Since 2011 Tennessee has dedicated over $200 million to TNInvestco, a program designed to create jobs and profits for taxpayers by allowing private venture funds to invest public money in startup companies. But according to a performance audit from the state Comptroller’s Office, the state’s return on that investment through 2014 was just $5.3 million. What’s more, as of the end of last year, 85 of the 181 companies that have received TNInvestco funding have been sold or gone out of business. And there’s some disagreement over how many jobs the program has created, with TNInvestco investment groups claiming 1,307 jobs in 2014; the state’s Department of Economic and Community Development, which manages the program, reporting 1,056 jobs; and auditors saying 595.
“We’re dealing with taxpayer money, and it doesn’t appear that the TNInvestco program has been successful,” said Comptroller Justin P. Wilson. “In the future, the administration and the General Assembly should consider the effect on taxpayers before even considering similar programs.”
Jim Phillips, a manager of the TNInvestco fund XMi Holdings, said the bulk of the profits from the program haven’t come yet. He also noted the program had brought benefits beyond returns, including helping fuel growth of the state’s capital city, Nashville.
“It brought a whole series of entrepreneurialism and excitement to the economy that we hadn’t seen prior to that program,” he said. “I don’t know how you measure that in economic terms, but I do think that is an important consideration.” (TENNESSEAN [NASHVILLE])
CONNECTICUT is facing an estimated budget shortfall of $1.3 billion next year, due to a surge in fixed costs, including debt and pension payments. Despite that fact Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) said he is not likely to propose a major tax increase. (HARTFORD COURANT, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)
COLORADO’s Department of Transportation is launching a program in December to test charging motorists for their use of the state’s roads. The Road Usage Charge Pilot Program will track the mileage of 100 volunteers and “charge” them a virtual fee of 1.2 cents per mile. (DENVER POST)
An audit by the U.S. Treasury Department revealed that half of the $200 million in federal money allocated to NEVADA in 2010 to help homeowners during the housing crisis hasn’t been paid out, despite many requests for that assistance. The audit also found that the nonprofit Nevada Affordable Housing Assistance Corp., which administers the Hardest Hit Fund, spent over $8 million of that money on “holiday parties, luxury office rent, employee gift cards and other wasteful expenses - even a $500 car allowance for a Mercedes Benz,” according to auditor Christy Goldsmith Romero. (LAS VEGAS SUN)
-- Compiled by KOREY CLARK
Republicans have controlled the Wisconsin Legislature for the last six years straight, but next year they’ll be more dominant than at any time in the last few decades. It looks as though this month’s election will leave them with a 20-12 majority in the Senate, their biggest margin in that chamber since the 1970s, and a 64-35 majority in the Assembly, their biggest edge there in sixty years.
That dominance will allow the GOP to pursue its legislative agenda without having to marshal as much support from moderate Republicans and Democrats. According to Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) potential objectives for next session include putting more money in K-12 schools and the state’s university system, “targeted tax cuts,” trying to “strike a balance” on transportation funding and fully repealing the Affordable Care Act.
“It’s about reform,” he said. “I think that’s what we’ve kind of demonstrated to the citizens of Wisconsin.... This Republican Legislature continues to tackle big things.” (WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL [MADISON])
On the same day that Alaska voters backed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, they also approved an initiative calling for progressive election reform. The passage of Ballot Measure 1 means that voting-age residents of the state will now automatically be registered to vote when they sign up to receive annual payouts from the state’s oil wealth trust.
“We should take advantage of any opportunity to cut waste and stop forcing people to fill out more and more forms,” U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), said in a statement.
Thanks at least in part to what Bloomberg Businessweek described as an “almost comically broad range of supporters” that included Sullivan, the Democrat he unseated two years ago, the state chapters of the AARP and ACLU, unions and native American groups, the measure received over 63 percent support from voters. And that result makes the state just the sixth to approve some type of automatic voter registration. (BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK, BALLOTPEDIA)
Days after the election of Donald Trump as president, two Oregonians submitted a petition for a 2018 ballot initiative providing for OREGON’s secession from the United States. A number of Californians have voiced support for the same action in their state. (OREGONIAN [PORTLAND])
The MISSISSIPPI House Management Committee voted last week to adopt a new policy making all contracts entered into by the House confidential. That action comes just over a month after the state entered into a $250,000 contract with New Jersey-based EdBuild to review and potentially rewrite Mississippi’s school funding formula. (MISSISSIPPI TODAY [RIDGELAND])
MONTANA’s Legislative Council opted not to act on a bill that would increase the pay for lawmakers who earned $10.33 an hour, or a total of $7,437, during the 2015 legislative session, by nearly 83 percent, to $18.90 per hour, or $13,608, by 2019. The decision on that pay raise will now fall to next year’s incoming legislative leaders. (BILLINGS GAZETTE, MISSOULIAN)
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is taking another shot at reviving a program to build affordable apartment housing for low income New York City residents.
