan reduces child aid for people in CalWORKS from $463 to $392 monthly.

In addition, the number of state child care slots for low-income working families would be reduced from 363,400 to 292,900. In-home assistance for the infirm and elderly also would be cut.
“How can the governor be cutting time limits and assistance for poor families to go to work when we have 11 percent unemployment and people cannot find jobs?” said Mike Herald of the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said his house will wait before considering the cuts sought by Brown. The state’s revenue picture seems to be improving, he said.
“If that trend continues even slightly, we may avoid the need to make the kinds of cuts the governor now suggests,” Steinberg said.

INLAND IMPACT

Inland welfare officials reacted warily to the governor’s proposal.

“The initial concept is good, but it is a question of how are they achieving the savings of $1 billion?” said Susan Loew, director of public social services for Riverside County. “And how will that impact the customers we are serving today?”

Between 11,000 and 12,000 families are enrolled in CalWORKS in Riverside County.
“The way the grants have been cut continuously over the last few years, many families are struggling,” she said. “This is the safety net. There is nothing below this.”

San Bernardino County served 51,163 people in the CalWORKS program in June, according to the county’s annual social services report.

That number has increased because of the economic recession, officials said. Further funding challenges will only decrease services as more people seek help, said Kevin Mahany, director of advocacy services at St. Mary Medical Center in Apple Valley.

“What we are seeing is people who are for the very first time having to go to the food bank or the homeless shelter or the welfare office,” Mahany said.

In Riverside County, about 18,000 people participate in the In-Home Supportive Services program. About 13,000 of those would be affected by the governor’s plan to reduce services for recipients who live with someone else. In San Bernardino County, the corresponding numbers are 20,500 and 14,300, respectively, according to the California Association of Public Authorities.

SCHOOLS EYE BALLOT

Brown has proposed a November ballot initiative that would raise the income tax on those making $250,000 or more a year and increase the state sales tax by a half cent. The higher taxes would raise about $7 billion a year and expire in 2017.

Inland school officials welcomed the prospect of more K-12 revenue after several years of reduced or frozen funding.

Yet districts would have to tear up their budgets midyear if Brown’s tax measure fails at the ballot box.

“Local school districts must again build and adopt their budgets based on uncertain state revenue estimates — and again without the legal ability to reduce their costs midyear if needed,” said Riverside County Superintendent of Schools Kenneth M. Young. “This is a very poor way of dealing with the state’s continuing budget crisis.”

Mike Fine, deputy superintendent for business services in Riverside Unified School District, said shortening the year would require additional legislation as well as negotiations with teachers and school employees unions.

“I believe the governor’s trying to do the right thing,” Fine said.

But schools’ options are limited, he said. “Our class sizes are already at the maximum. Our staff has been cut to the bone.”

Murrieta Valley Unified School District Superintendent Stan Scheer said the district already faces an $11 million shortfall in 2012-13. “We don’t have any wiggle room if this thing doesn’t pass,” he said of the governor’s tax measure.

Similarly, the San Bernardino County superintendent of schools office is advising districts to have a backup plan in case voters reject the tax increases.

“There’s no way districts can make that kind of cuts once the school year is under way,” said Ted Alejandre, assistant superintendent in the county office. “The advice we’re giving districts is to have contingency plans in place.”

Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore, said he liked parts of the governor’s plan. But he criticized what he called the governor’s “tax and hammer” approach.

“He is effectively saying to the taxpayers that we are going to continue spending more than we take in — so you either give me more of your money or I’m going to cut what you cherish most,” Jeffries said.

Contributing to this report: Staff writers Dug Begley, dbegley@pe.com; Dayna Straehley, dstraehley@pe.com; and Michelle L. Klampe, mklampe@pe.com. Also contributing: The Associated Press.