Family Care & Tax Breaks for Wealthy

Something I've been saying lately is that politics is about choices and how they show the person's priorities.

Latest case in example:

The Legislature froze funding for Family Care, allocating just $5 million for individuals in urgent need of long-term care.  This will serve only an additional 400 persons-even though the waiting list is over 9,000 for Family Care and IRIS.  This freeze is particularly foolish in light of the fact that it costs an average of $2,800 per month for Family Care while the average cost in a nursing home can cost $4,000!  More details on the need for, and benefits of, Family care in a report by the Survival Coalition of Wisconsin Disability Organizations, Keeping the Promise: Lifting the Cap on Long-Term Care in Wisconsin.

"Wisconsin is broke" insists the Governor and others in justifying budget cuts and other funding freezes.  In fact, when Wisconsin unexpectedly received a revised estimate of an additional $600 million (over three years) in revenues, the insistence was that the new revenue be used to pay off debt, such as restoring over $200 million to a medical malpractice fund that was illegally raided in 2007, as well as paying back Minnesota over $50 million.

Fine, fine, fine, we're broke.

Why, then, does AB 85 propose to give over $213 million during the 2011-2013 budget cycle to the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers?  AB 85 would restore tax breaks on capital gains such as investment income, sale of expensive assets like art, etc.  Homes are not included unless the profit is over $500,000 (that is, not the sale price, but the profit).

Now, let's go back to people in need of long-term care.  We're talking about people (including children) with severe disabilities, the elderly, etc. who need assistance with daily life-physical, mental, or medical.    If $5 million could fund 400 people, $10 million could fund 800, $100 million could fund 8,000, which a major chunk of the waiting list of 9,000. 

Based on simulations using the 2008 Individual Income Tax Model, the bill will reduce revenue by $118 million in fiscal year 2012, $113 million in fiscal year 2013, and $127 million annually beginning in fiscal year 2014.

Why, by not passing this tax break, we could serve most people who are on the waiting list to receive much-needed care!

You know what the insulting part is?  The Institute for Wisconsin's Future estimates that the average extra income for the super-wealthy would be just $5,400, and for middle-class households, it would be just $88. 

Are we really going to tell the parents of a child with severe disabilities that the child can't get the care that is needed just so some guy who sell stocks can pocket an extra $5,400?  Sure, to me, and probably to you, that's alot of money.  But to the top 1% of taxpayers?  Chump change.

Politics is choices, and those choices show priorities.

This Is What Planning Looks Like!

Kudos to former Mayor Daley and Chicago for thinking ahead and planning for climate change.  Take a look at the Chicago Climate Action Plan. 

Wouldn't it be great of Wisconsin communities thought about this sort of stuff?  If only there was some sort of entity that could assist with this kind of planning, perhaps even a regional one?  How about it, SEWRPC? But really, steps one would take in Racine should also, more or less, work in LaCrosse, so there's no reason why the state of Wisconsin and/or the various Regional Planning Commissions can't collaborate on a planning template that communities could use.

Better Answers Needed to Transit

The Brookings Institute, a "nonprofit public policy" institution, through its Metropolitan Policy Program, has published a study of transit and jobs in metropolitan areas of America. Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America examines data from 371 transit providers in 100 metropolitan areas and found that while transit coverage is highest in western metro areas and lowest in southern metro areas, there typically is a disconnection between where the poorest residents live and where the jobs are.

It notes that as metropolitan areas grow, employment opportunities are increasingly decentralized. 

Spatial mismatch and the costs of transportation. As economies and opportunity decentralize, a “spatial mismatch” has arisen between jobs and people in metropolitan America.  In some metro areas, inner-city workers are cut off from suburban labor market opportunities. In others, low- and moderate-income suburban residents spend large shares of their incomes owning and operating cars. While owning a car improves chances of employment, a growing body of work quantifies the large combined impact of housing and transportation costs on households’ economic bottom lines.

Looking at the tables and charts, Milwaukee metro area actually compares well to its peers in terms of median frequency (under 9.2 minutes), and is #8 at share of jobs reachable in 90 minutes which is 48.6%.  Yet it is in the middle of pack regarding share of working-age residents with access to transit, or between 57.7% to 67.4% of the working-age population. Milwaukee's combined ranking of access to transit and employment ranks it at #14, edging out Madison at #15.

In Wisconsin, for example, the state’s two major metro areas, Milwaukee and Madison, rank 14th and 15th on our combined score of transit coverage and job accessibility. The average neighborhood in these metros can reach 49 and 58 percent of the metro areas’ jobs, respectively, via transit. Both metro areas rank in the top 20 nationwide for the share of their commuters using public transportation. Yet the program cuts proposed statewide are expected to lead to increased fares and the reduction or elimination of certain transit services in these places. One analysis shows that the funding reductions to the Milwaukee County system alone would make 25,000 currently served jobs “inaccessible by transit” and would be directly burdensome to low-income workers. This would be on top of the estimated 40,000 jobs made inaccessible in that metro due to transit cuts from 2001 to 2007.

Yet  Milwaukee County Transit System's ridership is at a 35-year low, plunging 9% just in 2010.  Other suburban transit options also saw higher declines in their riderships.  Clearly, despite the metro area's relatively better transit coverage, it is not seeing the same increases that other metro areas are seeing. This is quite a change from the 1990's, when Milwaukee saw a 21.8% increase 1995-1999. Clearly MCTS has to make some changes to reverse this decline. 

Back to the Brookings study, it discusses two strategies for a better approach to transportation systems linking people to jobs.  Both approaches, unfortunately, requires a regional collaboration that has been lacking for a long time.  Until communities start working together, the Milwaukee metro area will continue to decline in ensuring its residents have access to jobs, and without that, there will continue to be a poverty problem.

Local Control & Ordinances

So glad to see that the sanctity of local control continues to be a priority. 

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

This bill prohibits a city, village, town, or county from enacting an ordinance that does any of the following with respect to a residential landlord: 1) prohibits or limits the landlord from obtaining or using various types of information about a tenant or prospective tenant, such as household income, occupation, court records, rental history, and credit information; 2) limits how far back in time a prospective tenant’s credit information, conviction record, or previous housing may be considered by the landlord; or 3) prohibits the landlord from showing a rental property to a prospective tenant, or from entering into a rental agreement for a rental property with a prospective tenant, while the current tenant is living there.

This is squarely aimed at ordinances such as Madison's limiting the degree that landlords can discriminate against a tenant because of his/her criminal background, and prevents other communities from adopting similar ordinances.  If you read Madison's ordinance, you'll see that landlords cannot refuse to rent to someone because of a minor offense years ago such as, say, being arrested smoking pot.  But if the offenses have a substantial relationship to the tenancy due to the frequency or the nature of the crimes, if there is reasonable cause to fear for the safety of the landlord and/or tenants, as well as the property, the landlord can still refuse to lease the unit to the person.  Keep in mind the landlord can also reject a prospective tenant for other legitimate reasons such as credit history, past evictions, etc.

The City of Appleton also has a similar ordinance.  Dane County, too.

There are already some limits on employment opportunities for ex-offenders, and allowing landords to discriminate willy-nilly against tenants for crimes years ago makes it harder for people to be rehabilated, to have a second chance.  The increasing marginalization of people leaving prison makes it more likely they'll live with friends & families off-lease, creating instability in their lives, increasing the chances they'll turn once more to crime.  Is that the policy that we should be going for?  Driving people "underground" as they can't find employment or housing? 

When you consider there are racial disparities in the prison population, as well as a high number of people with mental illness, this sort of policy has other implications as well.