|
|
|
Budget
That's the claim behind a new report authored by ACT UP Philadelphia. Here's a snippet from it:
The city spends money inefficiently (ware)housing people in shelters and then paying for their medical care, rather than providing housing through more cost-effective models. In addition, lack of stable housing increases the likelihood of engaging in high-risk behaviors, thus increasing the likelihood of being HIV-positive.
You can download the report in full here. The organization goes on to explain how other metropolises have saved money by spending more on housing for people with AIDS: "In New York City, 95 percent of the cost of providing supportive housing for people with AIDS was recouped through savings in emergency room visits and medical care," reads ACT UP's press release.
According to ACT UP, the waiting list for the city's housing subsidies for people with AIDS has grown in the past year, from 143 to 200 people.
Today at 1 p.m., ACT UP, Proyecto Sol and Philadelphia GAWD rallied outside of City Hall to publicize these findings.
David Dyden over at FireDogLake thought it was some big right-wing conspiracy to cut entitlements or whatever, but I found the portion of the weekends AmericaSpeaks which I wrote about here that I attended and live-blogged to be a fairly constructive endeavor. (Full disclosure: After our story was published, AmericaSpeaks asked me to live-blog their Philly event for a couple hours Saturday, and paid me a modest sum to do so. They did not tell me what to write; in fact, my instructions were completely vague. So, I guess I'm now part of Dydens vast right-wing conspiracy.) The point they emphasized is the right one: there are no easy answers, silver bullets or quick fixes. Dydens complaint, as I gather it, is that ASs workbook spent more pages laying out potential changes to Medicare and Social Security than it did to new taxes, and supposedly hyped spending cuts and downplayed potential tax increases. Perhaps. I didn't have a chance to dig into the workbook, nor did I take one home with me, so I can't really say. My bullshit detector didn't catch the apparent propaganda, however.
Of course, I was being paid.
I will say this: AmericaSpeaks was honest about its participants demographic and ideological tendencies. As they told me last week, their goal was to match the demographics of each of the 19 host cities, and to make sure minority viewpoints were represented. Consequently, they quizzed everyone at the outset on their age, race, and ideology. The audience, as I recall, skewed a bit white, old and liberal, but not by too much. And despite the alleged propaganda at play, the audience's proposed solutions were, in fact, somewhat progressive.
Participants proposed that we should:
Raise the limit on taxable earnings so it covers 90% of total earnings. Reduce spending on health care and non-defense discretionary spending by at least 5%. Raise tax rates on corporate income and those earning more than $1 million. Raise the age for receiving full Social Security benefits to 69. Reduce defense spending by 10% - 15%. Create a carbon and securities-transaction tax.
(Throughout the program, at least the part I saw, the AS folks seemed to stress that we should make cuts after the economy recovers; indeed, re-litigating the stimulus doesn't seem to have been the point.)
Hi, I was at the meeting and it turned out well. However, it was very light on substance about economics. They had to give a 30-minute presentation just for the purpose giving out instructions about filling out their voting forms. That's just way too long and it shows how the ambitions of their agenda were far in excess of reasonable comprehension for anyone who genuinely does not understand policies for financing retirement in America (which is just about almost every American other than geeks or sophisticated money types). The forum was excellent for the civic engagement dynamics (although too loud) but it was not enlightening about economics. For example, when the American economy begins to actively shut workers out of the workforce in their 50's (this is true, ask any unemployed person in their 50's), to conclude it's a good idea to raise the retirement age to 69 looks almost cruel. Which workers should retire at age 69? In 1983 the age was extended to 67 and the payroll tax was increased in excess of what was actually needed to pay out benefits, designed to accrue a surplus specifically in preparation for the baby boomers. SS has been and currently runs a surplus because of those overpayments. The beneficial impact of age 67 has not even happened yet, because we're still in the workforce (the smaller, will cost-less post baby boom generation). So why should the age be raised another 2 yrs? As it is people start collecting significantly lower payments at 62 because the job market is so anemic--they take it even if they really wanted to go out at full retirement age. At the heart of the issue is profound misunderstandings about how Social Security works. For example, Social Security does not contribute to the deficit because it is self-funded through payroll taxes. There is confusion about that. It's worth learning more about it because the anxieties around Social Security have more to do with failures in the private pension system and the inadequacy of 401K style retirement plans. In America, secure retirement is expected to be 1/3 Social Security, 1/3 private pension, 1/3 retirement savings. Two of those three are profoundly insecure. The other third is the best run (SS returns 99 cents of every dollar versus around 85 or 80 cents from managed retirement funds--they take 15 to 20% in fees for example, SS does not do that). There's more but this comment is already too long. I found this article, and this website, to be helpful: http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/
