Corporate Tax Reform and Eliminating Wasteful Economic Subsidies

In a Progressive States Network Report last week:

Corporations should also be paying their fair share in taxes.  They benefit from state investments in education, infrastructure, and public safety, but unfortunately, corporations have repeatedly and excessively exploited the tax system.

• Corporate income tax revenue as a share of all taxes has fallen dramatically.  In 1979, the corporate income tax accounted for 10.2 percent of total state tax revenue. In 2005, the figure fell to 6.5 percent. 
• The Iowa Fiscal Partnership reported that approximately half of Iowa corporations with at least $1 million of sales in state pay no corporate income tax. 
• Similarly, the Oklahoma Tax Commission revealed that only 35 percent of corporations filing tax returns in 2000 reported positive taxable income- almost an anomaly considering the economy experienced substantial gains that year.
• The problems are similar at the federal level. A Government Accountability Office report, Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005, found almost two-thirds of all corporations reported no tax liability from 1998 to 2005.

Accordingly, there are a variety of corporate taxation policy options legislators can pursue to ensure businesses are contributing adequately to a state.

• Close Tax Loopholes:  Ending some of the egregious corporate tax loopholes that businesses abuse should be a top priority for lawmakers.  States lose billions of dollars each year as a result of these loopholes.  For instance, states should opt out of the "domestic production deduction" tax break that was passed by the federal government in 2004 and subsequently incorporated into the tax code in several states.  Currently, 25 states allow the deduction, which by 2011, will cost states $500 million annually and favors large corporations over small businesses.  States can also eliminate Net Operating Loss "Carryback" Deductions, reform the "cancellation of debt income" (CODI) provision, and reform the tax treatment of S-Corporations and Limited Liability Companies.
• Combined Reporting:  23 states have implemented combined reporting, which requires multi-state corporations to report profits from all entities, including subsidiaries, for tax purposes.  Combined reporting is a key policy to restrict tax avoidance.  The policy makes the tax system fairer, brings in greater revenue, and does not impede economic growth.  In fact, CBPP finds, "combined reporting states are well-represented among the most economically-successful states in the country."

The Film Tax Credit as Case Study of Corporate Giveaways:  Several states are dealing with ineffective expenditures, a notorious recent example being the proliferation of film tax credits.  In 2002, only three states offered incentives to the film industry.  Currently, of the 44 states that offer some type of movie production incentive, 28 provide tax credits.  The Tax Foundation provides a graphic that depicts states with incentives and the year in which they were approved.

Following an explosive scandal involving members of the Department of Economic Development and abuse of the film tax credit, Iowa Gov. Chet Culver ordered a review of credits the state provides.  In early January, Iowa released the Tax Credit Review Report that recommended the state:

• Provide greater transparency of tax credits;
• Develop an effective return on investment calculation for all tax credits;
• Establish a five-year sunset for all tax credits;
• Cap all currently uncapped tax credits;
• And eliminate certain tax credits.

Reports by many other advocacy organizations and government bodies, including the Oregon Center for Public Policy, Connecticut Voices for Children, New Mexico Fiscal Policy Project, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue and the Wisconsin Department of Commerce, indicate that offering these tax credits are ineffective and provide little to no economic benefit to a state or its residents.  The Tax Foundation writes that states are greatly overestimating the impact of providing film tax credits and basing decisions "on fanciful estimates of economic activity and tax revenue (leading to) small returns and unnecessary risks with taxpayer dollars."

Other states have taken tangible steps to address these problems:

• Connecticut:  Gov. M. Jodi Rell estimated that a $25 million cap for film tax credits would save the state $70 million in the next two years.
• Massachusetts:  Rep. Steven D'Amico introduced legislation, HB 3854, to limit state spending on incentives for the film industry.
• Michigan:  Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm proposed reducing the 42% refundable tax credit to approximately 37%.
• Wisconsin:  Gov. Jim Doyle offered a plan to completely eliminate the state's 25% film tax credit and replace it with a two-year, $1 million grant program to create permanent film industry jobs
• New Mexico:  Rep. Dennis Kintigh has sponsored HB52 to limit the state's spending on film tax credits.

Discontinue Excessive Corporate Subsidies:  Even as states confront massive gaps, many are still doling out huge subsidies to corporations.  Many times, these subsidies do not produce long-term growth and may even result in lost revenue.  In North Carolina, for instance, a Dell plant closed just a few years after it received a promise of up to $300 million in grants, an amount more than twice the cost of building the plant.  As Good Jobs First explains, states waste money competing for firms to locate within their borders by providing extremely costly and ineffective incentives, rather than on fostering entrepreneurship and new jobs.  The report details:

[T]ax reductions, exemptions or credits exert a very small marginal influence on corporate investment decisions... For the vast majority of companies, tax breaks are windfalls, not determinants, and are therefore wasted.

As government officials look to eliminate wasteful spending, they should also rethink allocating enormous and often inefficient business tax breaks as a better option than cutting programs for their most vulnerable residents.  The public money squandered through tax credits and corporate subsidies demonstrates that blind giveaways are not a sustainable model for economic growth and a more transparent budget process is needed in the future.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Governor of Ohio, Corporations will pay their fare share of taxes.

Dennis Spisak-Green Party Candidate for Governor

Http://www.votespisak.org/governor/

for more info: contact 330-503-1407

 

Corporate Tax Reform and Eliminating Wasteful Economic Subsidies

In a Progressive States Network Report last week:

Corporations should also be paying their fair share in taxes.  They benefit from state investments in education, infrastructure, and public safety, but unfortunately, corporations have repeatedly and excessively exploited the tax system.

• Corporate income tax revenue as a share of all taxes has fallen dramatically.  In 1979, the corporate income tax accounted for 10.2 percent of total state tax revenue. In 2005, the figure fell to 6.5 percent. 
• The Iowa Fiscal Partnership reported that approximately half of Iowa corporations with at least $1 million of sales in state pay no corporate income tax. 
• Similarly, the Oklahoma Tax Commission revealed that only 35 percent of corporations filing tax returns in 2000 reported positive taxable income- almost an anomaly considering the economy experienced substantial gains that year.
• The problems are similar at the federal level. A Government Accountability Office report, Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005, found almost two-thirds of all corporations reported no tax liability from 1998 to 2005.

Accordingly, there are a variety of corporate taxation policy options legislators can pursue to ensure businesses are contributing adequately to a state.

• Close Tax Loopholes:  Ending some of the egregious corporate tax loopholes that businesses abuse should be a top priority for lawmakers.  States lose billions of dollars each year as a result of these loopholes.  For instance, states should opt out of the "domestic production deduction" tax break that was passed by the federal government in 2004 and subsequently incorporated into the tax code in several states.  Currently, 25 states allow the deduction, which by 2011, will cost states $500 million annually and favors large corporations over small businesses.  States can also eliminate Net Operating Loss "Carryback" Deductions, reform the "cancellation of debt income" (CODI) provision, and reform the tax treatment of S-Corporations and Limited Liability Companies.
• Combined Reporting:  23 states have implemented combined reporting, which requires multi-state corporations to report profits from all entities, including subsidiaries, for tax purposes.  Combined reporting is a key policy to restrict tax avoidance.  The policy makes the tax system fairer, brings in greater revenue, and does not impede economic growth.  In fact, CBPP finds, "combined reporting states are well-represented among the most economically-successful states in the country."

The Film Tax Credit as Case Study of Corporate Giveaways:  Several states are dealing with ineffective expenditures, a notorious recent example being the proliferation of film tax credits.  In 2002, only three states offered incentives to the film industry.  Currently, of the 44 states that offer some type of movie production incentive, 28 provide tax credits.  The Tax Foundation provides a graphic that depicts states with incentives and the year in which they were approved.

Following an explosive scandal involving members of the Department of Economic Development and abuse of the film tax credit, Iowa Gov. Chet Culver ordered a review of credits the state provides.  In early January, Iowa released the Tax Credit Review Report that recommended the state:

• Provide greater transparency of tax credits;
• Develop an effective return on investment calculation for all tax credits;
• Establish a five-year sunset for all tax credits;
• Cap all currently uncapped tax credits;
• And eliminate certain tax credits.

Reports by many other advocacy organizations and government bodies, including the Oregon Center for Public Policy, Connecticut Voices for Children, New Mexico Fiscal Policy Project, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue and the Wisconsin Department of Commerce, indicate that offering these tax credits are ineffective and provide little to no economic benefit to a state or its residents.  The Tax Foundation writes that states are greatly overestimating the impact of providing film tax credits and basing decisions "on fanciful estimates of economic activity and tax revenue (leading to) small returns and unnecessary risks with taxpayer dollars."

Other states have taken tangible steps to address these problems:

• Connecticut:  Gov. M. Jodi Rell estimated that a $25 million cap for film tax credits would save the state $70 million in the next two years.
• Massachusetts:  Rep. Steven D'Amico introduced legislation, HB 3854, to limit state spending on incentives for the film industry.
• Michigan:  Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm proposed reducing the 42% refundable tax credit to approximately 37%.
• Wisconsin:  Gov. Jim Doyle offered a plan to completely eliminate the state's 25% film tax credit and replace it with a two-year, $1 million grant program to create permanent film industry jobs
• New Mexico:  Rep. Dennis Kintigh has sponsored HB52 to limit the state's spending on film tax credits.

Discontinue Excessive Corporate Subsidies:  Even as states confront massive gaps, many are still doling out huge subsidies to corporations.  Many times, these subsidies do not produce long-term growth and may even result in lost revenue.  In North Carolina, for instance, a Dell plant closed just a few years after it received a promise of up to $300 million in grants, an amount more than twice the cost of building the plant.  As Good Jobs First explains, states waste money competing for firms to locate within their borders by providing extremely costly and ineffective incentives, rather than on fostering entrepreneurship and new jobs.  The report details:

[T]ax reductions, exemptions or credits exert a very small marginal influence on corporate investment decisions... For the vast majority of companies, tax breaks are windfalls, not determinants, and are therefore wasted.

As government officials look to eliminate wasteful spending, they should also rethink allocating enormous and often inefficient business tax breaks as a better option than cutting programs for their most vulnerable residents.  The public money squandered through tax credits and corporate subsidies demonstrates that blind giveaways are not a sustainable model for economic growth and a more transparent budget process is needed in the future.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Governor of Ohio, Corporations will pay their fare share of taxes.

Dennis Spisak-Green Party Candidate for Governor

Http://www.votespisak.org/governor/

for more info: contact 330-503-1407

 

New Revenue is Needed to Invest in Economic Recovery

In a Progressive States Network report last week:

 As 48 states confront monetary shortfalls this fiscal year, the budget will undoubtedly be the predominant focus of lawmakers.  In fact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimates that states will face cumulative deficits of approximately $350 billion in 2010 and 2011.  The downturn has also taken an enormous toll on tax revenue.  Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody's Economy.com, reports that state and local tax revenues have dropped 9 percent from last year, "the largest decline on record going back to just after World War II."  

During an economic downturn, progressive revenue generation is far preferable to deep cuts, as it allows states to provide funding for essential programs, pump money into the economy, and protect working families in this time of hardship.  A budget that relies too heavily on cuts will not only force layoffs of state employees, but will also cut off funding in the state for crucial services, thereby reducing spending pumping dollars in the private sector. 

Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Nobel prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz confirm:

[T]ax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run.  Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families.

As a recent report by the Economic Opportunity Institute denotes, "every dollar of state spending generates $1.41 of economic activity.  Much of that spending - 62%, or 88 cents - boosts the private sector.  Cutting state spending means fewer purchases from suppliers, reduced contracts with service providers, less money from public and private employee paychecks circulating through local businesses - and of course, fewer public services."

Also, spending on programs that assist low and middle-income families is smart economic policy.  By assisting working families, who will more readily spend their funds on basic necessities, the government is boosting short-run demand and fostering market activity.  For instance, Zandi finds that increasing food stamps spending creates $1.73 in demand for each dollar spent by the federal government. 

• 28 states instituted cuts that will limit low-income children's access to health care
• 24 states have slashed services for the elderly and disabled
• 36 states have reduced funding for higher education
• 42 states implemented cuts that affect state employees, including 26 that have hiring freezes, 14 that have announced layoffs and 26 that have decreased wages

If new revenues are not generated, further cuts will continue a cycle of job layoffs by states, lower spending on crucial programs, diminished economic growth, and deep budget cuts.  The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) provides the following chart illustrating the danger of state budget cuts as they ripple through the economy; teachers, nurses and police are laid off, state funds supporting private sector activity are reduced, and individuals receiving state support stop spending in their local communities.

Working and Middle Class Families Have the Highest Tax Burdens On Average:  A common misconception about state and local taxes is the idea that the wealthy have incredibly high tax burdens.  The reality is the richest taxpayers have not been contributing their fair share for years.  When you factor in sales and excise, property, and income taxes, states tax working families far more heavily than richer individuals, according to Who Pays?, a report from ITEP.  As the graph below highlights, the lowest 20 percent of earners pay about 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes while the top 1 percent pay a little over 6 percent of their income to state and local governments.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We need to raise revenues in ohio to avoid loss of services. Somebody tell

Ted Strickland that. He cuts programs as bad as a Republican!

Dennis Spisak-Green Party candidate for Governor

Http://www.votespisak.org/governor/

for more info call 330-503-1407

 

Debunking Myths that Taxes Undermine Economic Growth
The Progressives States Network last week reported:

One reason states are readily raising revenue as an alternative to more cuts is that they can turn to a wealth of examples to debunk the rhetoric that raising taxes to fund services in a state is harmful to the economy. 

Taxes Do Not Undermine State Economic Growth:  As we've highlighted in previous Dispatches, research consistently show that, contrary to right-wing rhetoric, there is no link between tax increases and job loss.

• States with higher personal income tax rates experienced significant job growth in the past decade, as the Fiscal Policy Institute and Center for Working Families point out in their report, Back on Track and as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found in a similar report.
• Moreover, according to a 2008 Information Technology & Innovation Foundation analysis, states with some of the higher marginal income tax rates, including New York and Maryland, have more innovative new economy industries.  Likely as a result of larger investments in infrastructure, education, and technology, these states are better suited to foster economic growth that is sustainable and well-paying in an increasingly fierce global competition for jobs.
• This builds on analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) detailing that states the collect the highest percentage of personal income in taxes actually sustain higher income growth.
• Similarly, an older study by the California Budget Project (CBP) analyzed state economies and concludes, "[s]tates that enacted large tax cuts between 1994 and 2001 - reducing revenue by at least 7 percent - subsequently experienced weaker growth in jobs and personal income and larger increases in the unemployment rate, on average, than other states."

Progressive Taxes Don't Cause Out-Migration of Wealthy Residents:  Opponents of progressive income tax reform like to argue that tax increases cause wealthy residents to leave a state.  In fact, states that have increased the top rate in recent years have not experienced any significant out-migration of wealthy residents:

• California:  The California Budget Project found that there was a significant growth in millionaire households after California passed higher PIT rates in the 1990s and again in 2004.  In fact, the number of California millionaires increased by 37.8 percent between 2004 and 2006.
• New Jersey:  A Princeton University report discovered that the passage of a higher top rate in 2002 had "little effect on migration patterns among half-millionaire households."
• New York:  After the state temporarily raised income taxes on the wealthy from 2003 to 2005, the number of high income tax returns grew 30 percent, from 250,000 to 325,000.

A New York Times article, entitled "Taxes Not Seen as Making the Rich Flee New York" succinctly articulates:

[T]here is surprisingly little evidence to support the proposition that rich New Yorkers would bolt if forced to pay higher income taxes.  Though tracking the movement of wealthy taxpayers from state to state is difficult, experts on public finance and migration say they have yet to document a substantial 'rich drain' in states that have raised income taxes in recent years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't believe everything John Kasich tells you about tax cuts. They don't work!

Dennis Spisak -Green Party candidate for Governor

Http://www.votespisak.org/governor/

for more info: call 330-503-1407

 

Public Support for Progressive Taxation & The Failure of the Anti-Tax Movement
This week the Progressive States Network reported that by approving Measures 66 and 67 this week, Oregonians not only expressed their desire to protect services, but became the latest state to reject the hollow manipulations of right-wing anti-tax rhetoric. 

• Just last November, voters in Maine and Washington rejected anti-tax initiatives , including so-called "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" (TABOR) initiatives meant to impose a rigid strait jacket on revenue options for state legislatures.
• In 2008, similar measures were defeated overwhelmingly in Massachusetts, North Dakota and Oregon.  In all three states, proposed initiatives that would have slashed or, in the case of Massachusetts, completely eliminated the income tax, were rejected at the polls.
• In 2006, voters in Maine, Nebraska and Oregon each rejected TABOR ballot initiatives.  This came on top of judges and other officials rejecting TABOR initiatives in Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma and Missouri due to fraud and manipulation by anti-tax campaigns.
• In 2005, voters in Colorado--the only state ever to approve a TABOR initiative--decided by initiative to significantly weaken the TABOR rules.  This followed years of declining education and health standards due to the state's as a result of the implementation of the TABOR.

State Legislatures Reject Anti-Tax Rhetoric as Well:  The string of failures of the anti-tax movement at the ballot box is paralleled by state legislatures passing revenue increases across the country.  In 2009 alone, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin instituted either a permanent or temporary reform of personal income taxes.  Another 11 states considered or enacted business tax increases to help deal with budget deficits and even more states raised other taxes or fees to address the fiscal crisis in state across the country.

The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC) notes that out of the 28 attempts by the right-wing to introduce TABOR legislatively, Colorado is the only state that has adopted this disastrous policy.  State lawmakers have watched as Colorado's experience with TABOR has led to an increase in the number of adults and children without health insurance and a severe decline in education funding.

Empty Threats by the Anti-Tax Right:  While right-wing leaders like Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform like to make threats of punishing legislators who raise taxes, anti-tax forces have largely revealed themselves to be weak paper tigers.  After New Jersey increased taxes on the wealthy in 2004, the Democratic House majority increased to its largest size in three decades the following year, while progressives in Maryland and Minnesota continued to maintain and grow strong legislative majorities in the wake of approving increased taxes on high-income earners in 2008 and 2007.

In 2009, BISC found that "[t]he Grover Norquist, Club for Growth, Glenn Beck, Tea Party crowd tried to use the bleak budget picture as an opportunity to ratchet down even harder as states look to find the revenue necessary to protect priorities, create jobs, and get their economies going-- but voters rejected that failed approach."

Even many conservative politicians have rejected these type of policies.  For instance, Tom Slade, the former head of the Florida Republican party, dismisses Norquist's ideas and finds his anti-tax pledge to be illogical and dangerous.  Slade states, "[y]ou don't know how wide or deep the river's going to get.  Saying I'm never going to use a life boat seemed foolish to me."  After a Republican State Senator from Virginia, Robert Hurt, voted for a $1.4 billion tax increase, Norquist vowed to back a primary challenge against him.  Despite this, the Senator won re-election and is now favored to win the party's nomination for Congress.

Public Opinion Supports Funding Public Investments:  Polling shows that 79% of the public believes "[g]overnment investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America's long-term economic growth."  Accordingly, during an economic downturn when so many working families are struggling, voters are likely to support policies to raise revenue, strengthen public programs, and provide safeguards to those who have been hurt by the recession.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the Green Party candidate for Governor, I say Ohio must return to a progressive tax structure to balance our state budget.

Dennis Spisak-Green Party of Ohio candidate for Governor

Http://www.votespisak.org/governor/

for more info: contact 330-503-1407

 

Why Green Power Jobs Are Important For Ohio

The green-collar jobs movement just got another major boost: a groundbreaking new report underscores how the growing green economy can provide high quality jobs for those who need them most. The author, Professor Raquel Rivera Pinderhughes of San Francisco State University, is a leading national expert on green-collar jobs. This report deepens our understanding of how to harness green business growth to build pathways out of poverty. Prof. Pinderhughes' research provides us with critical guidance as we develop the Oakland Green Jobs Corps, the nation's first attempt to carry out the model that Professor Pinderhughes describes in her report. Professor Pinderhughes is a key partner in our Green-Collar Jobs Campaign. She is on the steering committee of the Oakland Apollo Alliance, and is a senior advisor to the Ella Baker Center and Green For All. Some highlights: Green businesses need workers, offer training, and pay well.  Of the Berkeley green businesses surveyed by Professor Pinderhughes: 86 percent hire workers without previous direct experience or training for green-collar jobs. 94 percent provide on-the-job training for workers in entry level positions. 90 percent pay the full cost of insuring their workers. 73 percent of businesses stated that there was a shortage of qualified green-collar workers for their sector, with the greatest needs in energy, green building, mechanics and bike repair. The average hourly wage for green-collar work in Berkeley is $15.80 plus benefits. This is $4.00 higher an hour than Berkeley's current minimum "living wage," which is the highest in the nation. Workers with barriers to employment want green-collar jobs.  Analysis of men and women in Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco with barriers to employment revealed that: 89 percent wanted to learn more about green-collar jobs. 61 percent expressed interest in being contacted in the future so they could receive training to work in a green-collar job. Prof. Pinderhughes summarizes the report: Poverty, unemployment and racial inequality are significant problems in the United States, and there is an urgent need for a new source of living wage jobs for low income residents with barriers to employment. Where can these jobs come from? This research project shows that an important part of the answer is the deliberate cultivation of "green-collar" jobs.

Dennis Spisak-Green Party Candidate for Ohio Governor

Http://www.votespisak.org/governor/

for more info: contact 330-503-1407

Ohio Needs SPAN, Ted Strickland Needs $10,000 From Medical Mutual

Ohio Needs SPAN

There are now well over 45 million American citizens with no health insurance. The majority of these are employed adults—many at several part time jobs. With Ohio spending $70 billion a year on health care, which includes $11 billion on administrative costs, there is a way to cost-shift and cover everyone in Ohio with no co-pays and no-deductibles. This means that payment would be received for every person medically served. A single-payer plan that maintains our private doctors, hospitals, and health care providers is a solution to our current health care crisis.

This is a fundamental test of our democracy: government should be accountable on the leading issue of our time (right up there with the export of jobs). The Health Care For All Ohioans Act, which would bring universal/single-payer health care to Ohio would be funded in a way that would cost most people less what they’re paying now, would cost good companies with benefits less than what they pay now, make the Wal-Marts pay their fair share, and would protect displaced insurance and provider personnel. Find out more at: www.SPANOhio.org (SPAN – Single-Payer Action Network). Sign the petition, legislators, and help put Ohio on the cutting edge of health care reform. Help save America!

While Ohio Needs SPAN, Ted Strickland takes $10,000 in Corporate Donations from Medical Mutual, to make sure SPAN does never exists in Ohio.

It's time Ohio elects a Green Party candidate for Governor who SUPPORTS
SPAN!

Dennis Spisak-Green Party Candidate for Governor

Http://www.votespisak.org/governor/

for more info: contact 330-503-1407

Why Not Ohio? Other States Moving Forward on Health Care
The Progressive States Network last week reported other state leaders are moving forward, laying the groundwork for how national changes should be implemented, and creating the momentum for other meaningful health care reforms in their states.

Public Options and Universal Coverage:  In Iowa, SB 2092 would establish the Iowa Choice Exchange -- a form of the public option -- to serve as an information clearinghouse where businesses and consumers could compare health insurance policies.  This would be combined with IowaCare Plus, which would subsidize health care for working families fully up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) with help up to 400 percent of FPL for buying more restricted health insurance.  Sen. Jack Hatch (Des Moines) emphasized the reality that "We cannot do this without a fair and appropriate partnership with the federal government."