The deal Cuomo brokered between the 100,000 member Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York and the Real Estate Board of New York would revive a controversial property tax break known as the 421-a program for real estate developers who designate a portion of their housing projects for low- and moderate-income families. Developers contend the tax break, which expired in January, is essential for the construction of such rental units.
Under the proposal, developers would get a 100 percent tax abatement on affordable rental units for 35 years in exchange for guaranteeing those units remain affordable for 40 years. It also sets wage requirements for workers employed in building those units, but does not require them to be unionized.
“The deal reached today between these parties provides more affordability for tenants and fairer wages for workers than under the original proposal,” Cuomo said in a statement. “While I would prefer even more affordability in the 421-a program, this agreement marks a major step forward for New Yorkers.”
It also could conceivably mark a big step toward NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio reaching his oft-stated goal of building or preserving 200,000 units of affordable housing over 10 years. The details, however, differ from what de Blasio was seeking. The mayor had thrown his support to a plan that called for a 25-year abatement followed by a phased-in return to full taxes over an additional 10 years. But Cuomo nixed that plan in 2015, saying he would not renew the 421-a plan unless it included a requirement that developers pay workers union-level wages. He left it to developers and unions to work out a deal. That agreement never materialized and the program expired.
But the new deal requires lawmaker approval. The Legislature is in recess until January, but Cuomo urged them to return to Albany before then to weigh in on the measure, saying, “We simply cannot allow the lack of resolution to stall affordable housing production for years to come. There is no excuse not to act.”
But Empire State lawmakers to date have not been so moved. Legislative leaders have said only that they are reviewing details of the proposal. (NEW YORK TIMES, NEW YORK POST, ALBANY TIMES-UNION, CRAIN’S NEW YORK BUSINESS)
COLORADO Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) told reporters last week he might propose requiring hospitals seeking to expand to file proof with the state to show there is a need for such growth. At least 35 states have similar requirements, which supporters say helps to slow the rising cost of health care. (DENVER POST, DENVER BUSINESS JOURNAL).
MASSACHUSETTS Gov. Charlie Baker (R) said he plans to fight for Bay State cities that offer sanctuary to unauthorized immigrants to continue receiving federal funds after President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January. Trump vowed during his campaign to block all federal funds sent to so-called “sanctuary cities.” (WWLP.COM [NORTHHAMPTON])
NEVADA Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) said he will maintain his opposition to a proposed high-level nuclear waste dumping site near Las Vegas even if the new president endorses it. Sandoval’s comments came in response to rumors that Trump wants to revive the plan, which has faced unanimous opposition from the Silver State’s Congressional delegation for years. (NEVADA APPEAL [CARSON CITY])
-- Compiled by RICH EHISEN
The MICHIGAN Legislature gives final approval to a four-bill package – SBs 995, 996, 997 and 998 – that collectively approve testing of autonomous vehicles on a 122-mile stretch of Wolverine State highways. The package also does away with a requirement that such vehicles have a human driver in the vehicle to take over in case of emergency. The bills move to Gov. Rick Snyder (R) for review (DETROIT FREE PRESS).
NEW JERSEY Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoes SB 2160, which would have allowed striking workers to obtain unemployment benefits, if the employer had violated the terms of an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement. Instead, Christie sent a revised bill back to the Democrat-controlled Legislature that would amend “the language of the current law to make it clear that all striking workers are disqualified from receiving benefits” (NJ.COM).
PENNSYLVANIA Gov. Tom Wolf (D) signs HB 1196, which allows Keystone State residents to purchase six-packs and growlers to go directly from beer distributors. The law takes effect in late January (PHILADELPHIA MAGAZINE).
Donald Trump’s surprising victory last week has roiled households, workplaces and the public square. Supporters are of course elated while opponents are not. That very scenario is playing out in earnest at the University of Virginia, where the Washington Post reports that hundreds of students and faculty have taken umbrage at UVA President Teresa Sullivan for sending out post-election emails that quote the university’s founder, Thomas Jefferson. Their beef was not so much with what she said, or even the content of the quotes themselves, but the fact she quoted Jefferson at all. As they see it, the fact Jefferson was a slaveholder eliminates him from consideration as the university’s moral compass. You all can debate that amongst yourselves, but it does beg the question: if that is how you feel, then why choose to associate with his university in the first place?
Speaking of moral dilemmas, New York lawmakers can forget about getting a pay raise any time soon. As the New York Times reports, the state commission on such matters has declined to endorse a proposal to give Empire State pols their first pay hike in nearly two decades. The reason, according to the top dog at the State Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation, is that lawmakers have failed to pass any meaningful ethics rules to curb their own nefarious tendencies. You know, like having both legislative leaders –Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, and Senate Leader Dean Skelos, a Republican, - each convicted on corruption charges in the same year. The Commission, which just happens to be stacked with appointees of Gov. Andrew Cuomo – said it would only consider going along with a pay raise if lawmakers passed new ethics reforms in a special session before the end of this year. Pols are predictably upset. Stay tuned.
-- By RICH EHISEN
Guest authored by Helen Brown, president of the Helen Brown Group
Originally published via HelenBrownGroup.com
Here’s the complaint I hear frequently about wealth screenings, prospect research, and real estate: Knowing what our prospect holds in real estate is useless! She’s never going to give any of those houses to our organization!(*)
That’s absolutely right. She’s probably not. But that completely misses the point of why real estate is key.
Here’s why:
Imagine with me that you’re on a lovely sailboat. You’re out for the day with friends in the Caribbean enjoying the sun and the breeze. You’re moving along at a pretty fast clip with the wind, but all of a sudden an unexpected gust causes the boom to flip from one side of the boat to the other, and somehow you’re overboard.
The water’s warm but it’s going to take a few minutes for your friends to turn the boat around and get you. That thin orange ring they tossed you is by no means reliably holding up your weight, but it’ll help keep you buoyant enough to tread water until the boat comes back. The orange ring may be crummy, but it’s the most solid thing you’ve got right now.
Real estate is that life-preserver ring for prospect research.
Because when we run a wealth screening, we’re looking for assets, right? We want to know: Is this person a major gift prospect? Do they have assets of $1 million or $10 million or $100 million – or more?
The trouble with that question is that 70-99 percent of assets are completely private information. For example: salary?** Private. Bank accounts? Private. Jewelry, art, stocks*** and bonds? Private, private, private, and private. Wealth screenings can only match to things that are in publicly-available resources. And the asset that is the most publicly-available is real estate.
So wealth screenings depend on real estate to form the basis of ratings. Like I said, it may be thin, but it’s the only solid thing we’ve got. But we can at least use it to float well-educated guesses.
*Check out our webinar recording with the Helen Brown Group, "Navigating the Changing Landscapes of Wealth & Philanthropy."
How?
For example, we may consult annual wealth studies like the venerable Capgemini World Wealth Report which tell us that, for high net wealth (HNW) people (those with investable assets of over $1 million not including primary residence), real estate makes up about 15% of their total portfolio.
So let’s say you have a prospective donor who is a hedge fund partner at a firm with assets under management over $1 billion (which is our first clue that he is probably a HNW individual). Unless Forbes has helped us out, you probably won’t be able to find his compensation because it’s private. But if you know that he owns 4 properties worth a total of $30 million, based on the Capgemini information you can estimate that his net wealth is somewhere in the ballpark of $200 million.
You may be right, you may be wrong, but at least it’s something to go on in this business where we’re all operating on uncertainty, every single day. We attach ratings to and hang our hopes and our cultivation strategies on people who may or may not support our organizations. It’s a guessing game to which we apply the most solid things we can to hold back a sea of uncertainty.
The rating is a just starting point anyway.
So that’s why wealth screenings – and prospect researchers – rely on real estate to create ratings and wealth estimates. So, dear fundraisers: next time you hear a colleague complain about prospect research’s over-reliance on real estate, do us a favor and clue them in. Because there’s nothing we researchers like better, or need more, than frontline fundraising allies.
And researchers, feel free to print this out and leave it lying around your office.
