Expert on Civic Engagement to Keynote Annual Conference — Don’t Miss Early Bird Registration

February 14, 2013

The next several days are your last chance to sign up for the CBP’s annual policy conference on March 14 at the early bird rate of $90 — a savings of nearly 30 percent. Register online or by faxing or mailing the form in the conference brochure.

Our 2013 conference — Turning the Corner: Restoring Balance and Reinvesting in California’s Future — will be a wide-ranging and information-packed event with discussions about the key questions and challenges the state must address moving forward. Register on or before next Tuesday, February 19, to receive the early bird discount. After the 19th, registration increases to $125.

We are very pleased to have Carolyn Lukensmeyer, executive director, National Institute for Civil Discourse, providing our conference keynote. Carolyn is a long-time advocate for civic engagement and civil discourse. She previously served as founder and president of AmericaSpeaks, an award-winning organization that promotes nonpartisan initiatives to engage citizens and leaders through the development of innovative public policy tools and strategies. Carolyn’s luncheon keynote, “Putting the ‘Civil’ Back in Civil Discourse: Creating a Shared Vision for Our Future,” will examine political polarization in the debates surrounding fiscal policy, immigration reform, and other timely issues.

Here’s Carolyn speaking at the 2012 annual conference of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation last October. Her plenary talk discussed ways of building the foundation for a healthy, inclusive policy debate.

We hope you can join us on March 14. For additional information or if you have any questions, contact the CBP at cbp@cbp.org or (916) 444-0500.

— Steven Bliss

Comments Off | Federal Budget & Taxes, State Budget | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by cbporg

New CBP Report: Congress Should Maintain States’ Flexibility To Expand SNAP Food Assistance

August 13, 2012

A new CBP analysis examines deep cuts that Congress is considering making to the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps). Known as CalFresh in California, this program provides food assistance to nearly 4 million low-income individuals across the state, over three-fifths of them children. The need for food assistance has increased due to the Great Recession and its aftermath. Since mid-2007, when the economic downturn started in California, CalFresh enrollment has risen steadily and nearly doubled.

As part of the reauthorization of the federal Farm Bill, the US House of Representatives is considering slashing SNAP funding by more than $16 billion over the next 10 years, largely by eliminating the flexibility that states have to broaden SNAP eligibility to more low-income working families. This change would end SNAP food assistance for roughly 2 million to 3 million low-income individuals in 40 states, including California.

The cuts under consideration in the House would jeopardize improvements that California has made – or is considering making – to CalFresh. For instance: as we’ve blogged before, a bill now in the Legislature – AB 1560 – would bring more low-income individuals into CalFresh by both simplifying eligibility rules and creating a direct link between CalFresh and the Medi-Cal Program. The proposed House cuts to SNAP would prohibit this effort to expand access to CalFresh and would reduce nutrition assistance at the worst possible time: with many families still struggling in the wake of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

– Steven Bliss

Comments Off | Federal Budget & Taxes, Human Services & Child Care | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by cbporg

A Federal Balanced Budget Amendment Would Threaten the Economy and Force Deep Program Cuts

November 18, 2011

To Californians accustomed to hearing about big budget challenges in Sacramento, debates in Washington, DC, over how to balance the federal budget may seem unconnected to our daily lives. In fact, federal budget decisions have a significant impact on the Golden State. Federal dollars support an array of programs and services that touch the lives of all Californians, as we show in our new Policy Basics. For example, of the more than $330 billion in federal funds spent in California in federal fiscal year 2010 – which ended September 30, 2010 – more than one-third (36 percent) paid for Social Security and Medicare benefits, and another 12 percent supported an array of programs that provide assistance to millions of Californians, such as unemployment insurance (UI), CalFresh food assistance, and veterans benefits.

The importance of federal spending in California helps put into perspective the debate in the House of Representatives this week over whether to amend the US Constitution to require a balanced federal budget each year. While the balanced budget amendment (BBA) was defeated in the House today, the Senate is required to vote on the BBA by the end of the year as part of the “debt-ceiling” deal reached in August. A BBA “would threaten significant economic harm,” according to a recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Why? Because it “would force policymakers to cut spending, raise taxes, or both just when the economy is weak or in recession – the exact opposite of what good economic policy would advise.”

Furthermore, if the votes to raise revenues cannot be found – a likely prospect – then the federal budget would have to be balanced through cuts alone. As a result, the CBPP estimates that a BBA could force deep reductions across a range of programs. Social Security, for example, could be cut by almost $1.2 trillion between 2018 and 2021, which we estimate would mean a reduction of roughly $110 billion to income support for millions of California retirees and people with disabilities. An estimated $750 billion reduction to Medicare between 2018 and 2021 would translate into an $83 billion cut in California, affecting millions of California seniors.

