New Geography

Author: Ian Lausa

  • Illinois: When in Doubt, Jack up Taxes

    The Illinois state budget is on life support, with a $4 billion shortfall projected for this year and even more in 2010. So what’s a state to do?

    In a move that has some scratching their heads, Governor Pat Quinn has proposed an increase on the tax rate for both personal and corporate income tax.

    For a state ranked 48th in overall economic performance and 44th in economic outlook, such a tax hike seems questionable. Corporate and personal income is lagging. According to a recent study, non-farm payroll employment has only risen 3.6 percent and the growth of per capita income ranks 39th in the nation.

    The state’s private sector is largely responsible for fueling a well-funded public sector. Such a tax increase could further suffocate growth, which in turn will impact the public sector as well.

    Along with its persistent corruption, Illinois’ poor economic showing may become yet another embarrassment to an administration whose top leadership comes from the increasingly bedraggled Land of Lincoln.

  • LA Tax

    Residents in Los Angeles with home-based business received letters from the Office of Finance that said, “The following amounts are due and payable immediately: $4,363.81.”

    People who work as independent contractors and had failed to register their businesses with the city’s tax and permit division by Feb. 28 received the letters in March.

    The city calculated the number by estimating $200,000 in gross income for each business over the last three years – the annual average for city business taxes – added interest and late penalties and arrived at the $4,000-plus number.

    The letters arrived at a time when many laid-off employees are working as independent contractors themselves. To add fuel to the fire, many who received the letters might have generated income less than the total amount of the tax.

    Though the city has denied that the letters were any kind of “scare tactic,” the program stems from a 2002 push to identify unregistered businesses using records “disclosed to the city by the California Franchise Tax Board.” The program has added almost 100,000 businesses to the tax roll and generated $107 million in revenue.

    This issue has a particular sting at the moment, particularly given LA’s 10% plus unemployment rates.

  • GHG Emissions by Type of Geography

    The suburbs, generally a haven for luxury SUVs, regimented lawn sprinkling, and keep-up-with-the-Jones purchases, are not often considered the front-runner in environmentally friendly living.

    However, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s 2007 Consumption Atlas published controversial research that suggested that “dense inner-city zones unleash more greenhouse emissions than car-loving fringe suburbs.” Suddenly, car use is not the prime factor in measuring efficient living, nor can incomes tell the whole story. ()

    While it has been generally accepted that high human consumption is worse for the planet than lower consumption, the study’s main controversy is the fact that the ACF gave the problem a specific geography.

    The quote:

    Rural and regional areas tend to have noticeably lower levels of consumption . . . Higher incomes in the inner cities are associated with higher levels of consumption across the board.

    The ACF has not only pointed their finger at their main supporters (inner-city professionals) but have also invited comments from a variety of sources. The Australian study questions the data used in the past to measure where the worst violators are located.

    American consultant Wendell Cox—long an advocate of suburban development—found that the data suggested that “lower GHG emissions were associated with long distance from the (urban) core, detached housing, more automobile use and lower population density.”

    A team from Queensland’s Griffith University Urban Research Program drew an altogether different conclusion that put simply is, “correlation does not establish causality.”

    GHG emissions are a function of overall consumption and consumption based on low-density housing “doesn’t figure prominently in the composition of aggregate consumption.”

    Urban sprawl cannot be used as an argument or attempt to point fingers at the Hummer drivers. Lowering greenhouse gas emissions will require a commitment by city dwellers and suburbanites alike if we are to alter our future carbon footprint.

    While the study itself has prompted much discussion and debate, if the object is to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, singling out suburbia might not be the first order of business. Spurious data and indeterminate causality make for an argument destined to fail for the lack of a supportable conclusion – unless we wish to overturn logic entirely, which some seem determined to do in furtherance of their long-held anti-suburban agenda.

  • GHG-GDP Connection

    The Hadley Center in the UK has recently reported a “correlation between reduced prosperity and reduced greenhouse gas emissions associated with global warming.”

    The report states that since 2000, as greenhouse gasses have risen 2 to 3 percent each year, the world gross domestic product has also risen. The current ½ percent reduction in GDP is therefore correlated with the ½ percent reduction in greenhouse gasses.

    Paul Taylor, of the examiner.com, suggests that the “reductions in greenhouse gases will reduce GDP and punish economic prosperity.”

    President Obama’s $646 billion spending bill on a new carbon trading system to mitigate greenhouse gases would enact a “cap and trade” system that is “in effect a massive new national tax…[that] would impose substantial additional cost on power producers and manufacturing,” according to Taylor.

    The extent to which greenhouse gasses are a direct cause of the world GDP dropping or increasing remains to be seen – a myriad of additional factors should be considered – but these issues will continue to be at the forefront in such volatile times.

  • City of Los Angeles Hits the Bottle

    While San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was recently chided for his water bottle usage, the city of Los Angeles hasn’t been much better.

    It was recently reported that the city of LA spent $184,736 on bottled water in 2008, “despite a mayoral directive that it should not be provided at the city’s expense.”

    City officials are encouraged to use coolers or pitchers of tap water for special events, and those that wish to drink bottled water “can do so at their own expense,” said City Controller Laura Chick.

    Despite a 2005 memo for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa stating that city funds were not to be used on bottled water, certain city departments continued to spend funds on the plastic bottles.

    The biggest spenders were found to be Public Works ($69,696), Los Angeles World Airports ($31,429), Los Angeles Police Department ($19,708), General Services ($19,508), Transportation ($14,595), and Harbor ($11,993).

    The Department of Water and Power cut their spending down from $31,160 in 2004/05 to $3,419 in 2008, while the departments of Community Development, Commission on Children Youth and Families, Fire, Housing, Library, Neighborhood Empowerment, and Personnel ceased purchases altogether.