*Caveat: I’ve never heard a planned giving officer say this.
**Salaries are private unless a person is one of the top officers of a publicly-held company. Or a government employee (but chances are good you’re not expecting major gifts from government employees.) There are a few other examples, but generally speaking salaries are unavailable. Which is fine because, in my opinion, they’re none of our business.
***Stock holdings are private unless a person is one of the top officers or board members of a publicly-held company.
The case could certainly be made that no other presidential race in memory or potentially history has received so much media attention—and, let’s face it, felt so much like a reality TV show—as this one. Now that the election is one for the record books, let’s take a look at how this chapter came to an end, and while we’re at it, how the next chapter is shaping up.
First, let’s dig into coverage. We had a theory at the beginning of the election that the winning candidate would have more media coverage over the campaign, so we started monitoring media with our Presidential Campaign Tracker. The theory did not necessarily suggest causation, yet a correlation still persisted in elections past that when a candidate has more media coverage, they tend to do better at the polls.
Looking at the chart from the last month, this would indicate that the race was going to be a tight one, and it was!
Prior to these last 30 days, Donald Trump had been receiving significantly more media coverage than Hillary Clinton, but over the last month, coverage over time really evened out across candidates. In fact, for the first time since the DNC, Hillary Clinton won the share of voice (51.8% to Trump’s 48.2%) in the two weeks leading up to the election. Now, “won” may not be the right word, as the majority of the articles swirled around the FBI releasing info about the email scandal.
The last 2 weeks leading up to election:
It appears that media coverage was a pretty good indicator for how close the race was going to be. What about the sentiment of the articles? Despite claims of biased media on either side of the aisle, the vast majority of the coverage stayed neutral about both candidates.
Let’s pull out the neutral and take a look at just the percentages of positive and negative coverage for the two candidates over the last month. Clinton took a dip when the Comey email announcement came out, but it did rebound and peak on the day of the election. Meanwhile, Trump started out with significantly more negative coverage with his scandal, and then worked his way up to more positive with his election win. All things considered, coverage was still pretty even.
The world took notice—publishing many articles with concern, surprise and praise for Donald Trump over the last month. Outside of the US, the countries with the most publications about our election and Donald Trump include the United Kingdom with 37,000+ articles, Australia with 23,000 and France with more than 16,000. Our neighbors Canada published near 12,000 articles, Mexico 5,000. Russia? Only 595 articles were published over the last month.
So, where do we go from here? Recent news has focused on the President-elect and his transition team. Some other subjects are creeping into media as well—like stock indexes, protests, racism and other heads of government. We’ll be monitoring the news and social media coverage with our tracker through the inauguration, and sharing our analysis right here in our blog. Register to stay up-to-date!
This post was guest written by Brandon Teeple, a junior at Wright State University.
The Millennial Generation, those who are born between the early 1980s and early 2000s, have recently become the largest generation in the U.S. They range anywhere from recent high school or college graduates to critical workers in today’s ailing labor force. They also make up a large portion of the undecided vote this Presidential Election, as they are not “pigeon-holed” into a particular political party, making them a gold mine up for grabs for either candidate. Each candidate attempted to sway these people, along with the rest of the nation, to vote for them over the past month during the three Presidential Debates. It is often debated as to whether these debates sway anyone for either voting for or against a candidate. Did Trump or Clinton do that with the Millennials? What impression did the candidates leave on this generation?
The first debate was a much anticipated event for two reasons: it was the first time Clinton and Trump would be on stage together, and it was the first chance for both candidates to attempt to pull in undecided voters. Even before the debate, there were Millennials saying that they weren’t planning on watching the debate. According to a poll conducted by Roll Call, only 30% of Millennials were “definitely” planning on watching the debate. Even those that did watch, it does not appear that either candidate gained ground with these swing voters. A local Harrisburg, PA news source interviewed some of their own Millennials, and it appeared that many of the young voters were still tied to third party candidates; either Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. One voter cited Clinton’s lies and everything Trump stands for as “horrible” as reasons that neither will get their vote.
But for those that did watch, regardless of whether they had made up on their mind on who to vote for, they noticed something lacking: anything of substance relating to Millennials. According to a forum from the Davis Enterprise, Millennials were the biggest losers from the first debate. The writer discusses that the candidates never even mentioned the word “Millennials", and only mentioned “young people” once. Additionally, they didn’t touch on probably the biggest issue for Millennials: student loan debt, of which Millennials combine for a $1.4 trillion in debt.
The second Presidential debate was conducted in a town-hall style forum, where certain citizens were invited to ask the questions for the two to discuss. According to the Oakland Post, a student-run newspaper out of Oakland University, the debate was “one of the most brutal examples of mud-slinging” during a Presidential campaign. Clearly the second debate did nothing to sway the Millennials who call Oakland home. Other students made a drinking game of the debate, with many feeling the after affects. It is interesting to note that outside of these two seemingly simple articles, there is very little reaction from the Millennial generation. There are two plausible explanations for this. The first is perhaps, after watching the first debate, they were just completely turned off and sick of seeing the mud-slinging, of which there was plenty. Or, perhaps it was because there was, yet again, just no substance. The only time they candidates came close to touching on issues important to Millennials was regarding how to set a better example for our youth.
The final debate of this Presidential campaign was setup like the first, two candidates behind a podium answering questions from the moderator, though this debate brought in a record number of viewers. One thing it did not do: change anyone’s mind. A Killeen, TX newspaper conducted a few interviews with its locals and the resounding message was clear: if you were going to vote for Clinton before, you will still vote Clinton; the same applies with the opposite. Though this debate touched on topics closer to the Millennial generation, such as gay rights and abortion, there still is very little reaction from those college students and recent college grads.
After three debates, the message was clear: they did nothing to sway the Millennial vote. The debates were opportunities to win undecided votes, yet they were wasted and spoke only to their bases.
This blog post was written based on sources found using LexisNexis Newsdesk.
Many nonprofits, foundations and universities are readying to participate in Giving Tuesday, a global day of giving celebrated on November 29 this year. A 24-hour social media campaign to elicit end-of-year charitable donations, Giving Tuesday is timed to follow the consumerism of Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Giving Tuesday participants raised $116 million last year—the largest sum since the holiday debuted in 2012. For nonprofits, foundations and universities planning a campaign next week, we’ve compiled a few of the best Giving Tuesday tips we’ve seen from around the web:
Sanctions around the world have changed significantly in the last few months, according to a new eBook by LexisNexis. The eBook looks at how sanctions have changed in eight countries: the U.S., UK, Russia, Iran, Myanmar, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
As our research indicates, sanctions regimes can “shift in different directions.” A country might face increased restrictions to curb a particular policy or perceived regional threat. For example, North Korea faces a number of new sanctions measures aimed at further encouraging the regime to stop its nuclear tests. Or a regime that has historically faced tougher sanctions may see such measures being reduced. For example, in recent years the U.S. has gradually lifted many of its long-standing sanctions against Cuba after improvements in relations with Cuba’s government. U.S. companies are also preparing to invest in Myanmar, after the U.S. gave it preferential tariffs to reward perceived improvements in its government.
But the eBook warns that although many companies will be desperate to take advantage of the opportunities offered by a newly open market, they should not rush in without implementing thorough due diligence checks. Often, media reports about sanctions being reduced overlook the fact that sanctions still remain against some individuals, companies and sectors. Moreover, even when sanctions are completely removed, there might still be corruption in the local market.
Internal political developments in some countries could influence significant changes in sanctions regimes over the next few years. The UK vote to leave the European Union in June would mean that it no longer automatically signs up to EU sanctions lists. But no changes are expected for at least two years, and even then overarching UN sanctions will still apply to both the EU and the UK.
Likewise, the result of the U.S. presidential election could affect the country’s sanctions regime since the reduction of sanctions against Cuba and North Korea has largely been driven by President Obama’s use of Executive Orders. President-elect Trump could take a different approach.
Staying on the right lines of sanctions lists is important. The recent case of PanAmerican Seed Company illustrates this. In September, the company paid $4.32 million to settle potential civil liability with the U.S. Office for Foreign Assets Control for violating sanctions with Iran. This fee was a reduced sentence because PanAmerican Company Seed took remedial steps such as the implementation of a compliance regime. So there are good reasons for companies that operate internationally to ensure they have strong compliance procedures in place.
Given the various levels of sanctions, and the constantly changing nature of watch lists, it is vital that companies follow best practice when implementing sanctions procedures. As part of sanctions policies and procedures companies should consider the following:
Uncertainty.
There is no better way to describe what lawmakers across the nation will face once gavels come down on new statehouse sessions in January and beyond. While in a normal year the kind of broad gains Republicans made at all levels of government in the recent election would give prognosticators a clear view of what to expect, this has been anything but a normal year.
This is of course due almost exclusively to the shocking and highly unexpected election of businessman turned reality TV star Donald Trump to succeed President Barack Obama. The win, however, was hardly convincing. Although Trump handily won the Electoral College – the only measure that matters – Democrat Hillary Clinton just as easily outdistanced him in the popular vote, Clinton garnered well over 2 million more votes than did Trump, historic in a way but nonetheless a toothless moral victory if there ever was one. If anything, the popular vote tallies are merely a graphic illustration of how divided the nation remains after one of the ugliest presidential campaigns in our history. Perhaps even more telling in that regard: 46.9 percent of eligible voters were so unimpressed by either candidate – or turned off by the campaign’s relentlessly negative and hateful tenor – that they declined to cast a ballot at all, making it the worst voter turnout since 1996.
It is that campaign and some of the more controversial elements of Trump’s stated platform that make 2017 so difficult to presage. Will the President-elect act on his vows to do away with the Affordable Care Act? Or move to round up and deport tens of millions of unauthorized immigrants while also building a massive 2,000-mile wall along America’s southern border? How much will he be influenced by close advisors connected to the so-called “alt-right,” a loose affiliation of groups their critics contend are dominated by white nationalists like the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups? And will he undo years of states’ efforts to combat climate change and build free trade markets by pulling the country out of international agreements on those issues?
On a more traditional note, will the new president follow through on his plans to invest significant public dollars in real infrastructure projects like roads and bridges, something states have been seeking for years? If so, where will the money come from? If he and lawmakers do discard the ACA – something that as of press time seems likely– will they replace it with something better? And will it actually be more affordable than the current system, which is fast becoming anything but for many consumers? And what will any or all of these potential moves mean to states and to the lives and well-being of their citizens?
The questions abound; answers are hopefully en route. And with those concerns duly noted, the SNCJ staff has again considered a wide range of potential policy issues that state lawmakers will consider and possibly act on in 2017. As always, we will present our thoughts to you over the next three issues, beginning today with a look at issues like health care, marijuana regulation and immigration reform and continuing next week with a look at topics like transportation funding and cyber security. Our esteemed editorial advisor Lou Cannon will close the year with his own insights into these issues as well as numerous other challenges and opportunities lawmakers will face next year and beyond.
ACA Reform: It is hard to imagine anything more likely to face substantial change than President Barack Obama’s signature policy accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act. But exactly what and how remains a mystery. Although President-Elect Trump vowed repeatedly to make it a priority to do away with the ACA as soon as possible, he has already waffled a bit on that promise. Within days of the election, Trump indicated he is now open to keeping certain elements of the law, such as allowing children to stay on their parents’ policy until age 26 and the requirement that insurers accept people with pre-existing conditions.
After that, the waters get murky. Ideas floated by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) and Trump’s choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price (R-Georgia), include creating tax credits for people who buy insurance on the open market, allowing people to buy health insurance policies across state lines, giving states money to set up new government-run “high risk pools” (which mostly went away under Obamacare) for people with serious pre-existing conditions that can’t get insurance on the open market and limiting the tax deductions companies can take for the cost of their employees’ health policies. Ryan’s proposal would also essentially privatize Medicare. Little has been said about the possible fate of health benefits exchanges, though Ryan’s Medicare proposal would use a similar mechanism for recipients to find insurance.
As proposed now, tax credits would be significantly less than the current federal subsidies available for people obtaining health insurance through an exchange. Even so, Anthony Wright, Executive Director of Health Access, a California health care policy advocacy group, says the enormous cost will keep states – even deep blue ones like his – from any attempt to replace those subsidies on their own.
“California will always try to lead in a post-Obamacare world, but it is entirely dependent on what the federal framework and financing allows us,” he says.
Immigration: During the campaign the president promised to deport an estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States. Afterward, however, he vowed to quickly deport only between two and three million he says have been convicted of a crime. As the New York Times reports, he is likely basing that figure on federal data that estimates there are approximately 1.9 million “removable criminal aliens.” But over a million of those people are actually here legally, either with a temporary visa or by green card. It is thus unclear if Trump could act on his latest pledge without violating due process. Even if so, he would need the help of numerous state and local police departments, some of which have already said they will not cooperate in such a roundup. That would seem to invite legislative battles – particularly in red states with more liberal urban areas – over whether so-called “sanctuary cities” will be allowed to continue sheltering unauthorized immigrants within local boundaries.
