اینترنت

برچسب: pass

  • Republicans Race to Pass the World’s Worst Legislation to Please Trump

    Republicans Race to Pass the World’s Worst Legislation to Please Trump


    Andrew Egger of The Bulwark describes the chaotic atmosphere in which Trump’s precious Big Bad Beastly Budget Bill is being rushed to completion. Most Senators have no idea what’s in the bill. They know only that Trump wants it done by July 4. Why? Because he does. The Bulwark is the home of many Republican Never Trumpers.

    Egger writes:

    A 9 a.m. newsletter is, apparently, a poor fit for the ungodly timetables of today’s Congress. As of this writing, we don’t know whether Senate Republicans will manage to squeeze through their Frankenstein’s monster of a big beautiful bill. What we do know is that this has been one of the most ridiculous and embarrassing spectacles of “legislating” we’ve ever had the displeasure of witnessing.

    There have been three driving forces behind this bill. The first has been the “pass something or everyone’s taxes go up” pressure created by the soon-to-expire 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The second has been President Donald Trump, who took a shine to the simplicity of slamming together a bunch of things he wanted done into a single package and who has imposed an artificial deadline of July 4.¹ And the third is the Senate’s utterly dysfunctional procedures surrounding the filibuster, which make it basically impossible for majorities to pass new laws unless they get significant minority buy-in or glue them together into a “budget reconciliation” package that doesn’t need 60 votes.

    What we’re left with is a bill that’s bigger than big and anything but beautiful. Although maybe it overstates it to even say we have a bill. As the Senate barrels to a vote (we think) they’re still crafting the actual text of the legislation. There will be no hearings, no comprehensive analysis, and certainly not enough time to read the thing. Whether it will pass now depends on whether Senate leaders can find a sweetener good enough to woo one of the four remaining Republican holdouts. Would any other institution operate in this way?

    Yes, it’s common, in our sclerotic era of idiotic megabills, for such packages’ opponents to complain about “the process.” But the BBB has taken that situation to new heights.

    It’s Trump’s bill, but even he doesn’t seem to be staying up to speed on what’s in it. He keeps posting that the bill will deliver “NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR OUR SENIORS,” a provision that hasn’t been in the legislation for weeks.²

    Massive policy amendments keep getting papier-mâchéd onto the package or peeled off by the Senate parliamentarian. One particularly egregious example is a new tax on wind and solar projects that threatens to bankrupt the entire fledgling renewables sector, which suddenly appeared in the bill during this week’s marathon cram session. Not only were a number of senators taken aback by the provision, many didn’t even know how it made it into the bill.

    “I don’t know where it came from,” Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told NBC News yesterday evening.

    “It wasn’t part of any consideration,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), one of the holdouts whose consent the bill will likely need to pass. “It’s like, surprise! It’s Saturday night.”

    Surprise! We’re just gonna cripple an industry and not tell you who did it!

    Whether that provision will remain in the bill remains to be seen, as several amendments have been proposed to blunt it. My personal favorite is from Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah), who would leave the new tax in place but give the treasury secretary broad discretion to suspend it. Just what we need, more policy levers for the White House to pull to inflict or relieve pain on private companies at its discretion! What could go wrong?

    Other tentpoles of the bill have remained more or less the same. It still contains a staggering increase in federal immigration enforcement, with only a pittance of new funding for immigration courts—a congressional blessing of the White House’s agenda of arresting every migrant we can now, and figuring out how to get around the courts to deport them later. It still blows a massive new hole in federal deficits: $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years, according to a weekend Congressional Budget Office report. And it will still slash Medicaid funding by nearly $1 trillion, knocking nearly 12 million people off their insurance despite Trump’s own continual promises not to cut the program. (But hey, no tax on tips!)

    This last provision has been one of the most interesting to watch play out among Republicans online. As many have noted, the bill’s changes to Medicaid will hit many of Trump’s own supporters, who tend to be poorer and more rural, the hardest. But there’s been no grassroots groundswell against the package. Instead, many Trump supporters seem to be operating on the assumption—this is becoming a theme—that it’s other people whom the cuts will hit. Point out online that Trump’s own base stands to hurt from the provision and you’ll be swamped by a wave of MAGA derision: We see through these media lies! We know they’re only taking Medicaid away from fraudsters and illegals!

    If this monstrosity of a bill ever becomes law, it will be interesting to see the unstoppable force of this delusion meet the immovable object of people actually losing their coverage en masse. For the sake of the country, we hope we never get to see it. That would be a mess far bigger than the process of putting this bill together.



    Source link

  • Nearly all school parcel taxes pass, but mixed results for school bonds in March election

    Nearly all school parcel taxes pass, but mixed results for school bonds in March election


    The March 5 primary proved to be a good day for passing school parcel taxes, but not so good for school construction bonds.

    With fewer than 1% of votes statewide remaining to be counted, it appears likely voters in 10 of 11 districts approved parcel taxes. Although a small sample size, the 91% passage rate beats the historic 65% pass rate for primary elections, according to Michael Coleman, who publishes election results at CaliforniaCityFinance.com (see note below). The sole defeat was the Petaluma Joint Union High School District’s eight-year proposed tax at $89 per parcel.

    Voters in 24 of 40 school districts passed school facilities bonds: 60% compared with the historic 73% primary election approval rate. And the winners include two tiny school districts in Sonoma County that looked like they would be defeated on election night but picked up enough mail-in or provisional votes to eke out a win.

    It takes a 55% majority vote to pass a bond, and in Fort Ross School District, two votes made the difference for the $2.1 million bond; the 158 to 126 vote was 55.6% to 44.3%.  Supporters of the $13 million bond in the Harmony Union School District picked up 6 percentage points since election night to end with 56.3% of the vote.

    School districts can choose the March primary or November general election for a parcel tax or school bond. Most traditionally choose November, when more voters cast votes. But others gamble on the primary election, when there’s less competition, with fewer state bond issues and many initiatives competing for dollars on the ballot.

    The most recent proposal for a state school construction bond, which would have provided matching funding for local school bonds, was also on the statewide primary ballot in March 2020, and it lost — the first in decades to lose. But it coincided with the emergence of the Covid pandemic, adding an edge of anxiety for voters. It also had the misfortune of coincidentally being designated Proposition 13, which likely caused confusion among voters with the 1978 anti-tax initiative that substantially restricted property tax increases and required a two-thirds voter majority to pass new taxes, including parcel taxes. (Voters lowered that threshold for school facilities bonds to 55% with Proposition 39 in 2000.)

    The Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s aides are negotiating whether to place a school facilities bond proposal on the November ballot. With student enrollment declining statewide, most of the money would be designated for renovations and repairs, not new construction.

    Brianna Garcia, vice president of School Services of California, a school consulting company, doubted that the lower-than-average passage rate for bonds would predict the outcome in November for local and state bond proposals. Many more districts will place bonds before voters, and the passage rate will revert to the norm for November elections, which is over 80%, she said.

    While agreeing with Garcia, Eric Bonniksen, superintendent of Placerville Elementary School District in El Dorado County, cautioned that people struggling financially “are looking at every avenue to fit within their budgets, including school bonds.”  A drop in interest rates, even if not large, which economists are forecasting, “may make people feel better about the economic outlook,” he said

    Voters, Bonniksen said, want to see something visible, like remodeling a building, reconstructing a field or painting a school. “If a bond only fixes sewer and electrical lines, they will question, ‘What did you do for this money?’” he said.

    Voters passed about $3 billion worth of projects, not including interest, generally paid over 30 years at rates of $15 per $100,000 of assessed property value in Sunnyvale to $60 per $100,000 of assessed property value in Benicia, Hayward, Culver City and Desert Sands unified districts. The largest bonds approved are for $675 million in Desert Sands, $550 million in Hayward, and $358 million in Culver City.

    The largest bond that failed was for $517 million in Tamalpais Union High School District in Marin County; as of March 22, it was 1.25 percentage points shy of 55%. Opponents, led by the Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers, questioned the scale of the work and said the money would disproportionately go to Tamalpais High, with not enough to two other high schools. The district last approved a construction bond two decades ago.

    Parcel taxes

    Only about 1 in 8 school districts, primarily in the Bay Area and districts with wealthier families in the Los Angeles area, have passed one. Parcel taxes are one of the few sources of funding for districts to supplement state or local funding. Because Proposition 13 bans tax increases based on a property’s value, parcel taxes must be a uniform amount per property, regardless of whether it’s a cottage, a 10-bedroom house, or an apartment building.

    Courts have ruled, however, that parcel taxes can be assessed by the square footage, and three of the 11 on the ballot (54 cents per square foot per year in Berkeley Unified, 55 cents in Albany Unified, and 58.5 cents in Alameda) passed. School boards in high-cost Bay Area districts argue that parcel taxes are critical because state funding under the Local Control Funding Formula doesn’t take regional costs into consideration.

    The approved parcel taxes range from $75 per year for eight years in Martinez Unified to a $768 per year extension of an existing parcel tax, with an annual cost of living adjustment, in Davis Joint Unified.

    Note: Updated data indicated that parcel taxes in Manhattan Beach Unified and Petaluma City Elementary School District, along with bond proposals in Fort Ross and Harmony Union school districts picked up enough support to pass.





    Source link

  • What happens now that West Contra Costa school board failed to pass budget?

    What happens now that West Contra Costa school board failed to pass budget?


    West Contra Costa Unified’s Stege Elementary School in Richmond.

    Photo: Andrew Reed/EdSource

    Most school districts across California have already approved budgets for the upcoming school year along with a required planning document that gives a road map on how funds should be spent. It’s a routine process that by state law must happen by June 30, the end of the fiscal year.

    But what happens when a board fails to approve both by the deadline?

    After the West Contra Costa school board last month voted down the planning document, better known as the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), Contra Costa County Office of Education officials are stepping in to support the district as it works to secure approval. The board didn’t get to vote on the budget at the June 26 meeting because the LCAP must be approved first. 

    The accountability plan, which also includes district goals to improve student outcomes and how to achieve them, and the budget are linked; one cannot exist without the other. There’s $64.8 million of funding in the LCAP that can’t be used until the plan is approved by the board.

    “You have to adopt the plan first before you can adopt the budget,” said Michael Fine, chief executive officer of the state’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT).

    “The budget becomes subsidiary to the plan in that it just becomes a supporting role to the plan, it’s one of the mechanisms that facilitates getting the plan done and implemented.”

    Although the West Contra Costa Unified School District doesn’t currently have an adopted accountability plan or budget, the district is using its $484 million 2024-25 proposed budget in the interim to pay salaries and general operating costs, said Marcus Walton, director of communication at the county office of education. Previously, district officials thought they would revert to using the 2023-24 budget, but that has since changed.

    At the June 26 meeting, district officials and some board members had the same concern — that rejecting the 203-page LCAP and not voting on a budget would mean losing local control. At the time, district staff didn’t have all the answers about what would happen next because they had never dealt with this situation. One district consultant even asked the board to consider voting on the LCAP again because without one, it would put the district in an unprecedented situation.

    West Contra Costa is not losing local control.

    The county office of education isn’t taking control of the LCAP or budget, confirmed Lynn Mackey, the county superintendent of schools. Since the vote, Mackey said she’s spoken with district Superintendent Chris Hurst, and the county and district’s LCAP teams have met. But there are no plans to re-create the LCAP or budget for the district, she said. 

    This isn’t a scenario where a district would need to be taken over, Mackey said. That happens when a district goes insolvent and runs out of cash. 

    “The LCAP can be a very complex document, it’s a beast,” Mackey said. “They’re (district staff) doing a great job, and they have done a great job. We will be meeting with them and supporting them as it goes back to the district for a vote.”

    The next board meeting is set for July 17, but it’s unlikely the accountability plan will be brought back for a vote then, Mackey said. Key West Contra Costa staffers who work on the plan have been on vacation and are just starting to return. There won’t be enough time to post the LCAP before the meeting, which is a requirement, Mackey said. Neither the budget nor LCAP are currently on the agenda to be discussed or voted on at that meeting.

    What happens if the board rejects the LCAP again? 

    “Unfortunately, the California education code does not address what happens when an LCAP is not adopted by a school district,” Hurst said in his message to community members. “This is an unprecedented event in the state of California.”

    Mackey said she would need to confer with state officials for next steps.