One point to remember is that increases in life expectancy over the past century have largely occurred early in life. See excerpts below from CEPR's "Social Security and the Age of Retirement" http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/social-security-and-the-age-of-retirement/ The first half of the twentieth century saw extraordinary gains in the life expectancy at birth (for men, nearly 22 years; for women, nearly 21 years). But such improvements did not translate directly into longer retirements. Life expectancy at age 65 for men increased less than five years over this time; for women, about half that amount. While life expectancy at birth rose 22 years for men, a young adult in 1969 could expect a retirement only 5.5 years longer (13.8 years) than a 20-year-old in 1919 (8.3 years.) In part, this is due to the increase in the retirement age from 65 to 66. For women, the increase in the retirement age was more meaningful, as their life expectancy increased by less than it did for men. In fact, women born in 1960 could, at age 20, expect a retirement of 17.1 years one month longer than the expected retirement of women born in 1937 despite more than two extra years of life expectancy. At first blush, one might think that increasing retirement lengths should require an increase in the normal retirement age. However, increases in life expectancy lengthened the average number of working years as well as years of retirement even when holding the retirement age at 65. The average number of years a 20-year-old man could expect to work by age 65 rose from 39.0 to 42.0 between those born in 1899 and those born in 1949.4 Raising the retirement age to 66 added another ten months to the average working life. Those born in 1999 will average 45.0 years of work before retirement age. Even under current law, the younger generations will work considerably longer than generations of workers past. For many, these additional years of work needed to reach normal retirement age will be a considerable burden. While an investment banker, economist or senator may find it a small thing to delay retirement two more years, the same cannot be said for coal miners, auto workers, and janitors. Life expectancy may increase, but that doesnt mean a firefighter ought to keep working at age 66 or 68 or beyond.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Demetrios Perdikis, philly news now. philly news now said: AmericaSpeaks: Post-Mortem: David Dyden over at FireDogLake thought it was some big right-wing conspiracy to cut e... http://bit.ly/9f0EmH [...]
It's David Dayen. And, yes, while life expectancy at birth has gone up significantly, life expectancy at 20 or at 65 has not gone up by nearly as much. More than that, increases in life expectancy were... expected... at all of the various times congress has addressed the program.
You really should get your bullshit detector re-calibrated. The source materials and questions were heavily weighted in the direction of cutting Social Security, and apparently you weren't motivated enough to actually, you know, do any actual work before you went. You might have had enough information to discern the propaganda if you weren't so distracted by your free lunch.
According to the Patriot News, some state politicians think we should sell off the state's 621 state liquor stores to get some quick cash in order to ameliorate Pennsylvania's budget crisis. Sadly, those people are Republicans. Attorney General/GOP gubernatorial nominee Tom Corbett is all for it, says his spokesman Kevin Harley:
There are a lot of variables that need to be considered before going forward with the privatization, but [Corbett] does support in general the liquidation of commonwealth assets, such as the state's liquor control system.
As for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dan Onorato? Not so much.
"The current Wine and Spirits store system generates significant revenue for the state each and every year, and it keeps liquor out of the hands of minors," said Brian Herman, an Onorato campaign spokesman.
Having been a minor in Pennsylvania myself a few years ago, that last claim (which is routinely given by state store supporters) jumps out at me. Is it true? Or even provable? The only thing the state store system seemed to do for my peers was inspire us to befriend people 21 and older.
Perhaps it's not: According to the most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 15 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds in Pennsylvania report that they've drank alcohol in the past month. (For some reason, the survey lumps 18- to 25-year-olds together, so it's impossible to measure all minors, i.e. 12- to 20-year-olds.) Compared to other states, this puts us somewhere in the middle: In Utah, the lowest amount, or 7 percent, of 12- to 17-year-olds drank in the past month; the highest was in Rhode Island, at 20 percent.
We're not the worst, but we're definitely not the best. Is being average really enough to prevent the state liquor stores from being sold?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Connor Showalter, philly news now. philly news now said: State budget crisis = good excuse to privatize liquor stores?: According to the Patriot News, some state politicia... http://bit.ly/95GyOn [...]
I should give a damn if they're Republicrats or Demoblicans? Who cares what party they are if they want to do the right thing and deep-six the ridiculously Stalinist and outdated PLCB? "Errk, I hate to be in favor of PRIVATIZING anything..." Screw political parties, they're not working for you; GO FOR RESULTS! Dan Onorato is a tool, and now he doesn't want to man up and get rid of the State Stores? Thanks, Dan O' The People!
[...] State budget crisis = good excuse to privatize liquor stores … [...]
[...] State budget crisis = good excuse to privatize liquor stores? :: The Clog :: Blog Archive :: Staff B... [...]
[...] State budget crisis = good excuse to privatize liquor stores? :: The Clog :: Blog Archive :: Staff B... [...]
 |
| Illustration: Evan M. Lopez |
Charles McPherson, City Council's chief financial officer since 1991, retired a little over a year ago wherein he got a $528,000 payment from the city's deferred retirement option plan (DROP), as well as a $113,500 annual pension.
Thing is, he only kinda retired.
He's been working for the past 14 months without a salary, with an office and everything. But that may soon change. According to the Inquirer, he's rumored to be the favorite among applicants for Council's $150,000-a-year financial consultant adviser position, which is a contracted job. If he lands it, that mean's he'll be getting $263,500 a year from the city and that says nothing of the sweet DROP payment he received upon retirement.
Some other lovely facts about McPherson:
He was integral to Council's rejection of Mayor Nutter's proposed citywide trash-collection fee and sweet-drinks tax this year. Council instead raised property taxes 9.9 percent and hiked the commercial-property trash-collection free from $150 to $300.
Ah yes, bring back the guy who's responsible for this year's stellar budget. Oh, and also, he loooooves DROP:
McPherson has been perhaps city government's most ardent advocate for DROP, which he says keeps valuable employees in government. He is adamant that he would have left his post in 2005 if DROP had not been available to him. Council members who have joined DROP drawing public outrage at their large payments have often echoed McPherson's argument that the DROP payments represent their money.
PREVIOUSLY>> The Billion Dollar Boondoggle: DROP is bleeding us dry.
 |
| Michael T. Regan |
As a 14-page memo from Budget Director Stephen J. Agostini told us last week, the city will apparently pay for not adopting Mayor Nutter's proposed soda tax and per-house trash fees: We've got a $20 million budget gap, and that will lead to, among other things, $2.5 million in cuts to libraries.
53 jobs will be lost, and libraries are "certainly not going to be [open] five days a week," Michael DiBerardinis, special adviser to the mayor for the Free Library, told the Inquirer.
Which, of course, means people are gonna protest like craaaaaaazy. From an e-mail the Clog received this morning:
EMERGENCY RALLY This Thursday, June 3, 9:15 AM, outside Room 400, City Council Chambers, 4th Floor; then we'll Rally in front of the Mayor's Office on the 2nd Floor
If the Mayor succeeds in his plan, we will have lost 2 out of 6 library days in neighborhood branches during the last 2 years!!!
The cuts also target youth violence prevention programs, homeless services and the fire department (among other important public services!)
These cuts will be effective July 1, UNLESS WE STOP THE MAYOR!!!
You can check out the Facebook event for the rally here.
PREVIOUSLY>> Message Fail
PREVIOUSLY A Question of Cost: We don't know how much is being saved by closing 11 libraries.
re: If the Mayor succeeds in his plan, we will have lost 2 out of 6 library days in neighborhood branches during the last 2 years!!! I'm glad you posted this info. Nobody seemed to notice the branchs' losing one day of operation this past winter.
 |
Update: Well this is what I get for not checking my feeds before pounding the keys:
Read more about this at It's Our Money, Philly Clout, and Heard in the Hall.