Prescription Drug Prices: A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll showed that 77 percent of Americans think prescription drug prices are “unreasonable.” While Trump regularly railed about high prescription drug prices during his campaign, he has said next to nothing about the issue of late. Vice President-elect Mike Pence (R), House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) have all been recipients of significant amounts of pharmaceutical industry donations over the years, so it is questionable how much effort Congress will muster to deal with the issue. That leaves it to states. The industry spent $100 million to convince California voters in November to reject a ballot measure (Proposition 61) that would have limited how much some state agencies pay for prescription drugs, but Ohio is considering a similar measure for 2017. Other states are likely to consider their own efforts, pending any action from Washington D.C.
Marijuana Regulations: Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana use nabbed their white whale on Nov. 8 as California voters handily approved Proposition 64, making the Golden State by far the biggest to endorse legal weed. But their joy might be short-lived. Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, Sen. Jeff session (R-Alabama), is devoutly opposed to legalizing marijuana and could well act to end legal operations in states that have done so. While it is possible the new administration could send armies of DEA agents to shut down pot dispensaries, it is more likely to file litigation seeking to overturn state legalization laws, a case almost surely to ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. But University of Denver law professor Sam Kamin recently told Westworld that even if that happens, it wouldn’t actually make pot illegal again in states like Colorado. Rather, it would only mean the state can’t legally regulate it.
Gender Pay Equity: Earlier this year, Massachusetts became the first state to bar employers from asking job applicants about previous salary history. The goal was to prevent women – who still earn approximately 80 percent of what men are paid for similar work – from being locked into a perpetual cycle of being paid less than their male counterparts. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio recently followed suit by issuing an executive order that models the Bay State law in the Big Apple. Those measure came a year after California adopted new laws giving women more tools to battle gender pay discrimination in the workplace. Massachusetts state Sen. Patricia Jehlen (D) says she has been contacted by state lawmakers from Illinois, North Carolina and Texas interested in sponsoring similar measures in their states, and one has already been introduced in Washington D.C. Although some dispute the 80 percent statistic, gender pay equity bills are likely to see action in a number of statehouses in 2017.
Opioids: States have in recent years been waging a ferocious battle against a scourge of opioid abuse that has led to thousands of deaths across the nation. Combatting opioid abuse has in fact become the rarest of issues – one that has states, the federal government, Republicans and Democrats most often on the same side. In that regard, The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation last week that will pump another $1 billion over the next two years into fighting the epidemic. Most of that money will go out in the form of grants to programs dedicated to battling the problem. The bill must still pass the Senate and be signed by President Barack Obama. In the meantime, a number of states have opted to limit access to prescription opioids like Oxycontin by making it more difficult for doctors to prescribe them. Expect more of the same in 2017.
Abortion: States have passed hundreds of anti-abortion measures in recent years, and with Republicans now solidly in control of numerous statehouses, governor’s offices and the entire federal government – and with the new president almost assuredly set to choose an anti-abortion justice to fill the empty seat on the US. Supreme Court - more are surely on the way. That could even include another direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 SCOTUS decision that legalized the procedure. At the same time, groups including Planned Parenthood filed three federal lawsuits last week seeking to overturn strict anti-abortion laws in North Carolina, Alaska and Missouri. The litigants have vowed additional suits against other states with similar laws, pointing to a majority-opinion SCOTUS ruling last June that struck down a Texas law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and for clinics which provide the service to meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers.
Gun Rights: Statehouse gains made by Republicans are not likely to quell the annual back and forth between pro- and anti-gun forces. And while gun enthusiasts have a decided edge, gun control advocates have strong allies like former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose group Everytown For Gun Safety has committed millions of dollars to supporting gun control ballot measures across the states. Three such efforts - in California, Nevada and Washington - were successful on Election Day, while a fourth in Maine failed. But those victories are going to be difficult to replicate in statehouses, where pro-gun advocates are expected to push for ever less restrictive laws, including so-called “constitutional carry,” which would do away with current licensing and training requirements and allow gun owners to openly carry their weapons anywhere they like. Other battles are expected over background checks, campus carry rules and regulations allowing businesses to bar guns from their establishments.