A persuasive case against the BBA was recently made by Rep. David Dreier, a 16-term, conservative Republican from southern California. Dreier, who supported a BBA in 1995, reminded his House colleagues this week that Congress managed to balance the federal budget in the late 1990s without amending the US Constitution. “I was wrong,” Dreier said of his support for a BBA in 1995. “Two short years later, we balanced the federal budget … without touching that inspired document, the US Constitution.” Recent experience in California also argues against a BBA. California’s restrictive budget rules – which hamstring fiscal policymaking – show that changing the budget process will not bring a budget into balance. Our nation, like our state, needs significant new revenues to responsibly balance its budget.

– Scott Graves

Comments Off | Federal Budget & Taxes, State Budget | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by cbporg

Some of California’s Wealthiest CEOs Run Corporations That Paid No Federal Income Tax

November 4, 2011

The gap between the wealthiest Californians and the less well-off has widened substantially in recent decades, as illustrated in a new CBP report, A Generation of Widening Inequality. The average income of the middle fifth of California’s taxpayers was approximately $35,000 in 2009 – almost 15 percent lower than in 1987 on an inflation-adjusted basis. In contrast, the average income of the top 1 percent was $1.2 million in 2009 – approximately 50 percent higher than in 1987, after adjusting for inflation. That means the average Californian in the top 1 percent earned in less than eight workdays what the average middle-income Californian earned in a year.

Who are the wealthy? Contrary to popular perception, entertainers and professional athletes make up just a small fraction of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of US taxpayers. Instead, six out of 10 of the top 0.1 percent are executives, managers, or financial professionals. And according to Forbes, many of the nation’s highest-paid executives run California-based companies, including Walt Disney’s CEO, Robert A. Iger, whose annual compensation of $53.3 million makes him the third-most-highly compensated chief executive of a US company.

Interestingly, a report released yesterday by Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) shows that some of the most highly compensated CEOs run California-based companies that paid no federal income tax in recent years, even though these companies earned profits. For example, San Francisco-based PG&E paid no federal income tax in 2008, 2009, or 2010 even while it earned profits in each of those years totaling nearly $5 million. In addition, San Diego-based Sempra Energy paid no federal income tax in 2008, even though the company earned a profit of more than $1 million that year. According to Forbes, the annual compensation of PG&E’s CEO, Peter A. Darbee, was $7.3 million last year, while that of Sempra’s CEO, Donald E. Felsinger, was $20.6 million.

The CTJ and ITEP report examined a total of 280 companies on the Fortune 500 list that were profitable in each of the last three years and provided sufficient and reliable information in their financial reports about their profits and taxes paid. Overall, 78 of the companies (27.9 percent) paid no federal income taxes in at least one of the past three years.

– Alissa Anderson

Comments Off | Federal Budget & Taxes, State Taxes, Work, Wages, & Incomes | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by cbporg

The Affordable Care Act in Action

October 4, 2011

Amid the sea of downward sloping graphs marking the Great Recession, a small green shoot has begun to emerge. Recently released Census data show that the share of uninsured young adults between ages 18 and 24 remained essentially flat from 2009 to 2010 in spite of this population’s high rate of joblessness during the recession. The emerging trend points to the early success of a year-old provision in the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) allowing young adults to remain on their parents’ health coverage up until age 26.

In California, 66.5 percent of young adults between age 18 and 24 had health coverage in 2009 compared to 66.4 percent in 2010 – a 0.1 percentage-point difference. In contrast, adults age 25 through 64 experienced a far larger decline in coverage. In 2009, 77.3 percent of this population had health coverage, compared with 76.3 percent in 2010, according to Census data. Other data have also begun to substantiate this trend. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that the share of young adults between ages 19 and 25 with insurance increased by more than three percentage points in the first three months of 2011. A recent Gallup poll shows similar trends.

Young adults are of particular interest in the effort to broaden access to health coverage. In recent years, this population has represented the largest and fastest-growing segment of the US population without health coverage. Many factors influence the insurance rate of young adults as described in this report. At age 19, many lose coverage through Medicaid, other public programs, or their parents. In addition, young adults may be new employees in jobs where they are less likely to be eligible for, or offered, coverage. For much of the past decade, the CDC shows, the uninsurance rate among young adults has generally increased, peaking at 33.9 percent in 2010.

The ACA policy has been especially important in light of high unemployment among young adults during the Great Recession. More than one out of five Californians between 18 and 25 were unemployed in 2010 according to recent Census data, making it even less likely that they would have access to affordable health coverage. Allowing young adults to remain on their parents’ coverage as they venture into the world – and through tough economic times – will help to smooth a major transition in their lives.

–Hanh Kim Quach

Comments Off | Federal Budget & Taxes, Health | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by cbporg

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers