Craig DeLuz

Writer, Actor, Public Speaker, Media Personality
Posts Tagged ‘Taxes’

Night of the Living Democrats!!!

The video says it all! Too Funny!

Social Insecurity- A Bad Investment For Black America

The most misrepresented government program in modern history is the social welfare retirement program, better known as Social Security. Originally set up as a program to care for single widows with children, it has become nothing more than the worlds largest pyramid scheme. And little do we realize, the average Black family is at the bottom of the pyramid!

A 2004 study done by the Heritage Foundation points out that because life expectancies and incomes differ for varying segments of society, so does the amount each group can expect to receive from Social Security. And what group has proven to be the biggest victim of the Social Security Scam… African Americans.

“…the most tragic examples of Social Security’s reverse-Robin Hood effect occur in congressional districts heavily populated by African-American workers. Here we see negative rates of return so high that one wonders how a hard-working young man in an inner-city neighborhood in Baltimore, New Orleans, Atlanta or New York City can ever move up the socio-economic ladder.”

For example:

“The most senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, the vociferous Charles Rangel (Harlem), and his thoughtful colleague, William Jefferson (New Orleans) , will have to defend this arrangement in spite of near-confiscatory rates of return of negative 4.5% for young male workers in their districts.”

Now this is not to say that this negative return is caused by their being Black. However, there are many factors that go into determining how much one will actually get back from Social Security. And those factors tend to work against the average African American.

Take income for example. One’s lifetime earnings (at least that portion that SSI taxes are levied against) is probably the biggest factor in determining one’s monthly SSI payment upon retirement. This tends to work against Blacks because our average lifetime income is much less than that of whites. Higher unemployment in the Black community also contributes to decreased lifetime income and thus, decreased SSI benefit levels.

Another factor that is working against Blacks has to do with retirement age. On average, Blacks are more likely to have jobs requiring physical labor. This type of work places additional stress on one’s body. Often requiring them to retire earlier or go on disability. This means that they are less likely to work until the statutory age at which one receives full SSI retirement benefits. How often have you seen a 65 year old carpenter, garbage man or welder? Not often, I’ll bet.

A similar factor that results in Blacks getting less is average life expectancy. Blacks, Black males in particular, have a much shorter life expectancy than do whites. With an average life expectancy of only 62 years old, the average Black male won’t even make it to the statutory retirement age of 65. So what happens to the money he puts into the system? You’re gonna love this!

If he is unmarried, all the money he paid into the system becomes a windfall to the government. And if he is married, his wife must choose between his SSI benefits and her own, which ever is more. You see, she cannot get both! Even if both she and her husband had been paying into the system for 40 years, she must choose the greater of the two benefit amounts and the rest is a windfall to the government spending. And that is what Democrats are fighting to protect… their spending.

For years, Democrats and Republicans have taken money from Social Security to pay for their precious pork barrel programs and have left nothing more than a worthless IOU in its place. The “Lock Box” that Democrats speak of, does not exist. It has never existed. The money you are paying in today is going to pay for those who are on SSI today, plus a few bloated government programs.

Democrats are in complete denial. But Republicans have seen the writing on the wall. As the “Baby Boomers” prepare to retire, the chickens are coming home to roost. Because there will be a dramatic increase in the number of retirees and it is anticipated that they will live much longer than their parents, it is projected that by 2042 Social Security will be bankrupt. That is why Republicans are proposing a partial privatization of Social Security. It is the best way to end this absurd practice and restore equity to the system for all Americans.

How does it end the government shell game? By creating individual lock boxes. Each worker who pays into the system will have an account that belongs to him/her. It will no longer be a part of the general fund and thus will not be available for congress to spend. No more IOUs!

How does it help Blacks? It will take the money once was unlikely to ever be seen again, and place it into lock box, so that they can pass that money on to their children. For many, this will constitute most of the wealth that they will have to pass on to future generations. Additionally, because this money will be invested it will earn far greater return what they are paying into the current failing system.

Retirement protection, wealth accumulation and forcing the government to live within its means are all byproducts of privatization. No one will be forced to pay into a system that won’t be there for them and all people would be able to retire in dignity. This will make for a stronger Social Security System and a stronger America.

Remember When…

Click Pic to enlarge
Smaller government, lower taxes, family values, grandma and apple pie… These are the things that the Republican Party once stood for. What has happened?

As a matter of fact, one of the most commonly agreed upon planks of the Republican Party Platform has to do with smaller government and lower spending.

Read More…

Maine’s universal healthcare program saves so much money, they have to raise taxes! Huh?

That’s right! Maine’s newly instituted “Dirigo” healthcare program has saved the state so much money, they will be instituting a new tax called the “Savings Offset Payment” (SOP) in order to recover every dollar the state has saved.

The Wall Street Journal published an Op-Ed stating:

The Dirigo board is levying a Savings Offset Payment, or SOP–a remarkably innovative name for a new claims tax–to “recover” every dollar that the state says it has “saved.”

This SOP is similar to a sales tax; a 2.4% surcharge is added to all paid health-care claims. When applied, this new tax will cost the average individual about $70 and the average family about $200 a year–at a time when most individual insurance policyholders are already absorbing a 16% increase in their insurance premiums.
But, you may ask, if the program is saving all this money, why is a new tax necessary? The answer is that without the SOP, Dirigo Health’s high costs would bankrupt the program.

The SOP, effective last month, applies only to individuals, small businesses and other businesses buying health insurance from a Maine insurer or using a third-party administrator. By raising insurance costs, this tax may end up compelling some individuals to drop their coverage. But, hey, maybe they too can get subsidized coverage under Dirigo.

The reality is that this program doesn’t save taxpayers a dime! What does do is encourage those who can already afford and are paying for health insurance to drop their existing coverage in favor of the cheaper subsidized state program. But keep in mind, the reason it is cheaper is because those who are not part of the state program are the ones subsidizing those who are.

If Dirigo truly saved money, the program’s benefits would exceed its costs. Elementary math indicates that this is not the case; every dollar questionably identified by the state as having been “saved” is taken from consumers thanks to the SOP. Perhaps not surprisingly, several other states are asking whether Maine’s Dirigo Health could be a model for them. It could, if they too want to increase taxes, meanwhile doing virtually nothing to help the uninsured.

This “Money Saving”, “Tax Raising” Universal Healthcare scam is headed to a liberal state near you!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

Voter approved “Targeted Tax” measures may miss intended targets

Tax and spend liberals plan to put multiple measures before California voters in 2006 to increase taxes on specific groups in order to support increased spending in specific areas. However, evidence is mounting that revenues from such taxes often do not reach their intended targets.

The Orange County Register published an article this weekend stating:

California voters may be asked to approve new taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and high incomes next year that could dramatically expand the state’s budget for preschool, public safety and health care.

These are exactly the kinds of taxes that have the best chance of winning voter approval: targeted taxes that take money from a relatively small group of people – such as the rich or smokers – and require that the proceeds be dedicated to a specific program, such as early childhood development or health care.

These taxes are popular because the outcome is predicted.

“People have a general feeling that government wastes their money, so if they see, ‘Here’s a tax, and we will spend it only on this purpose,’ the probability of it passing is higher,” said John Ellwood, public policy professor at UC Berkeley.

An examination of recent voter-approved tax measures shows that the measures do indeed bring in money, but after that things don’t always go as expected.

The article goes on to point out how voter approved initiatives have brought billions of dollars in additional tax revenue into state coffers and how those revenues have often been redirected by state lawmakers or misspent by the agencies directed to administer the funds. It also points out how people are illegally and legally finding ways to avoid paying these new taxes.

What is not addressed is a discussion of who will be required to foot the bill for these new programs once tax revenues fall short of expectations. Any guesses?


Two here are two previous posts on ballot box budgeting measures targeted for 2006.

Ballot Box Budgeting…Tax hikes & increased govt. spending coming to a ballot near you!


“Wealth Tax” Initiative qualifies for circulation in California…

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

Ballot Box Budgeting…Tax hikes & increased govt. spending coming to a ballot near you!

As the California Legislature proves itself to be more and more irrelevant, liberals have decided to take their tax and spend agenda to the ballot box. Unfortunately, recent history has proven that voters are willing to approve increased government spending as long as they believe that someone else is footing the bill.

The LA Times is reporting:

Actor and director Rob Reiner has collected more than 1 million signatures for a proposition that would increase taxes on the wealthy to pay for universal preschool. If validated by elections officials, the names would be more than enough to place the measure on the June primary ballot.

“We’re building a very broad coalition and we’re going about this in a very responsible way and we’re not trying to shove something down people’s throats by fiat,” Reiner said, contrasting his proposal with the ones Schwarzenegger and his allies devised this year.

Meanwhile, two groups are gathering signatures for competing initiatives that would raise the state’s cigarette tax by $1.50 a pack, to $2.37. That would be higher than in any other state except Rhode Island ($2.46) and New Jersey ($2.40), according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C. A spokesman for Philip Morris USA said such an increase in California would be excessive.

But the potential revenue from such a tax — about $1.5 billion a year — is being eyed.

But Democrats are not alone in their desire to take increased spending to the voters. In and effort to increase the investment in the state’s deteriorating infrastructure, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is hoping to put a massive infrastructure bond on the 2006 ballot.

Schwarzenegger and Democratic leaders also hope to place on the ballot a gigantic public works project bond to repair the state’s sagging infrastructure. The measure would probably be the largest in California history — totaling in the tens of billions of dollars — and could lead lawmakers to put off for the second time a $10-billion bond for a high-speed rail line that is slated for the November general election. A $600-million library improvement bond initiative scheduled for the June primary is less likely to be affected.

While I agree that we must increase our investment infrastructure, I am always leery about going into debt to do so; especially considering that we are in this mess because the legislature has repeatedly taken the revenues from the gas tax (which is supposed to fund roads and transportation) and spent it on a host of other programs (for which the revenues were not intended.)

But even more distressing, I believe, is this fast moving trend toward ballot box budgeting. It is an outcropping of three key dysfunctions that exists in our governing process in California.

1. The current legislative districts promote partisanship and discourage true governance. Compromise on substantive legislation has taken a back seat to partisan rancor and divisive rhetoric.

2. The sizable contributions of public employee labor unions have given them a sizable amount of undo influence over Democrat policymakers. The result has been a dangerous conflict of interest that has representatives of public employee labor unions sitting on both sides the negotiating table when it comes to government spending on their salaries and benefits.

3. Points 1 & 2 combined with the advent of technology and increased political spending has made the initiative process a much more attractive option for interest groups who would rather play on the emotional fears of a relatively under-informed and seemingly unengaged electorate.

I wish I could say that these trends were changing. But the recent failure of initiatives in the special election that would have addressed some of these issues demonstrates that the electorate is at least for the time being, not willing to address these issues. Instead, we have chosen to continue allowing the inmates to run the asylum.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

“Wealth Tax” Initiative qualifies for circulation in California…

Unlike Prop 63, which increased taxes on the wealthy to pay for mental health or Rob “Meathead” Reiner’s initiative that would increase taxes on high income earners to pay for universal preschool; this proposed initiative is labeled exactly what it is …A Wealth Tax!

The California Secretary of State’s Office issued the following press release:

Proposed Initiative Enters Circulation

Wealth Tax. Tax Rates. Tax Credits. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Sacramento, CA – Secretary of State Bruce McPherson announced today that the proponent of a new initiative may begin collecting petition signatures.

The Attorney General’s official title and summary is as follows:


Imposes one-time 45% tax on California residents and certain former California residents owning property worth more than $40 million on January 1, 2007. Amends Constitution to exempt this tax from 1% limit on ad valorem real property taxes. Imposes additional 12% tax on income for high-income taxpayers. Reduces corporate income tax rate by approximately 54%. Eliminates alternative minimum tax and certain tax credits, including those for head of household and dependants. Creates/increases tax credits, including those for teacher pay, public college tuition; property taxes and health insurance.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: One-time increase in state revenues potentially up to $200 billion from imposition of a wealth tax. A portion of this revenue would be required to be allocated to schools with the remainder used for other state spending or tax rebates. Annual increased state taxes – primarily from increased personal income taxes – in the low tens of billions of dollars annually, offset by a commensurate amount of state tax reductions from rate reductions and new tax credits.

The Secretary of State’s tracking number for this measure is 1157 and the Attorney General’s tracking number is SA2005RF0096

The proponent, Paul McCauley, must collect 598,105 signatures of registered voters, equal to eight percent of the total votes cast for governor in the 2002 gubernatorial election, in order to qualify the measure. The 150-day deadline to circulate petitions for this measure is March 13, 2006. The initiative proponent can be reached at 818-788-5919.

In their analysis, the non-partisan Legislative Analysts Office makes it clear that this initiative could have a devastating effect on the California economy.

…a wealth tax of the magnitude imposed by the measure would result in a significant decline in state wealth in the short term. Such a development would depress economic activity and associated revenues to the state and local governments.

The overwhelming success of Prop. 63 at the ballot box has liberals believing that California voters are more than willing to increase taxes…on other people. They may not be too off in their analysis.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

CTA Drops Tax Hike Initiative for No Reason? I’m not buying it!

Shades of the 1998 primary election and Prop. 226 come to mind when I think of this move by the California Teachers Association. Back then the state’s most powerful business advocacy groups cut a deal with labor not to support the paycheck protection initiative in exchange for unions not putting tax-hikes and anti-business initiatives on the ‘98 fall ballot.

Today’s Sacramento Bee reports:

The announcement by CTA President Barbara Kerr, in a news conference with business leaders who had opposed the measure, averted what was shaping up as a particularly bruising and costly ballot fight next year.

But instead of preparing for battle, an unlikely set of political bedfellows – teachers, prison guards, commercial property owners and manufacturers – announced they would work together to submit new proposals to the state Legislature to help fund California schools.

Unlikely is right! The CTA took $2 million dollars from their members to pass this initiative and had over 900,000 signatures to get it on the ballot. And if last year’s Prop. 63 was any indidcation, Californians are more than willing to raise taxes, as long as it isn’t thier own.

Now, it is important to note that business leaders insist that no deal has been cut.

Both Hime and Kerr denied that any deal had been worked out between opposing sides in exchange for dropping the initiative.

“It doesn’t signal anything other than we’re here and we’re going to talk together,” Hime said.

The California Chamber is also insistent that no deal has been cut. And I hope that it But it is important that these folks know that we remember how they bailed on Prop. 226. in their analysis of the measure stated:

Conspicuously absent from the effort, either in planning or its execution, is the business community. The California Chamber of Commerce and many of the state’s top corporations have remained neutral to this point, saying they don’t want to engender backlash at contract time from the unions who represent their employees.

So don’t be surprised if the business lobby (California Manufacturers & Technology Association, California Business Properties Association or the California Chamber of Commerce) takes a neutral position on Paycheck protection again this time around.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

True Budget Debate or Sad Sitcom?


Although most of the mainstream media reported on the Budget vote, it was interesting all of the interesting facts and details they left out of their reports. So I thought you might be interested in some of more relevant details not discussed.

First of all, it is important to remember that an overwhelming majority of the budget is not really being debated. Interestingly, the amount at dispute is so small in comparison to the overall budget that the Sacrament Bee quoted Democrat Assebmlywoman Jackie Goldberg had the nerve to say that it was just like the Governor’s budget.

We are, make no mistake, voting to support the governor’s budget,” said Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles. “I find it odd and interesting that it is the Democratic Party that supports the governor’s budget and not his own party.”

If you remember, In a recent column entitled “$4 billion is the key to budget war” Dan Wietraub points out that the budget debate is really over a small percentage of overall spending.
No matter when it is signed into law, the next budget will total somewhere around $90 billion from the state’s general fund, $110 billion from all state funds and about $170 billion in state and federal funds combined. The differences between the Republican governor and the Democrats who control the Legislature, meanwhile, can be boiled down to about $4 billion, perhaps less.

And sure enough he was right! The San Jose Mercury notes:

Depending on who does the counting, the Democrat-backed budget plan differs from Schwarzenegger’s latest proposal by $1 billion, maybe $2 billion. Real money, to be sure, but only a sliver of the total.

Both versions give schools roughly $3 billion more than they get now — although Democrats make available about $800 million more for general purposes. Both infuse $1.3 billion more for transportation projects and rely on the same level of borrowing. Neither raises taxes.

But what got very little reporting was that Legislators received the 700 page budget less than 24 hours before they were to vote on it.

“We should have time to look at a real budget,” said Assemblyman Michael Villines, R-Clovis. “I’ve had the chance to go through – since it’s been in print yesterday – maybe 200 pages.”

As a matter of fact, just about every Democrat who spoke literally read directly from a sheet of paper containing the Democrat Caucus talking points.

But not included in those talking points were some very pertinent facts:

1. Although their budget did not include any new taxes, it also did not include $1.2 million in VLF revenue the Governor promised to return to local governments. Instead of paying of this debt, they want to spend the money on programs. So it’s not new debt, but we are still using debt to pay for programs we can’t afford.

2. While they did not propose any new taxes in the budget, immediately following the vote on the budget they put forth a proposal to significantly raise taxes on California’s highest income earners. NOT JUST THE RICH! But those who earn a lot of money.

3. The state’s commitment to fund STERS actually ended several years ago. But the state has continued to fund it anyway. So the $469 million that Democrats want to give to STRERS is above and beyond the state’s original commitment. This is fine if you have the money. The problem is that California doesn’t have the money.

4. Democrats also forget to mention the fact that their budget is adopted, California will spend about $700 million dollars more than under the Republican’s plan and does nothing to pay off outstanding debt.

5. They also conveniently leave out the fact that Republicans are also supportive of fully funding in home health services.

What took place yesterday, was not an honest vote and a real budget proposal. It was more like a poorly scripted sitcom where the Democrats had to read all their lines and the Absurdity of it all allowed Republicans to deliver all the punchlines.

“The spending addicts are back to score their fix once again,” said Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Murrieta. “Just like the common street thief, you are going to justify the theft by saying the people you are taking it from are rich.”

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

California Democrats Declare War on the Rich! Again…


It was only a matter of time before Assembly Democrats proposed fixing California’s budget woes by increasing taxes on the state’s highest income earners. But it is always interesting to see how they try to put an new spin on the same old failed rhetoric.

Tax the Rich!

The Sacramento Bee is reporting:

So for the first time in years, legislative Democrats are unified in flatly calling for tax increases to help balance the budget.

Specifically, Núñez said, they want to restore two top income tax brackets.

The highest earners now pay a 9.3 percent state income tax. Under the Democrats’ plan, married couples earning from about $285,000 to about $570,000 would pay 10 percent, while those who make more than that would pay 11 percent.

Now keep in mind, this is on top of the 1% tax levied on the rich to pay for mental health. And don’t forget about the 1% tax that Meathead Rob Riener is pushing to pay for universal preschool. Are you starting to see the pattern?

Democrats don’t want to live within their means. And they know that the average taxpayer isn’t willing to pay more to cover their spending spree. So as usual they go after their favorite ATM machine…The Rich.

Unfortunately though, there is noting more portable than a rich man and his money. And as we continue to increase taxes on high income earners to pay for government programs, they will eventually leave.

For example, when Tiger Woods signed his $90 million deal several years ago he went from being a legal resident of California to being a legal resident of Florida. This move saved him about $4 million a year.

I am not saying that this one proposal will cause a mass exodus by the rich. But this “Tax the Rich” mindset will. One percent here and one percent there will eventually add up. And as it does, those whom we are targeting to pay for all these new programs will get tired of being soaked.

Then guess who will be left holding the Bag?

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

Governor’s Budget is On the Right Track

Despite what the special interests are saying even the Liberal media agrees that the Governor’s budget is on the right track.

“Put funds into solving traffic mess”Daily

“Not enough? Governor’s budget has more money for schools than ever, so why are his critics complaining?”Los Angeles Daily News Editorial

“Teachers’ Pets”Los Angeles Times Editorial

(Full Articles Below)


Put funds into solving traffic mess

By Thomas V. McKernan

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken a bold step by declaring he will fully restore $1.3 billion in transportation funding in the 2005-06 budget. Polls and surveys show that Californians regard an efficient, effective and modern transportation network as a top priority and that’s how it must be seen in Sacramento.

Legislators should view our mobility as a problem facing all Californians that requires nonpartisan solutions. Pushing transportation to the back burner for years has resulted in unparalleled congestion, affecting both our quality of life and our economy.

Unfortunately, the job of funding transportation is not done. The restoration of funds, while significant and a commendable step in the right direction, is a fraction of what California requires just to play catch-up in addressing the state’s pressing transportation needs. They include relieving congestion, repairing roads and freeways and streamlining our project planning and building process. The state is more than $12 billion a year behind in addressing those problems, and the dismal state of our transportation network affects all of us. Here are steps that need to be taken to close the gap:

*Proposition 42.Three years ago, nearly 70 percent of voters passed this ballot measure, which was designed to ensure that gasoline sales tax money would go for transportation. But since that time, nearly all of the money has been diverted for other uses. Schwarzenegger wants to change that and restore $1.3 billion in Proposition 42 funds for transportation for the 2005-06 budget year. What about the years after that? The Automobile Club of Southern California is supporting the governor’s plan to ensure that Proposition 42 is amended to prevent any further “take-aways.”

*Gasoline excise taxes. The governor and legislators must ensure that the backbone of California’s highway funding — the gasoline tax — is no longer “borrowed” for other uses.

*Federal government. Our representatives in Congress must act now to assure that California gets its fair share of transportation funding, including money to modernize ports so they can effectively handle both shipping and trucking activities and get goods to consumers efficiently.

In short, California’s transportation needs to go beyond a one-year restoration of Proposition 42 funding, and legislators should not lose sight of that.

A recent Texas Transportation Institute study says motorists in Los Angeles spend 93 hours sitting in traffic each year — the equivalent of nearly four days lost to productive activity. That’s not only inconvenient and personally costly, but it drives up the price of getting products to and from the marketplace. One-third of Los Angeles County residents said in a recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California that they intend to move out of the county. The reason? Traffic.

Last fall, business executives told the governor that Los Angeles traffic is too congested for efficient shipping to and from Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors and they are looking for alternatives. With 550,000 jobs dependent on these ports, such a change could be an economic catastrophe.

No one is immune to California’s increasing gridlock. It takes more time to do the simplest things in life, like getting children to school or arriving for medical appointments on time. A 10-mile trip can take 45 minutes or more.

California spends $161 per driver per year on road improvements, the second lowest in all 50 states. Motorists spend an average of $500 per person on needless vehicle repairs because of bad pavement and potholes. California has the second worst road conditions in the nation.

The Auto Club is urging Southern Californians to write to their legislators as this year’s budget debate begins and urge them to use all of Proposition 42 taxes and other transportation funds for transportation and make our critical transportation needs a priority.

It took years to get California into a traffic jam, and it will take years to get traffic flowing again. We need to get going.

Thomas V. McKernan is president and chief executive officer of the Automobile Club of Southern California

Los Angeles Daily News Editorial

Not enough?
Governor’s budget has more money for schools than ever, so why are his critics complaining?

Thursday, May 19, 2005 – The biggest slice of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposed 2005-06 state budget will go to public schools, representing 42 percent of the general fund spending plan.

And although that’s a slightly higher percentage than in the past two budgets, and more than Proposition 98 mandates, Democrats are still complaining that it’s not enough.

The real issue is not education funding, it’s partisan politics. And even had Schwarzenegger’s spending plan allocated 75 percent to education, his critics would find a way to complain.

The proposed spending plan may not give everyone as much as they want, but it’s financially sound and does not raise taxes. The argument raised by Democratic legislators masks their real desire: Not just more education money, but higher taxation.

Los Angeles Times Editorial

Teachers’ Pets

May 19, 2005

What’s a special interest? It’s a lot like pornography, in that the definition depends almost entirely on one’s point of view.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger views special interests as groups, especially unions, that support Democrats. Democrats, meanwhile, are intent on pushing down the governor’s poll numbers by bashing his allegiances. They also argue their supporters have purer motives for the public good. Let’s examine that argument through the lens of a three-year battle over charter schools.

Last month, the state Senate Education Committee considered a bill that would have allowed public and private universities and colleges to authorize charter schools. The bill, by Sen. Charles Poochigian (R-Fresno), had acquired two Democratic supporters in the committee. But Chairman Jack Scott (D-Altadena) scheduled a vote when those two lawmakers couldn’t be present, which killed it. Supporters squarely blame the influence of the California Teachers Assn.

The CTA is an umbrella for most of the state’s teachers union locals. With its close ties (and dependable campaign contributions) to majority Democrats, it has a near veto over legislation that appears to threaten the interests of unionized teachers.

Democratic legislative analysts said they worried that the Poochigian bill would have effectively allowed private universities to establish mini school districts with public money. For instance: Stanford, with its respected school of education, could sponsor three or four charter schools in the lowest-performing areas of East Palo Alto or Oakland, where half of minority students drop out of high school. Taxpayers would undoubtedly fail to see the harm in this.

The high-minded objections about private schools spending public money are ultimately cover for union job security. Most teachers in charter schools serve at the will of the school, without the ironclad job protections of most union contracts.

This is the third consecutive year that such legislation has died under similar circumstances. The first year, the legislation was admittedly too loose, extending charter sponsorship to virtually any nonprofit organization. But over the last two years, the proposal has been substantially tightened, limiting its reach to colleges. Charter school organizations have also improved their self-policing, and fiscal restraints are tougher. Most charters still must be sponsored by their local school districts.

Colleges could experiment outside district bureaucracies. Their charter school successes could become public school models. Alas, the CTA wields enough clout in the Legislature to make the appealing plan disappear year after year, without a floor vote.

When it comes to school reforms, students ought to be the dominant interest. They too often are not.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…

Democrats Just Don’t Get It!


They are quibbling over $80 million in tax credits for employers who brought in around $335 million in annual state income tax via their employees. Then they wonder why employers are leaving the state.

The San Jose Mercury News is reporting:

The companies that received rebates Tuesday are responsible for more than 40,000 jobs in California, which pay an average salary of $90,000, said Carl Guardino, the head of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group. Even though the companies were able to effectively zero out their state income-tax liability, they still paid sales tax, property taxes and payroll taxes, he said.

So let’s do the math:

40,000 Jobs Created

$90,000 Average Income Per Job Created

40,000 X 90,000 = $3.6 billion in annual income

The top tax rate in California is 9.3%

$3.6 Billion X 9.3% = $335 million in annual tax revenue

So in exchange for a one time tax credit of $80 million the state gets $335 million every year those jobs are still in California, plus all the other taxes these employers are required to pay.

But Democrats would rather jump over dollars to save dimes. That is why they continue to chase employers out of the state.

“I can promise Ms. Migden something: She will never, ever, ever have to worry about my company building a plant in California again and getting insulted when we ask not to be taxed for the privilege of building a plant,” he said. “We’ll go somewhere else where they not only do not tax us for building a plant, but they actually give us incentives and credits and subsidies to create jobs.”

(Click Pic For More)

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…