Wells Fargo, king of private prisons, shut down for the day; seven arrested

Via SF Bay View

by Adrienne Lauby

Santa Rosa, Calif. – On Dia de Reyes, the Day the Three Kings, a false king was exposed. Wells Fargo is the king of private prison finance, a king who shows no remorse as it forecloses on the houses and homes of its victims. But, on Friday afternoon, Jan. 6, two branches of Wells Fargo in Santa Rosa were closed for the day and seven people were arrested after they did civil disobedience inside the banks.

The protest, a collaboration between the immigrant rights community and the Occupy movement, drew 400-500 people for a march and rally. Their target, Wells Fargo, is the trustee of a fund that is heavily invested in two private prison corporations, Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group. These corporations own a majority of the detention centers that house undocumented immigrants across the U.S.

These same corporations helped draft the model for the Arizona anti-immigrant law, SB 1070, insuring a steady stream of immigrant prisoners for their private detention prisons. Because they contract with the U.S. government at a cost to taxpayers of $5.5 million a day, they profit from the misery of the immigrants and their community.

Okili Nguebari, originally from Congo, Africa, spoke at the rally about his experience in a private immigration prison. Three years ago he was picked up in front of his home by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) and held for three months in an immigration detention facility owned by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) in Eloy, Arizona.

In addition, the protestors challenged Wells Fargo’s practices around foreclosures and short sales of houses in Sonoma County. In only four years, foreclosures in the county have skyrocketed from 71 to 4,469 homes – nearly 4,450 families this year have lost their houses and all of their equity because banks and financiers manipulated the market.

Protestors unfurled a banner in the lobby of the main branch of Wells Fargo reading, “Homes Not Jails.” Then they read statements about the bank’s financing of private prisons and stories of people affected by deportations until they were arrested. Wells Fargo personnel detained at least two of the protestors in a citizen’s arrest.

“It was empowering to stand there and speak the truth,” Carolyn Epple said about her act of civil disobedience.

The protestors called on all Sonoma County residents to demand that Wells Fargo immediately divest from investments in immigrant prisons and declare a moratorium on foreclosures in Sonoma County. They also asked people to move their money from Wells Fargo into a local bank or credit union.

Jesus Guzman of the DREAM Alliance at Santa Rosa Junior College called the protest a “defining moment” for both the Occupy and Immigrant Rights movements.

“It’s about time,” he said and, judging by the cheers, the crowd agreed.

The coalition included the Graton Day Labor Center, the DREAM Alliance of Sonoma County, MEChA of Santa Rosa Junior College, the Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, as well as Occupy groups from around the county. An Occupy Petaluma contingent rode bicycles to the rally.

The energetic and colorful march included a contingent wearing bright orange jumpsuits representing immigration detainees and the Hubbub Club Marching Band. A troupe of Aztec dancers led the march.

Adrienne Lauby is a Bay Area-based writer and a programmer at KPFA Radio 94.1FM. She can be reached atadrienne@sonic.net.

Editor’s note: Private prisons that Wells Fargo invests in also house thousands of California prisoners moved out of state prisons in response to a federal court order to reduce overcrowding.

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.

Important Message On Behalf of All of Us or None

Greetings Everyone,

Dorsey Nunn (co-founder of All of Us or None) has requested that to all those concern with the contents of his email, please make the phone calls as requested.  Thanks for your time and consideration.

Dear Family, Friends, Allies, Associates and Comrades,

This not the end or the beginning of the year request for money but a request for your assistance in pursuing justice. I am asking that you make two telephone calls and to forward this email to your list that could help to save numerous lives. During the course of my vacation and the last several days of the year I was contacted by a number of family members whose loved ones are incarcerated in Tutwiler, Mississippi. They informed me that there has been a race riot in this southern prison (Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility) where some California prisoners are housed.  Days ago the Tallahatchie County Jail exploded in violence. This is one of those private prisons where the primary purpose is to save this state money and to secure a profit for a private prison corporation. Prisoners’ safety and rehabilitation comes second to pursuit of the all mighty dollar. I have been informed that it took over two hours to regain control of the environment and to end the misplace violence but the frustration remain extremely high during this current lock down.