    In a message to the community, district Superintendent Hurst said the county has advised the district to pass the accountability plan by Aug. 15, the county’s deadline to review LCAPs. After school boards pass them, the county must make sure the plans comply with the requirements, then give final approval.

    The county then has until Aug. 30 to respond to districts if they have questions or need clarifications on the documents, Mackey said.

    If the board approves the accountability plan and the budget by the Aug. 15 deadline, Mackey said, it signals to the county that major revisions aren’t necessary. However, the county still needs to impose that budget because it wasn’t passed before the June 30 deadline required in the state education code. 

    The county could bill the district for helping it get the LCAP and budget approved, Mackey said, but the county has no intention of doing that.

    What happens if the board does not pass a budget? 

    Mackey said the county would review the proposed budget, and as long as it meets all requirements, that budget would be imposed by her office. 

    It would be “foolish” for the board not to approve a budget, Fine said. “They need to approve the budget because that would give the county superintendent information, plus, then the district owns its budget. And that’s important.” 

    Passing the LCAP

    Between now and when the accountability plan will return for a vote, district officials are working to get it to a place where the board will approve it.

    The two district board members who voted down the LCAP — Leslie Reckler and Mister Phillips — said a major problem for them was the lack of transparency in the document. Board President Jamela Smith-Folds was the only “yes” vote. Otheree Christian abstained, and Demetrio Gonzalez Hoy was absent. 

    Many parents and other community members addressed the board during the June 26 meeting, asking the board to reject the LCAP and the budget, saying community input wasn’t reflected in the document. Public commenters said there was a lack of transparency in both proposals, that neither met student needs, and that they disenfranchised low-income students, English learners and students of color. Some speakers questioned whether the accountability plan complied with the law. 

    It’s rare for districts to turn in an accountability plan that fully complies with the law, Mackey said. However, when a board approves it, the county can work with districts to bring the documents into compliance. 

    Trustee Phillips said community concerns and not having a balanced budget were other reasons he voted down the LCAP. 

    “I want to be very clear: The community needs to be heard,” Phillips said. “That’s not me saying everything the community wants should be put in there, but they are supposed to be heard, and I don’t feel like that happened.”

    Some trustees have called the vote a failure of the board, but Phillips said that’s not accurate. 

    “It was an opportunity for me to put brakes on another unbalanced budget. That’s why I did what I did. But it was not a failure,” Phillips said. “It was a conscious decision, I did it on purpose.”

    District officials are projecting a $31.8 million budget deficit over the next three school years, with about $11.5 million in shortfalls projected for the upcoming school year. The plan was to use reserve funds over three school years to make up the deficit, which is a typical move, Fine said.

    West Contra Costa has been in “financial distress for quite a while,” Fine said. “They were deep in distress, and they are working their way out of that hole.”

    In an emailed statement, Reckler said the district should now “retool their presentation to the board and public and re-present it, tailoring it to specific questions” raised by board members and the District Local Control Accountability Plan Committee (DLCAP), which consists of parents and members of community organizations.

    The board can then give district staff comments and direct it to take any additional steps, Reckler said.

    Christian also said he abstained from voting on the accountability plan because the document lacked transparency and failed to include parent feedback. He said the document should plainly state how money is being spent to meet district goals and how programs are benefiting students, which hasn’t happened. 

    “Those who get paid the big bucks should be the ones to make sure this stuff is done right,” Christian said. “Let’s do it right, let’s make it right, let’s not have hidden agendas, and let’s spell it out.”

    If there are substantial changes to the LCAP, it could mean big changes to the budget. It’s too soon to know what kind of changes are being made, but Mackey said even if money needs to be shifted around, it doesn’t appear there will be major revisions.

    “It’s challenging,” Mackey said. “As much work as you do on transparency, I do feel like there’s always going to be somebody who doesn’t feel the LCAP is very transparent.”

    Even if the accountability plan meets all the state requirements, some boards want more or for staff to go “above and beyond, which is understandable,” Mackey said.

    “My hope is that they (board members) don’t hold it hostage for things that you can’t go back and fix,” Mackey said. “If they want something different in the future, set that up now so as the LCAP writers are going forward, they know exactly what is expected so this doesn’t happen again.”





    Source link