According to various sources in City Hall, including Councilmen Frank DiCicco and Jim Kenney, members of the beverage industry have offered Mayor Michael Nutter $10 million toward obesity programs in exchange for his letting go of a proposed tax on sweetened beverages.
In addition, DiCicco said an offer was brewing from members of the soda industry to provide $10 million over two years to the city for health and wellness programs. He said those funds -- which would be provided if the proposed soda tax goes away -- could also help bridge the gap.
According to the mayor's office, it's not going to work. In an email about half an hour ago, spokesman Doug Oliver told CP:
The City would not accept an offer of $10m from the beverage association. It would not provide the City with the revenue it needs over the life of the five-year plan.
What does all of this mean?
On the one hand, there's the fiscal side of things: the mayor's proposed tax of 2 cents per ounce is supposed to raise about $77 million a year, $20 million of which would go to anti-obesity efforts; although they expect only about half of that, $38.6 million, in the first year. By those calculations, the mayor's right. A one-time $10 million gift, especially if it goes entirely to anti-obesity programs, doesn't balance our budget.
BUT
Finance Director Rob Dubow told Councilman Bill Green today that none of those proceeds would go toward anti-obesity programs this year.
And sources in City Hall say the administration has been bargaining around not two cents per ounce, but three-quarters of a cent, maybe even as low as half a cent per ounce meaning the revenue could be as low as $14M or less for the first year and somewhere around 28.8 million in following years, by my calculation. With that revenue cut in half, how much, if any, will actually go to fight obesity?
Which makes this situation a little complicated: Mayor Nutter's refusal to take the $10 million could be seen as principled, yet without it or, rather, if he has to compromise his tax too much to get it passed it's not clear whether there will be any new anti-obesity funding at all.
Both the soda industry and Mayor Nutter appear to be fighting a symbolic battle, at least to some extent.
The industry likely opposes his tax and is willing to pay him $10M to kill it not so much because of what it'll do to them here, but because Mayor Nutter may be paving the way for similar taxes elsewhere (perhaps statewide taxes; perhaps a federal tax).
And it's precisely because he's paving the way, say many sources in Council, that Mayor Nutter is fighting so hard to keep this tax alive. He's staked no little reputation on being one of the first mayors to pull off such a tax.
In a marathon session, City Council moved ahead on a 9.9 percent property tax hike, a tax on smokeless tobacco and cigars, and withheld a bill that would impose the mayor's baby: the sweetened beverage tax.
It seemed earlier in the day like that tax was going to pass but Council leadership was unable, apparently, to muster the nine votes needed. The administration, however, hasn't given up on the soda tax by a long shot.
Councilman Frank DiCicco, who proposed the first property tax hike as an alternative to a flat $300 trash fee, voted "no" on the 9.9 percent hike today, favoring a 12.1 percent property tax hike that would have made up most of the difference.
Council also approved a spending bill with about $17 million in cuts, disappointing Councilman Bill Green, who has proposed more than $40 in cuts himself, mostly by not filling unfilled positions.
Right now, Council will have to find about $18 million more in revenue or in cuts.
These bills have just passed first reading they'll need to pass again next week to become law.
 |
More budget coverage on Twitter.
This morning, the regular meeting of City Council was suspended in order to hear speakers on various revenue proposals being floated by Council and the administration, including a property tax hike between 9.9 percent and 12 percent, a sugar-sweetened beverage tax (between, apparently, half a cent and two cents), and a tax on smokeless tobacco products and cigars.
The plan seems to be this:
After this hearing, Council leadership will meet with the administration and try to hammer out a deal. Council needs nine votes to pass it, but the final votes on this stuff aren't usually quite that close: leadership would like to get 11.
Assuming it happens, Council will reconvene its regular meeting, amend the bills that constitute the mayor's initial budget proposal, and allow the revised budget a first reading and initial vote which will let them vote it in finally next week.
So what's the deal going to be? Not totally clear yet. A new proposal of a 12 percent increase to the property tax seems to be gaining some traction. It would close most of the current budget gap and likely obviate the need for other taxes. Councilman Frank DiCicco, about an hour ago, seemed to voice support for it, saying:
"We're going to take a political hit no matter what we do ... I say take the 12.10 [property tax hike] and not worry about the other taxes because we can't get the nine votes anyway."
However, it seems to be up in the air still whether Mayor Nutter is willing to drop his sugary beverage tax or not he's staked some political capital on it, and has received national attention for the proposal.
 |
An occasional, inconsistent, and improbable series on this year's budget.
The Coalition for Essential Services a coalition of labor, service, and community groups dedicated to getting a "fair budget" passed by Council meaning, in their case, preserving city services and jobs rallied outside City Hall this morning to get Council's attention focused on what they consider the fairest way to balance the city's budget: raising (or "rolling back" to mid-nineties levels) the "gross receipts" portion of the business privilege tax.
This comes as Mayor Nutter's proposed trash fee appears all but dead, and the sugary beverages tax isn't doing much better. Councilman Frank DiCicco has withdrawn his own alternative, a proposed 12% property tax hike, and Councilman Wilson Goode has introduced a two-year 9% property tax hike instead, apparently backed by democratic Council leadership, to balance the budget.
But Council is just starting to hold its neighborhood community budget hearings, and they're already being told exactly what they were told last year: "don't raise our property taxes."
Is it just me, or is it strange that we spend about half a year waiting for Council to make up its mind on given budget?
Anyway: back to the gross-receipts thing.
The idea is this: the gross receipts tax is a tax on net sales rather than revenue/income.
Because large companies can easily hide or move their income, the reasoning goes, the gross receipts tax is the only way to tax the operations of major, national retailers in the area.
One of the strongest arguments against raising this tax is that, because it taxes sales regardless of income, it can tax a business that isn't turning a profit. To answer this challenge, the Coalition is proposing that all businesses with receipts under $500,000 be exempted.
It's an interesting idea, and the exemption is clever - I don't think anyone wants to hurt small businesses right now, but getting a better cut from Coca Cola, etc. it could gain steam.
Council members Bill Green and Maria Quinones-Sanchez have so far been the most interested in potentially revising the gross receipts tax.
Anybody out there want to weigh in on this one? Got a better idea to balance the budget? (And if you're going to say, "cut city jobs," that's fine, but no getting off easy: which department anyone want to take up the line-item challenge?).
Thanks Isaiah! 40% of big businesses taxed by the GRT (over $500,000 in Receipts and therefore not exempted under our plan) aren't even based in Philadelphia. They rely on our city services to create markets and access for their products. They aren't going to stop selling their products in our city, and they don't provide any jobs for Philadelphia, so taxing them is win-win for us. Zachary H Coalition for Essential Services PhillyCES.org
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by philly news now. philly news now said: Budget fuss: Coalition urges use of gross receipts tax to balance budget: An occasional, inconsistent, and impr... http://bit.ly/cW0tkT [...]
How about thinking outside the box and limiting the proposed "gross receipts" tax to one full business week of the year.
 |
| Does he dream of BRT data sheep? |
A new and likely-doomed blog series, in which I fuss about the city budget. Oh yeah.
What, exactly does Budget Director Stephen Agostini do? The budget, of course as evidenced by the hours and hours he spends sitting in on Council's budget hearings, ever-ready with reams of numbers and answers to obscure fiscal questions.
But what else does he do, eh?
The answer, apparently, is: a lot.
A recent visit to Mr. Agostini's office confirms that the man is not only in charge of the budget, but also of overseeing stimulus spending and, the great glorious crown of municipal drudgery: fixing the lousy Board of Revision of Taxes data.
Quietly, and even amid the budget hearings, Agostini is leading a small group of people who meet every week, for "about 4 or 5 hours" to discuss the latest in efforts to repair what appears to be a city-wide data crisis.
According to Agostini, the problem has grown far beyond the BRT, since various city departments among them Water Revenue, Streets, Revenue, Records, L&I, and the Water Department have been relying on (bad) BRT figures, thereby creating even more sets of useless data. (As one source deep in the bureaucracy put it, "It's so bad.")
He estimates it'll take a year to 18 months to get it all fixed.
Why has such a task fallen on a man ostensibly busy with the budget?
"Why this fell to me is because I started working on it a year ago," he told me, shrugging.
You have an answer for everything. Go Citypaper go.
Dear Kenneth, Mr. Agostini was given the opportunity to provide his own photo for this blog post, and advised that I'd have to scour the internet otherwise. When Mr. Agostini replied very politely, I might add - that I should go ahead and dig one up, I Google-Imaged the man and found this photo, which is, after all, his public Facebook profile. All that being said, I think it's a rather charming shot, don't you? Isaiah
you used his facebook photo?
- ActiVman
- adventures
- Arts
- Ask A Man-About-Town
- Award Tour
- Awards
- Bad Idea Factory
- Beer
- Below the Curve
- Bikes
- Booze
- Brian Hickey
- BRT
- Budget
- Budget Fuss
- Business
- Casinos
- City Council
- City Hall
- CouncilMANIC
- CP Abroad
- CP in the Community
- Criminal Justice System
- Day Tripper
- Death and Taxes
- Delaware River
- Design
- DROP
- Drugs
- Dubious Distinction
- Elections
- End of Days
- Environment
- Fashion
- Film Fest
- Financial Meltdown
- FrackTrack
- Free Library
- Gambling
- Gay Stuff
- Get Lit
- Greenstorming
- guns
- Hall Monitor
- Health
- Health Care
- Hello, Kitty
- Holidays
- Ice Cubes
- Iggles
- Immigration
- In Memoriam
- Labor
- Lawsuits
- Letters
- LGBTQ
- Maps
- Marcellus Shale
- Media
- MMA
- Mummers
- Music
- MUST READ
- Mysterious Mysteries
- Nation
- News
- Non Sequitur
- Opinion
- PA politics 2010
- Parking Wars
- Parks and Recreation
- People Send Us This Stuff
- Philadelphia Police
- Philadelphia Union
- Philaphemera
- Philly From Scratch
- philly madness
- Photos
- Poverty
- PPA
- President Obama
- Print Edition
- Prisons
- Protest
- Readers Write
- Real Estate
- Rock Bottom
- Schools
- Science
- Screwing Philly
- SEPTA
- snow
- So Lush
- Soccer
- Sporting Life
- Sports Complex
- State Politicians
- State Politics
- Street Art
- Strike
- Stuff We Like
- Taxes
- Taxi Drivers
- Tech Fetish
- television
- The Budget Crisis
- The City Paper
- The CLOG
- The Human Condition
- The Mayor
- The Phightin Phils
- The World
- Things that make you go hm
- Tinfoil Hats Off
- Under the Table
- Under the Tables
- Urban Development
- Urban Planning
- urban wildlife
- Video Poker
- We Call Shenanigans
- Weather
- Web Junk
- Weekend Omnibus
- White House
- What We've Found
- Women's Issues
- Flyered Up!
- How 'Bout That Weather?
- it's always sunny in philadelphia
- Stu!
- Shopping
- get out
- 10-track mind
- ArtsFlash
- Bloggity
- Bruce Being Bruce
- Colleges
- Comedy
- Gigantic Surprises
- Hello Canary
- Hello Puppy
- errata
- get lost
- Inside The Fishbowl
- Library Closings
- Local Support
- Movies
- Murder
- Night Moves
- Recycling
- radio
- Scientology
- Sex
- Sixers
- Skeeze Police
- State Politicians Screwing Philly
- That's a cool stencil!
- Theater
- Things We See
- This Week
- This Week in Oates
- University City
- WIN
- What we don't heart
- trailer!
- what we heart
- Feeling Guilty
- Askadelphia.
- Broke in Philly
- Contest
- Dance
- Dear Paper Doll
- Do A Good Thing
- Education
- Film Fest Schism
- G20-20 Vision
- Goodbye
- Gossip
- Great American Heroes
- PATCO
- Pearl Jam Week
- Puppy
- Stars of the Photostream
- sustainability
- Lower Merion Webcam-Gate
- The Cycle
- Equality Forum
- Bureaucrat of the Week
- Animals
- ElectionEar
- Photostream