A couple of family members have informed me that there were not enough guards to quell the violence. I couldn’t bring myself to argue that what gave rise to the problem was too many prisoners, mass incarceration and control being exercised through divide and conquer. Somehow when you are talking to concerned family members it is difficult to always make the correct political argument. However, I think it is extremely important that we pay attention to the unique set of circumstances that could confront members of our community who are incarcerated hundreds and thousands of miles from home; especially when the basis of their incarceration is to generate jobs and money for other people.

I started to write this email on New Year Eve but didn’t want to end the year thinking about another year where I have not figured out how to stop the beast (torturous mass incarceration). As the year ended I narrowed my New Year to a simple wish. I wished that I lived in a world where society thought everyone was entitled to public safety, even those under the absolute control of the state and private corporations.

I am writing to ask you to call the heads of this corporate prison (Bobby Phillips or Kenneth Little) and let them know that every human being has the right to safety. You can contact them at (662) 345-6567.

I am also asking you to call Matthew Cates, the head of the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation and let him know that he is still responsible for the California prisoners housed outside of the state. Ask him what he has in place to insure the safety of prisoners being housed out of state. You can contact him at (916) 323-6001.

In Hot Pursuit of Justice,

Dorsey E. Nunn

How much does it cost to incarcerate an inmate?

via http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3

California’s Annual Costs to Incarcerate an
Inmate in Prison

2008-09

Type of Expenditure
Per Inmate Costs

Security
$19,663

Inmate Health Care
$12,442

Medical care
$8,768

Psychiatric services
1,928

Pharmaceuticals
998

Dental care
748

Operations
$7,214

Facility operations (maintenance, utilities, etc.)
$4,503

Classification services
1,773

Maintenance of inmate records
660

Reception, testing, assignment
261

Transportation
18


Administration
$3,493

Inmate Support
$2,562

Food
$1,475

Inmate activities
439

Inmate employment and canteen
407

Clothing
171

Religious activities
70

Rehabilitation Programs
$1,612

Academic education
$944

Vocational training
354

Substance abuse programs
313

Miscellaneous
$116

Total
$47,102

It costs an average of about $47,000 per year to incarcerate an inmate in prison in California.
Over two-thirds of these costs are for security and inmate health care.
Since 2000-01, the average annual cost has increased by about $19,500. This includes an increase of $8,300 for inmate health care and $7,100 for security.

Cities, lawmakers seek redevelopment compromise

via http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19637721 By JUDY LIN Associated Press

