Yesterday voters in my town rejected the proposed school budget. Last night the school board passed it anyway. State law permitted its passage because it was not more than 1.6 percent over last year's budget. The new budget entails a 9.8 percent school tax increase. It also contains significant cuts in programs and personnel. The increase is less about escalating cost than the deep cuts in state funds available to local school districts.
While our governor seeks to cap real estate taxes - the means by which school districts, towns, cities and counties fund their services, the state budget contains deep cuts in state aid to local education. This puts local school districts between a rock and a hard place.
Local funding of school districts inevitably results in wide swings in education quality. Wealthier communities are better able to support their public schools, poorer communities struggling under their tax burdens find it difficult. In our stratified society this means the quality of education students receive is usually tied to the size of the local community's wallet.
I have heard many members of my community complain about their school taxes because they do not have children or their children are grown. They believe that education should be the responsibility of the students' parents. This is wrong. A well educated populace is essential to a healthy society.
For now, our educational system is crumbling as fast as the rest of our country's outdated, under-maintained infrastructure. And while Washington and the state capitols cut the "fat" out of national and state budgets, the burden on localities grows heavier and heavier. This tax burden has the additional impact of exacerbating the housing crisis as homeownership becomes more expensive.
We all want the services. We just don't want to pay for them. If current trends continue we won't be able to pay for them.
Here's what I think...
Showing posts with label financial reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financial reform. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Why must the rich pay all the taxes?
Just because 1 percent of Americans earn over 23 percent of the country's income and 20 percent of Americans earn over 50 percent of the country's income, why should they pay the bulk of taxes?
Just because 40 percent of Americans earn less than 12 percent of the country's income, why should they be exempt from income tax? What are these freeloaders doing to pull our country out of recession and support our wars? The 6.2% they pay for Social Security and the 1.45% they pay for Medicare is a drop in the bucket. Sales and excise taxes don't count because these losers can barely afford to buy anything that's taxed to begin with so their contributions are minimal. Why should they be getting a free ride with earned tax credits and the like on their roughly $4,000-$6,000-a-person income while the wealthiest Americans have to pay up to 35% of their earned income in taxes?
Sure the guys at the top get a lower rate for capital gains and exclusions for dividend income or their municipal bond holdings while the less fortunate have to pay taxes on their pathetic savings account interest, but hey, they're the ones who stimulate our economy - just ask any hedge fund manager or credit default swap trader.
Billionaire Warren Buffet claims he pays one third less tax on his last dollar of income than his secretary does on hers, but I can't figure out if he's bragging or complaining.
What's with this whole Social Security thing anyway? Any fund manager could do a better job managing that money than the federal government. Just ask the guys at Lehman, no I mean Merrill Lynch, no Goldman Sachs... oops, perhaps not the best examples. Kids should be supporting their parents anyway. That's how we used to do things. What's that, the kids can't find jobs and are swamped by education loan debt? Well, life is hard and then you die.
All those lazy out-of-work people are swamping our homeless shelters, soup kitchens and hospital emergency rooms. When are we going to stop giving the American poor a free ride and put them to work cleaning our roads and bridges and public restrooms for room and board? It's not slavery if your intentions are good.
Just because 40 percent of Americans earn less than 12 percent of the country's income, why should they be exempt from income tax? What are these freeloaders doing to pull our country out of recession and support our wars? The 6.2% they pay for Social Security and the 1.45% they pay for Medicare is a drop in the bucket. Sales and excise taxes don't count because these losers can barely afford to buy anything that's taxed to begin with so their contributions are minimal. Why should they be getting a free ride with earned tax credits and the like on their roughly $4,000-$6,000-a-person income while the wealthiest Americans have to pay up to 35% of their earned income in taxes?
Sure the guys at the top get a lower rate for capital gains and exclusions for dividend income or their municipal bond holdings while the less fortunate have to pay taxes on their pathetic savings account interest, but hey, they're the ones who stimulate our economy - just ask any hedge fund manager or credit default swap trader.
Billionaire Warren Buffet claims he pays one third less tax on his last dollar of income than his secretary does on hers, but I can't figure out if he's bragging or complaining.
What's with this whole Social Security thing anyway? Any fund manager could do a better job managing that money than the federal government. Just ask the guys at Lehman, no I mean Merrill Lynch, no Goldman Sachs... oops, perhaps not the best examples. Kids should be supporting their parents anyway. That's how we used to do things. What's that, the kids can't find jobs and are swamped by education loan debt? Well, life is hard and then you die.
All those lazy out-of-work people are swamping our homeless shelters, soup kitchens and hospital emergency rooms. When are we going to stop giving the American poor a free ride and put them to work cleaning our roads and bridges and public restrooms for room and board? It's not slavery if your intentions are good.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Elizabeth Warren Named "Advisor"
Pragmatism trumped valor, and quite possibly political acumen, when President Obama named Elizabeth Warren an "advisor" to the President and the Treasury Secretary, rather than Director of the newly formed Consumer Protection Bureau. While I understand the President's reluctance to take on a tough Senate confirmation fight, I cannot help but wish he had chosen that route. A Senate hearing would have been illuminating and I do not believe it would have been a bad thing for the underdog Democrats heading into a challenging election season.