Connecticut, building on the enactment of their comprehensive health care reform plan SustiNet in July 2009, will be moving forward to phase it in by 2016.  By 2014, it is estimated that 98 percent of Connecticut residents will be insured with a comprehensive benefits package.  Sustinet will give every patient a medical home, ratings will not be based on age, gender or health status, and coverage will be guaranteed for chronic or pre-existing conditions.  Other new coverage and insurance reforms include:

• Vermont's HB 510 would establish "Green Mountain Care," creating a public health coverage option with sliding scale premiums and cost sharing.
• Missouri's Universal Health Assurance Program (HB 1641), which would provide for a publicly financed, statewide insurance program, was introduced on January 13th.  If passed, the program would provide timely access to health services for all residents, adequate funding for health care, and lower health care spending through streamlined administration and uniform payments.
• California's Universal Health Care Act (S.810) -- approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee this week - would enact a single-payer health care system for the state and create a commission to decide how to pay for the plan and then submit the funding plan to voters through a ballot initiative.
• Maine's LD 1620 would eliminate annual and lifetime benefit caps from private insurance policies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not Ohio? Why does Ted Strickland not push the Health Care for all Ohioans Act? Is it because he took a $10,000 campaign Contribution from Medical Mutual? I think so.

Dennis Spisak for Governor-Ohio Green Party

Http://www.votespisak.org/governor/

for more info contact 330-503-1407.

 

Public Transportation Can Create More Jobs

According to a report released last week by Green Options:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A study by Smart Growth America found that every billion dollars spent on public transportation projects created over 16,000 months of employment, almost twice as much work as those created by simple highway expansion and renewal projects.

 

• found that a billion dollars spent on fixing or expanding highways created an average of 8,781 months of job. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act spent over $27 billion on “shovel ready” highway projects, many of which that have yet to get underway. Of the $15 billion thus far spent on highway projects, approximately 138,831 full time job-months have been created, or sustained. These projects are as simple as repaving roads to updating our sorely dated bridges and rural roads. There is no doubt that the money spent here was sorely needed as America’s highway system gets more crowded and out outdated.

But the study found that public transportation projects employ almost twice as many people for the common sense reasoning that public transportation requires employees to operate buses, trains, subways, and other infrastructure. The stimulus invested just $8.4 billion in public transit projects, (and another $9.3 billion in high-speed train projects and expanding passenger train capacities, which wasn’t counted in the study.) Public transportation definitely got the shaft. The SGA study figures that of the $4.4 billion spent on those public transportation projects, 72,328 full time job-months have been created or sustained.

If the study is accurate, the government created 368,935 months of employment. If the numbers were reversed, and $27 billion was spent on public transit, and just $8 billion spent on highways, the government could have created 515,235 months of employment, or 40% more jobs spending the same amount of money.

What’s more, other studies have suggested you can save over $9,000 a year by using public transportation as opposed to driving a car. The House of Representatives also recently passed a $154 billion “mini-stimulus” for Main Street that includes another $27 billion for highways and just $8.4 for public transportation. If you’re keeping tally at home, that is $17 billion for public transportation ($26 billion if you count money towards trains) and over $52 billion for highway projects.

Again, common sense dictates that, while our highways definitely need fixing and improving, the best way to knock down unemployment is to permanently employ people, save them money on transportation, and reduce our dependency on cars. Public transportation also requires less land to acquire, more vehicles to purchase, more people to run and maintain those vehicles, and reduces congestion on roads.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's time Ohio has a Governor who will put public transportation at the top of his agenda for all cities in Ohio to help put people back to work.

Dennis Spisak-Green Party Candidate for Governor

Http://www.votespisak.org/governor/

for more info contact 330-503-1407

Why Not Ohio? Samsung Signs $6.6 Billion Solar and Wind Power Deal with Ontario, Canada

Green Party candidate for Ohio Governor Dennis Spisak cites a recent Green Options report which states the Ontario will be giving the green light to receive 16,000 jobs thanks to their energy legistlation which is allowing a 6.6 billion dollar wind and solar power deal to fall their way:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 In one of the biggest renewable energy deals in the history of the world, a Korean consortium led by Samsung has agreed to build 2,500 megawatts of wind and solar power capacity in the Canadian province of Ontario.