| | |

Tax Leak

Over the weekend, a group going by the name “Think Long” started leaking plans to put something on the ballot in 2012 that would revamp the California tax system and raise more funding. It is funded by billionaires so getting the signatures (typically at a cost of $1-$2 million) won’t be a problem. Even a big campaign for the votes – tens of millions can be involved especially for TV advertising – can be handled.

Example of the leak/preview from the LA Times:

Joining the battle over California taxes, a group of billionaires and political insiders say they will place a $10-billion tax increase on the November 2012 ballot. The Think Long Committee, which includes Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, former governors Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad, says its proposal would provide $5 billion more for public schools every year and billions for public universities and local governments…

The group’s plan is based on a reshuffling of California’s tax system. It would lower the state’s personal income and sales tax rates and create a new levy of more than 5% on services that are not currently taxed, such as legal work or accounting…

Full story at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-taxes-20111120,0,2206114.story

An earlier news report on this effort indicated that it would modify provisions of Prop 98 which earmarks roughly 40% of the state’s general fund for K-14. If so, there would be strong opposition from the California Teachers Association and other parts of the educational establishment:

…The proposal faces a potential land mine: the state’s powerful education lobby. The plan would eliminate a constitutional requirement that the state must repay schools when imposing certain budget cuts. It would also relieve the state of an existing $10 billion obligation to schools.

Full article at: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/11/think-long-coalition-to-propose-california-tax-overhaul.html

On the other hand, the Think Long group has apparently gotten some degree labor support. The Sacramento Bee this morning has what appears to be a draft copy of the document the group’s proposal at

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/NG%20FINALTLC.pdf

Maria Elena Durazo (head of the LA County Federation of Labor) is listed as part of the group although if you go all the way to the last printed page there is a note that she abstained from endorsing the proposal. The group finessed the public pension issue by referencing the governor’s proposal but saying that the governor, legislature, and local officials should work with public sector unions on the problem. Indeed, there is fuzzy language at the end that says that the report is a product of consensus and that not all members of the group endorse each item.

It is notable that no specific language for a proposition is included.

If you have trouble with the Sacramento Bee link to the document above, here is an alternative source:

Meanwhile, keep in mind that there is a long way to go between presenting a ballot idea and “billions for public universities.”

Similar Posts

  • |

    Report: Affordable Public Higher Education is Possible Today

    A report this week from Reclaim California Higher Education (a coalition of faculty and student groups) makes the case that affordable (even free) higher education is within reach for California. The privatization experiment has failed. The harm to a generation of hard-working, high-aiming young people is proven. It’s time to return to what works: the proven Master Plan for higher education in California. California, with its own resources, can afford to restore top-quality, accessible, affordable college and university opportunity to every qualified student. In fact, Californians can afford nothing less. You can read a summary and download the entire report…

  • | |

    Academic Senate Rejects New Pension Tier

    Representatives of UC faculty on all campuses delivered a strongly worded rejection of the proposed 2016 pension tier. Reports from the campuses were extensive and overwhelmingly negative (link to PDF). Berkeley faculty called the proposal “imprudent and potentially fiscally irresponsible.” Davis faculty said, “It is a myth that UCRP is too generous,” and went on to detail a long list of likely negative outcomes from the new tier. Irvine faculty noted “the level of disappointment and depth of passion expressed from all quarters about the negative impact that the imposition of the PEPRA cap has on the future of the…

  • |

    Faculty Voice Opposition to Pension Proposal

    On Friday, the UCLA Academic Senate hosted an informational meeting that explained in clear terms that this is a bad, bad plan for faculty. What to do about it was less clear cut. Shane White gave a deeply detailed account of financial aspects of the plan (Slides here: Pension Presentation by Shane White). Among the things we learned: Last year’s budget deal introduced the “PEPRA cap” to UC retirement benefits. This is not a limit on retirement pay-outs, but a cap on the earnings that are used to calculate retirement pay-outs. So any new hire after July 1, 2016 who…

  • | | |

    Pension Changes Proposed: lower benefits, little savings, weaker UCRS

    The University of California will soon have a third pension tier if the Regents approve a plan put forth by the Retirement Options Task Force on Friday. UC President Janet Napolitano charged the Task Force, which included management and Academic Senate representatives, with finding a way to implement her agreement with Gov. Brown to set a cap on pension benefits in exchange for state funds to support the pension system. Over the weekend, as faculty activists read the task force report and a second report produced by Senate leaders (Guide to reviewing the recommendations of the Retirement Options Task Force)…

  • | | |

    The Degradation of Faculty Welfare and Compensation

    Colleen Lye and James Vernon (UC Berkeley Faculty Association) UC faculty need to wake up to the systematic degradation of their pay and benefits.  In 2009, when the salary furlough temporarily cut faculty salaries between 6 and 10%, faculty were outraged.  Yet since then our compensation has been hit by a more serious, and seemingly permanent, double blow. First, despite modest salary rises of 3% and 2% in October 2011 and July 2013, faculty take-home pay has been effectively cut as employee contributions to pension and healthcare have escalated.  Faculty now pay more for retirement and healthcare programs that offer less.  Secondly, faculty are…