Posted: 12/29/2011 01:17:17 AM PST Updated: 12/29/2011 09:25:22 PM PST SACRAMENTO, Calif.—The California Supreme Court on Thursday gave Gov. Jerry Brown and state lawmakers the right to eliminate community redevelopment agencies in a crucial victory on the state budget. But the fate of the more than 400 redevelopment agencies remains unclear as cities—and even many lawmakers—vowed to seek a legislative compromise next year that would ensure the agencies' survival. Brown has little incentive to go along. The court affirmed the state's authority to dissolve the agencies, calling it "a proper exercise of the legislative power vested in the Legislature by the state constitution." Doing so means more of the property taxes generated within redevelopment zones will go toward schools, law enforcement and other local services, freeing up as much as $1.7 billion in the state general fund during the current fiscal year. The money now is returned to the agencies to spend on future redevelopment projects. Lawmakers and the mayors of several large cities said Thursday they were inclined to work out a compromise after the justices issued their split decision. While they affirmed the Legislature's authority to dissolve redevelopment agencies, the justices in a unanimous decision invalidated companion legislation passed last summer that was intended to keep the agencies operating by forcing them to direct a certain amount of property tax revenue to schools and other services. The justices said that law ran afoul of voter-approved Proposition 22, which prohibits the state from raiding local tax money. "I intend to work closely with leaders in Sacramento and across California to develop a responsible path forward that invests in our schools, our safety and puts the 14 million unemployed Californians back to work," Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in a statement. "This includes new legislation to provide economic tools to communities most in need." Redevelopment agencies were authorized by the Legislature shortly after World War II as a way to restore blighted neighborhoods and are largely controlled by cities and counties to promote construction projects. They have been credited with revitalizing blighted districts such as the Gaslamp Quarter in San Diego, downtown San Jose and Yerba Buena Gardens in San Francisco. Critics, including Brown, say some have become little more than slush funds for private developers. They want property taxes generated by new developments to be diverted from the agencies to local services that now must be funded by the state. Redevelopment money in the past has been used to finance big box retailers, sports complexes and other projects that critics say run counter to the agencies' original mission. "Today's ruling by the California Supreme Court validates a key component of the state budget and guarantees more than a billion dollars of ongoing funding for schools and public safety," the governor said in a statement. The ruling was highly anticipated because it was a key component of balancing this year's state budget. The state is heading into the new year with a $13 billion deficit over the next 18 months, and a ruling against the state would have widened the shortfall. The governor proposed dissolving redevelopment agencies in January, then transferring their property tax revenue of about $5 billion a year to the cities and counties that controlled the agencies. They would then use the money to repay redevelopment debt and distribute money to cities, counties, special districts and schools, saving the state about $1.7 billion this year. State lawmakers inserted a compromise in last summer's budget that allowed the agencies to keep operating if they made additional payments of about $400 million annually to schools and other local services starting next year. The court invalidated that piece of legislation, calling it "flawed." The court opinion was written by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and signed by five other justices. The seventh, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, agreed but wrote a separate opinion saying she would have upheld the compromise law that would have permitted agencies to continue if they shared revenue. The decision means schools can expect more than $1 billion each year in additional property tax revenues, but a firm figure won't be released until Brown presents his spending plan next month, said Brown's finance department spokesman, H.D. Palmer. Local government officials say it does not make sense for the state to eliminate redevelopment agencies, which contribute $2 billion a year in economic activity. They say because the Legislature did not intent to eliminate local economic development efforts, agencies should be reshaped. "We do know that the governor will be a tough nut on this, but at the end of the day, his primary challenge is to help balance the state budget," said Jim Kennedy, interim executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, which filed the lawsuit along with the League of California Cities. San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders called it a "sad day" while San Jose City Attorney Richard Doyle called the ruling a disappointment but not a total surprise, given the judges' reactions during arguments in November. Associated Press writer Juliet Williams contributed to this report.

Stop LA Jail Expansion, Save LA County

This piece was originally posted on Ella’s Voice, the blog of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.

by Emily Harris on Dec 19, 2011

In a few weeks, the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors will vote on whether or not to approve Sheriff Baca’s latest plan to rob LA: a new jail that will cost $2.66 billion dollars($1.4 billion to build and $1.26 billion in interest to bankers). Los Angeles County is one of 25 counties that have been invited by the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) to submit applications for AB 900 Phase II funding for construction or expansion of county jails.


“What is California doing?” asks Susan Burton, Executive Director of A New Way of Life Reentry Project in Los Angeles. “Don’t we know by now it is bad for all Californians if we build more cages anywhere? This is a terrible investment of our resources, and we must stop it!”

Los Angeles County was ranked highest in priority to receive jail expansion money because it is the county that committed the largest percentage of prisoners to state custody in 2010. “With violent crime at an all time low, Los Angeles locks up more people then any place in the world, especially brown and Black youth, yet we have no money for jobs, youth centers, schools, libraries, and parks,” says Brandy Brown with the Youth Justice Coalition in Los Angeles.

With the resources Sheriff Baca already has, he has created an international disgrace in LA County jails, where the torture of inadequate medical and mental healthcare and pervasive brutal beatings are routine. It’s time to stop using LA jails as mental health hospitals and homeless shelters. The only sustainable solution to overcrowding is to send less people to jail.

Let’s send the Supervisors a simple and clear message: Vote No on Jail Expansion in LA.

Sign the petition urging LA Supervisors to vote NO on the jail expansion!

LA does not have $2.66 billion dollars to waste on harmful jails. 14.5% of LA residents are unemployed; 40% live without health insurance; and at least 51,000 people are homeless.

What could LA do with $2.66 Billion?