    Although spending has been reduced, public employees continue to expect the city to foot the bill for their bottled water. Such blatant non-compliance is hard to swallow.

  • Guessing Which Congressional Seats Change Hands at Census Time

    The next official Census isn’t till 2010, but Election Data Services is already predicting considerable impacts on Congressional representation.

    Things will be getting bigger in Texas, with four added seats, as well as Arizona, with two. Six states—Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, and Utah—will increase their federal delegations by one district each.

    On the opposite end, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania will all relinquish one seat, with Ohio appearing to lose two.

    While the redistricting process is in the distant future, it should prove interesting to see how the 2010 Census will change the seating arrangement in Washington.

  • Nuts for ACORN

    In about a year, the next U.S. Census will be upon us. However, one group participating in the survey is already driving some lawmakers nuts.

    In February, The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) signed a partnership with the Census Bureau to “assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States.”

    While the bureau currently has partnerships with more than 250 national organizations from the NAACP to TARGET, ACORN’s past allegations of fraud have raised the most concern.

    The organization – a non-partisan group of low-and moderate-income people – came under fire in 2007, when several paid employees were alleged to have created more than 1,700 fraudulent voter registrations. In 2008, another worker in Pennsylvania was sentenced for creating 29 phony registration forms.

    The census is used to “determine distribution of taxpayer money through grants and appropriations and the appointment of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives” and lawmakers do not want any fraudulent computing.

    Spokespeople for both ACORN and the Census Bureau have refuted any suggestion that “any group will fraudulently and unduly influence the results of the census.”

    Though doubts still remain, the bureau is now focusing on the more than 1 million applicants for 140,000 census taker positions, which is where assistance from organizations such as ACORN becomes needed.

    Government accountability is under attack – as it was during the Bush administration, so shall it be under Obama. Given ACORN’s past reputation, confidence in the census itself could come up for question.

  • I’ll have a $14,000 vacation with my lobbyists, please.

    Democratic lawmakers from California recently took a break in the midst of “intense state budget negotiations” to travel up to a wine-country lodge complete with gourmet food, rooms, and cocktails with a trio of interests footing the $14,000 bill.

    At the time of the retreat, the Consumer Attorneys of California (who, along with labor unions, had been pushing to roll back some labor rules) the California Professional Firefighters (seeking to protect funding for fire safety programs) and the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council (lobbying for greater roles for private contractors in state construction) all had strong interest in the proceedings.

    The getaway came a day after Gov. Schwarzenegger declared a state of fiscal emergency and ordered the Legislature to discuss a series of proposals to plug a projected $42-bilion budget gap.

    For the most part, each group had its interests protected in the budget package passed in February – though each group denied the retreat had anything to do with the budget.

    Such extravagance gifted to lawmakers is not uncommon; groups with business before the state commonly bankroll such outings. Dinner at Morton’s Steakhouse with a $144 price tag, tickets to Disneyland, and $13,211 trip to Egypt, Jordan, and Israel, among many others, were revealed last week in documents filed by lawmakers.

    Indecent lobbying goes down best with a vintage cabernet.

  • Proposed Obama Cuts Will Impair Maintenance and Expansion of Nuclear Energy

    The days of the nu-cu-ler presidency may be over, but nuclear energy continues to be a hot-button issue, even if pronunciation isn’t the problem.

    As it stands, President Obama plans to “slash the budgets of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the national nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,” reports eco-watcher Paul Taylor.

    The 104 nuclear power plants spread across the United State currently supply around 20% of the nation’s power and have eliminated 8.7 trillion tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

    Technological improvements in nuclear facilities have also led to a typical power plant operating at 90% annual efficiency – whereas wind and solar power generally operate at 25% efficiency.

    The U.S. may operate about a quarter of the 430 nuclear power plants worldwide, but “nuclear energy” continues to be a polarizing subject – safety may have improved, but Chernobyl and Three Mile Island continue to be associated with the energy’s potential hazards.

    Despite the memories of Karen Silkwood, Americans appear to be increasing their approval of nuclear power. The number of American citizens in favor of expanding nuclear power is up to 50% in 2007 from a 44% approval rating in 2001.

    The energy harvested from one pound of uranium fuel is equivalent to 1.3 millions pounds of coal energy. The decisions Obama will make about the nuclear program will undoubtedly be closely watched by those concerned with stable, domestic energy supplies as well as GHG emissions.

  • How About a Betty Ford Bottled Water Rehab Clinic in San Francisco?

    From late-night refrigerator raids to splurging on a new wardrobe, everyone is prone to the occasional overindulgence. For San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom, that overindulgence meant nothing more than a plastic water bottle.

    In June 2007, the mayor “issued an executive order directing city government to no longer purchase bottled water,” to cut down on waste in the city landfill and to utilize the pristine Sierra Nevada reservoir’s resources.

    Last year, Newsom also called on restaurants to stop selling bottled water to customers and has generally declined bottled water at most events.

    In something better suited to cushy celebrity gossip rags, an empty case of Crystal Geyser Alpine Spring Water was discovered in the mayor’s trunk of his car.

    While a spokesman for the mayor has assured the public that the water was for the mayor’s security detail, the Newsom camp also issued a statement that would be better suited for rehab-bound celebrity.

    “The mayor will be the first to admit that he occasionally indulges in bottled water,” said his spokesperson. “It’s not something he’s proud of.”

    During these bleak economic times, the public’s hyper-vigilant scrutiny of politicians seems zeroed in on busting them on seemingly inevitable examples of hypocrisy.

    Needless to say, Newsom will think twice before purchasing bottled water again.