A Personal Thank You From Jean Ross

March 28, 2012

As I head east to my new position at the Ford Foundation, I want to offer one last “thank you” for the kind wishes since the announcement of my departure, as well as your support and friendship over the past 17 years. I will continue to work for budgets and public policies that improve the lives of the American people, particularly low-income and vulnerable populations. I am leaving the CBP in excellent hands, particularly with the addition of Laura Hogan as interim executive director. I depart with some degree of optimism: 2012 offers Californians the opportunity to stabilize the state’s financial condition and lay the foundation for restoring the luster to the Golden State. I hope to remain an active part of your world and hope that we will continue to work together toward our shared goal of ensuring that the public sector has adequate resources and that government decision-making is open and accessible and encourages broad participation by the general public.

– Jean Ross

Read Jean’s farewell published by Calbuzz today here.


March Madness in California

March 26, 2012

After considerable negotiations, the number of tax measures headed to the November ballot has shrunk by one.  On March 14, Governor Brown and the California Federation of Teachers announced a compromise revenue initiative that will likely go to the voters this fall. The compromise slightly alters the Governor’s original proposal, although it preserves a combination of income and sales tax increases. Furthermore, the compromise initiative is consistent with both the Governor and the California Federation of Teachers’ approach of having the wealthiest Californians pay the majority of the tax revenues. More than three-quarters (78.8 percent ) of revenues raised by the compromise initiative would be paid by the top 1 percent of California taxpayers, a group that has experienced tremendous growth in incomes and takes home, on average, $1.7 million annually. The largely progressive tax increase of the hybrid initiative is aligned with the overall trend in income growth over the past two decades: the inflation-adjusted incomes of the top 1 percent increased by 50 percent between 1987 and 2009, while the incomes of the bottom 80 percent of Californians decreased. By limiting the impact on low-income individuals, who would see an average annual tax increase of only $24, the compromise measure relies primarily on the wealthiest Californians to provide necessary funding for our schools and other core public structures.

– Samar Lichtenstein


Playing With Our Future: Child Care and Development Spending at Its Lowest Level in Over a Decade

March 13, 2012

State child care and preschool programs provide safe and affordable care that helps low- and moderate-income parents find and retain jobs. These programs are as important as ever as parents work to keep their jobs or return to the workforce in the aftermath of the Great Recession. In light of this, it is especially troubling, as we’ll show in an upcoming CBP report, that total spending for child care and development programs—which include child care, preschool, and afterschool programs—has dropped dramatically since 2007-08 and would fall even further under the Governor’s Proposed 2012-13 Budget. In just four years, child care and development spending in California has dropped from its peak by 22.7 percent, after adjusting for inflation. Under the Governor’s proposal, spending would fall by an additional 18.5 percent in 2012-13, to its lowest level since 1998-99. The CBP’s upcoming report will look at recent trends in state child care and development programs, examine recent spending cuts targeting child care and preschool, and highlight the importance of these programs for California’s working families.

– Sam Sellers


Guest Post: Conference Keynote Speaker Jared Bernstein

March 9, 2012

Jared Bernstein

Today’s Budget Bites post is authored by Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Jared will give the luncheon keynote at the CBP’s March 15 conference. Advance registration ends next Tuesday, so register now.

I’m leaving the beltway for a few days next week for a Cali swing that takes me to one the nation’s great state-based fiscal and economic policy shops: the California Budget Project. The good folks there asked me to highlight a few bars of the chin music I plan to play when I speak at the group’s annual conference: On the Edge: Consequences of a Widening Economic Divide.

That’s a good place to start, so I’ll start there. I plan to talk about the status of the economic divide, with particular attention to where things stand in the most recent data, both nationally and for California. Income inequality actually declined in the Great Recession, as the financial bust meant large capital losses for some high-income families. (And if you follow the inequality data, you know that capital incomes are a major factor in play here.)

This led some commentators to claim that the economy solved the problem of rising inequality. Well, beside the fact that a cataclysmic recession is an awfully blunt tool for reducing inequality, we’d seen this pattern before. The same cyclical dynamics occurred in the dot.com bust back in 2001. A lot of wealthy households took a hit when the equity bubble burst, but the structural factors fueling the divide were still very much in place. And once the cyclical problem was over, the structural factors reasserted themselves—big time—and growth once again became a spectator sport for middle- and low-income households.

So, I’ll start by laying out the facts of the case, and showing that the benefits of the growth that’s occurred so far in the current recovery are also in the process of making an end run around the working class.

But, with respect to the title of the conference, I am planning to go well beyond discussing consequences. Because I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of just describing problems. I want to solve them.

So I plan to lay out a model I’ve been working on for the past few months, kind of my theory of (almost) everything. It’s very simple really, but I think it rings true. I also believe that if we don’t carefully and correctly diagnose the problem, we risk flubbing the prescription. So I’m going to spend a few minutes next week unpacking this model:

In a normal economy, growth occurs and it reaches those who help create it—not necessarily in equal measures—there’s always unequal outcomes in a capitalist economy, and that’s fine. At least it’s fine if there are equal opportunities. Because then, families can take their share of that growth and invest in their kids, who might have a chance to climb up the economic ladder. In other words, growth leads to incomes for middle- and low-income families, which leads to opportunities, which creates the potential for upward mobility.

That’s how it’s supposed to work.

But then I inject inequality into the model. Now, growth is diverted from large swaths of families, and as their incomes stagnate or worse, opportunities fade and mobility is diminished. Worse, the concentration of income feeds into a concentration of political power, and this power organizes itself against measures that could help offset rising inequality, like higher minimum wages, union organizing, safety nets, and so on. Instead, that political power moves to cement its privileged position and deepen the channels that are diverting growth from the majority to the minority, implying the rise of policies like supply-side, trickle down tax cuts, deregulation of financial markets, and no-holds-barred campaign finance. The result is a very vicious cycle.

My talk will explore the evolution of this model, look at the economic and policy developments it would predict, and ask if, in fact, that’s what the data show. I don’t want to give away the punchline, but…yeah…that’s pretty much what the data show.

But what do we do about all this?

Ah, now for that, you’ll have to show up for the talk.

See you there!

–Jared Bernstein


What, When, Where: Making Sense of Potential Tax Initiatives

March 6, 2012

Exactly eight months from today, California voters may find themselves faced with a number of tax initiatives at the ballot box. What would be taxed under the various measures? When would each measure be in effect? Where would the revenues go? Answers to these and other questions can be found in a new CBP “side-by-side” that compares the three personal income tax measures that may be headed to the ballot in November. Also, an updated version of the CBP’s memo comparing these tax measures is available here.

– Samar Lichtenstein


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.