Warren, who is detested by financial industry insiders, has garnered wide support among consumer advocates for her stand against the big guys in her position as Director of the Congressional TARP Oversight Commission.
The same New York Times article that reported her appointment [click on this post's title for the link] reported: "The favorite among administration officials [for the position of Bureau Director] is Michael S. Barr, an assistant secretary of Treasury for financial institutions who is an authority on financial regulation and on services for low and moderate-income households." [We have seen how well Treasury has served THAT constituency.] Additionally, the article said, "Privately, Mr. Geithner [Wall Street's darling] promoted Mr. Barr for the consumer post."
The article further mentioned Mr. Geithner's apparent pleasure at the appointment.
Just when I thought the Obama Administration might be developing some spine.
Our President might do well to heed the words of country singer Aaron Tippin: "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."
Warren, who is detested by financial industry insiders, has garnered wide support among consumer advocates for her stand against the big guys in her position as Director of the Congressional TARP Oversight Commission.
The same New York Times article that reported her appointment [click on this post's title for the link] reported: "The favorite among administration officials [for the position of Bureau Director] is Michael S. Barr, an assistant secretary of Treasury for financial institutions who is an authority on financial regulation and on services for low and moderate-income households." [We have seen how well Treasury has served THAT constituency.] Additionally, the article said, "Privately, Mr. Geithner [Wall Street's darling] promoted Mr. Barr for the consumer post."
The article further mentioned Mr. Geithner's apparent pleasure at the appointment.
Just when I thought the Obama Administration might be developing some spine.
Our President might do well to heed the words of country singer Aaron Tippin: "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection
I heard a pundit insist Elizabeth Warren should not head up the new Consumer Protection Agency because she does not have a background in the financial industry. This is a problem why? As head of the Congressional Oversight Committee for the TARP, she certainly has not demonstrated any lack of understanding about the industry. Of course the industry has found her persistence in seeking accounting for its use of those funds somewhat off-putting.
I also heard the complaint she is too widely supported by consumer advocates. This is a bad thing? I have not noticed a shortage of policy makers from the financial industry in the Obama Administration.
Bloomberg.com http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-15/obama-said-to-consider-installing-elizabeth-warren-at-treasury.html reports that rather than appoint Warren head of the new agency, which would require a difficult approval process in the U. S. Senate, the Administration is considering naming her a counselor of Treasury Secretary (and financial industry insider) Timothy Geithner. She would be Geithner's subordinate. Geithner's opposition to Warren has been widely reported. As head of the new agency, she have far more independence. Theoretically Warren would still be responsible for getting the new agency off the ground. The banking industry is far more supportive of this approach. I do NOT find this reassuring. Sounds like a plan to neutralize one of the most dedicated (and outspoken) financial reformers in the country.
The director of the Consumer Protection Agency should be a consumer activist. Otherwise, what is its purpose? I am convinced Warren would look out for my interests, not the industry's and for this nomination the Administration should pull out all the stops.
I also heard the complaint she is too widely supported by consumer advocates. This is a bad thing? I have not noticed a shortage of policy makers from the financial industry in the Obama Administration.
Bloomberg.com http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-15/obama-said-to-consider-installing-elizabeth-warren-at-treasury.html reports that rather than appoint Warren head of the new agency, which would require a difficult approval process in the U. S. Senate, the Administration is considering naming her a counselor of Treasury Secretary (and financial industry insider) Timothy Geithner. She would be Geithner's subordinate. Geithner's opposition to Warren has been widely reported. As head of the new agency, she have far more independence. Theoretically Warren would still be responsible for getting the new agency off the ground. The banking industry is far more supportive of this approach. I do NOT find this reassuring. Sounds like a plan to neutralize one of the most dedicated (and outspoken) financial reformers in the country.
The director of the Consumer Protection Agency should be a consumer activist. Otherwise, what is its purpose? I am convinced Warren would look out for my interests, not the industry's and for this nomination the Administration should pull out all the stops.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Financial Reform: The End of Market Manipulation or Same Old Same Old?
This week Congress finally passed financial reform. Whether, after all the compromises, the bill has enough teeth left to end the kind of market manipulations that cause the financial meltdown remains to be seen. Critics are concerned that the legislation delegates most of the responsibility for writing the actual regulations to the oversight agencies.
Who did the financial market manipulators damage?
Homeowners, the retired, the gainfully employed, the unemployed, the underemployed. Small businesses, large businesses, local governments, state governments.
The moderately well-to-do, the middle class, the working class, the poor, the yet unborn. The United States, most countries around the world.
Who did the financial market manipulators benefit?
Market insiders, the super wealthy, "too big to fail" corporations.
Who did the financial market manipulators damage?
Homeowners, the retired, the gainfully employed, the unemployed, the underemployed. Small businesses, large businesses, local governments, state governments.
The moderately well-to-do, the middle class, the working class, the poor, the yet unborn. The United States, most countries around the world.