$55 million: hire 500 registered nurses

$50 million: hire 400 people in the Dept. of Mental Health

$55 million: hire 375 people for prevention and early intervention services

$366.4 million: Stop Medi-Cal, Mental Health Services, CalWORKs, In-Home Support Services cuts at the state level from hitting LA residents

$816 million:End homelessness in LA (rent 40,000 2 bedroom apartments for a year at $1700/month)

$1.3 billion: close LAUSD 2011-2013 anticipated budget gaps, save further cuts

Emily Harris is the Statewide Coordinator for Californians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB) a statewide alliance of over 40 organizations working to curb prison spending by reducing the number of people in prison and the number of prisons in California. To help us organize and plug into the work in Los Angeles contact Emily Harris!

Half of America In Poverty? The Facts Say It's True

via Commondreams.org


Published on Tuesday, December 27, 2011 by CommonDreams.org


Half of America In Poverty? The Facts Say It's True
by Paul Buchheit

Recent reports suggest that almost 50% of Americans are in poverty or at a "low income" level. The claim is based on a new supplemental measure by the Census Bureau that includes health care, transportation, and other essential living expenses in the poverty calculation.

The concept of "low income" is controversial. It has been defined as earnings between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level, a claim which, if true, would place every American family making $50,000 or less at a near-poverty level.

Conservative organizations believe the whole 'poverty' issue is overblown. The Cato Institute blames LBJ and Obama for reversing a declining poverty rate. Forbes blames the calculations. The Heritage Foundation argues, "The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines...In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave." The case for a growing "consumption equality" is alternately defended and denied.

With emotions running high on both sides, we need to take a balanced look at the available data to determine how well the highest-earning family of the poorest 50% -- a family with a $50,000 income -- can survive. (The maximum individual income for the poorest 50% is about $30,000.)

Start with taxes. It is frequently noted by conservatives that the richest 1% pay most of the federal income taxes, and indeed they paid about 37 percent in 2009, more than the poorest 90% of Americans. But only the richest 5% of Americans have experienced income growth since 1980. And during that time, their tax rate has dropped from 34% to 23%. As for the 3 percent rate paid by the poorest 50%, the Tax Policy Center sums it up nicely: "The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax."

More relevant to the poverty issue is that federal income tax is only a small part of the tax expense for lower-income families. According to a study by The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the poorest 50% paid about 10 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes (the richest 1% paid 5 percent). Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures reveal that the bottom 50% pays about 9 percent of their incomes toward social security (the top 1% pays just under 2 percent). CBO also shows that the bottom 50% is paying about 2 percent of their incomes on excise taxes, a negligible expense for the people at the top. Another year of Bush tax cuts will chop another 1-2 percent off the taxes of the very rich.

So total taxes for the poorest 50% are 24 percent of their incomes (3% + 10% + 9% + 2%), as compared to 29 percent for the richest 1% (23% + 5% + 2% - 1%).

Other significant expenses for low-income people, based on the most conservative estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, the National Center for Children in Poverty, the Carsey Institute, and the Economic Policy Institute, include food (10%), housing (27%), transportation (6%), health care (5%), child care (8%), and household expenditures (5%). Expenses for insurance and savings and entertainment, although important to most households, are not being included here.

Energy costs hit low-income families especially hard, taking about 20% of their incomes. At the $50,000 income level the burden is closer to 12%, as generally agreed upon by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the American Gas Association.

Total expenses for the richest family in the bottom half of America?
24% taxes
27% housing
34% food, health care, child care, transportation, household needs
12% energy

That's 97% of their income. The richest family among 70,000,000 households is left with just $1,500 for a car, appliances, a TV, a cell phone, a loan repayment, an occasional night out. It comes to $30 a week, barely enough to take the family out for a pizza.

Critics bemoan the amounts of aid being lavished on lower-income Americans, making dubious claims about $16,800 in government funds going to every poor family and families with $90,000 incomes being classified as "near poor."

The fact is that only 4,375,000 families (out of 70,000,000 in the bottom half) received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in 2010, for a total expense of about $36 billion. Current federal budgets include about $350 billion for food, housing, and traditional 'welfare' programs for needy children, elderly care, and energy assistance. This averages out to about $400 per month per family.

Another fact is that earnings have remained flat for most people while productivity has grown 80% since 1980. If a $50,000 family had received a fair share from their contribution to America's growth, they'd be making $90,000, and they wouldn't need a dime from government.

Conservatives complain about the TVs and refrigerators owned by low-income people. But it's the height of insensitivity to admonish people who are trying to survive in a perversely unequal society.