Who did the financial market manipulators benefit?
Market insiders, the super wealthy, "too big to fail" corporations.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Write in Governor David Paterson in November?
The only elected official in Albany with spine is Governor David Paterson.
The Gov spent two agonizing days last week exercising his line-item veto 7,000 times, while our state's senators and assemblymen fiddled in the dark, pushing the state budget problems on down the line to local communities by refusing to make the deep cuts the deficit demands. They then pronounced the job done and left town. Meanwhile, the attorney general, Democratic candidate for governor, remained steadfastly on the sidelines except for vaguely-worded generalities that could offend nobody.
Paterson did not do this for the fun of it. It could not have been any fun at all. He did it because no one else in state government is willing to make difficult decisions. They have chosen to let the "lame duck" governor carry the burden and take the blame.
Come November, maybe in addition to voting AGAINST every other Albany incumbent, I will WRITE IN David Paterson's name for governor. In 40-plus years of faithful voting, I have never written in a candidate's name. It may well be time to start.
Albany has become an abomination.
The Gov spent two agonizing days last week exercising his line-item veto 7,000 times, while our state's senators and assemblymen fiddled in the dark, pushing the state budget problems on down the line to local communities by refusing to make the deep cuts the deficit demands. They then pronounced the job done and left town. Meanwhile, the attorney general, Democratic candidate for governor, remained steadfastly on the sidelines except for vaguely-worded generalities that could offend nobody.
Paterson did not do this for the fun of it. It could not have been any fun at all. He did it because no one else in state government is willing to make difficult decisions. They have chosen to let the "lame duck" governor carry the burden and take the blame.
Come November, maybe in addition to voting AGAINST every other Albany incumbent, I will WRITE IN David Paterson's name for governor. In 40-plus years of faithful voting, I have never written in a candidate's name. It may well be time to start.
Albany has become an abomination.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
"This American Life" Highlights NYS Budget Crisis
Ira Glass's "This American Life," presented one of the best analyses of the New York State budget crisis I have heard on the program's Saturday, June 19 NPR broadcast.
In a nutshell: During years of unprecedented income, state government outspent its revenues with budgetary smoke and mirrors. During the current era of severe revenue shortfalls, the trend continues. A solid plan by Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch, which would have instituted stringent controls (including adherence to "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" or GAAP) and spending limitations was sound-byted to death. Ravitch had suggested modest, controlled borrowing as a short, interim fix, with safeguards against abuse. Media, legislators and special interest groups immediately proclaimed "Lieutenant Governor's plan suggests borrowing to balance the state budget." The very solid, difficult measures that rounded out his approach were ignored.
I guess no act of political courage goes unpunished.
In a nutshell: During years of unprecedented income, state government outspent its revenues with budgetary smoke and mirrors. During the current era of severe revenue shortfalls, the trend continues. A solid plan by Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch, which would have instituted stringent controls (including adherence to "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" or GAAP) and spending limitations was sound-byted to death. Ravitch had suggested modest, controlled borrowing as a short, interim fix, with safeguards against abuse. Media, legislators and special interest groups immediately proclaimed "Lieutenant Governor's plan suggests borrowing to balance the state budget." The very solid, difficult measures that rounded out his approach were ignored.
I guess no act of political courage goes unpunished.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Financial Reform NOW
The conference committee reconvenes this week to hammer out reconciliation between the Senate and House versions of the Financial Reform Bill.
Will the committee:
1. Include Senator Blanche Lincoln's provision to force banks to spin off their derivatives trading desks?
2. Enact the reform to cap the fees banks can charge retailers for each credit card transaction? Yeah, the companies earn serious money on that end too.
3. Include a ban on banks trading for themselves in the stock market?
4. Levy a tax on banks for the unwinding of failing institutions? My understanding is this tax would target the "too big to fail" institutions so prominent in the financial meltdown.
5. Create a consumer watchdog agency to protect borrowers from abusive lenders? One plan to assign this function to the Federal Reserve could well have the same effectiveness as placing regulation enforcement of drilling standards in the same agency that leased the wells to the oil companies - yeccht!
Needless to say, all the industry lobbyists are out in force, pressuring our legislators to remove any teeth from the bill.
Let's keep an eye on these guys.
Will the committee:
1. Include Senator Blanche Lincoln's provision to force banks to spin off their derivatives trading desks?
2. Enact the reform to cap the fees banks can charge retailers for each credit card transaction? Yeah, the companies earn serious money on that end too.
3. Include a ban on banks trading for themselves in the stock market?
4. Levy a tax on banks for the unwinding of failing institutions? My understanding is this tax would target the "too big to fail" institutions so prominent in the financial meltdown.
5. Create a consumer watchdog agency to protect borrowers from abusive lenders? One plan to assign this function to the Federal Reserve could well have the same effectiveness as placing regulation enforcement of drilling standards in the same agency that leased the wells to the oil companies - yeccht!
Needless to say, all the industry lobbyists are out in force, pressuring our legislators to remove any teeth from the bill.
Let's keep an eye on these guys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