Future of Work: As technology advances to the point where more and more jobs can now be performed by robots or computers – even tasks like driving – so does concern that those innovations will negatively impact the current workforce. And worrying about autonomous cars taking over for current drivers, to name just one concern, is hardly frivolous: 12 percent of the U.S. workforce is employed driving a car or truck. Which puts the onus on lawmakers at all levels to do more to help prepare the current workforce for the changes technology may soon impose on them. That means investment in education and retraining not only for traditional students, but also for older workers and lawmakers alike. It also will require transformative thinking from all parties. Will that happen, or will the two parties continue what has become an ongoing devolution into hyperpartisan gridlock and stagnation? As we said right up front, the answer to that remains to be determined.
It’s not unheard of for TV shows—like Saturday Night Live—or parody news sites—like The Onion—to bend the latest headlines to their will for the sake of comedy. But recently, headlines have trumpeted a disturbing trend: the rise of deliberately misleading or even entirely fake news being accepted as fact. Social media has played a significant role in disseminating fake news—a point that was particularly apparent during the presidential election campaign. See how Nexis® and LexisNexis Newsdesk® help organizations capture a more accurate picture of what’s being said in print, online, broadcast and social media.
According to researchers from Stanford University, more than 80 percent of students were unable to tell the difference between legitimate news and sponsored content. And we’re not just talking about credulous 13-year-olds. The study surveyed more than 7,800 students from middle school through college—and even college students seemed susceptible to accepting news content as trustworthy if a website featured “… high-quality design, links to traditional news organizations and well-written ‘About’ pages.” Many students also did not question the motivation—and validity—of articles that appeared as sponsored content. Professor Sam Wineburg, lead author of the report, said, “Many people assume that because young people are fluent in social media they are equally perceptive about what they find there. Our work shows the opposite to be true.”
It’s not just America’s youth that are being tripped up by fake news. Journalism.org notes that a survey conducted by Pew Research Center found that 62 percent of U.S. adults get their news on social media. What’s more—64 percent rely on a single site for news; 26 percent check news on two sites; and a scant 10 percent visit three or more sites for news. As a result, fake news tends to spread like wildfire which only increases the sense of legitimacy. After all, if everyone is saying it—or sharing it—then it must be true, right?
The problem came to a head in the last three months of the election season when, according to a BuzzFeed News analysis, “… the top-performing fake election news stories on Facebook generated more engagement than the top stories from major news outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, NBC News, and others.” The research noted that the fake news, mostly shared from partisan blogs and hoax news outlets, saw over 8.7 million shares and likes—exceeding performance of real news by more than a million.
“If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.” We’ve all heard that expression, but with the rise of fake news—much of which looks genuine—we can’t assume anything. So what can you do? Factcheck.org offers these suggestions:
Of course, we’d be remiss in mentioning that better news research and analysis solutions are crucial. By using a solution that aggregates news and business information from around the globe—and supports media analysis to help you see trends in news coverage—you capture a more complete, accurate picture of what’s being said. And that’s a fact.
Four states have statewide laws limiting how much local officials have to cooperate with requests from federal authorities to detain undocumented immigrants, according to analysis of data from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center by the New York Times. That analysis also found that 364 counties - including those in states with statewide sanctuary city laws - had policies limiting such cooperation, and 39 cities - most in counties with sanctuary policies - had such guidelines.
Source: New York Times, Immigrant Legal Resource Center
At the same time that voters throughout the state of California were approving Proposition 64 last month providing for the legalization and taxation of marijuana for recreational use, voters in 37 individual cities and counties in the state were also approving local ballot measures imposing their own taxes on the drug. Only two local marijuana tax measures failed: the City of Colfax’s Measure H, which fell just shy of the out-of-the ordinary two-thirds majority vote it required, and the City of Avalon’s Measure X.
Such a high success rate is unusual for a tax measure, but Michael Coleman, a fiscal policy adviser to the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers and the League of California Cities, said voters seemed to simply be acknowledging that the marijuana business is coming their way.
“The voters are saying, ‘If we are going to have it in town, then let’s apply a tax to it and get some revenue from this activity to benefit the community,’” he said.
Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia, whose city approved a pair of marijuana tax proposals (Measure MA and Measure MM), said a tax was needed to provide the money “to properly regulate, license and provide the public health services that we need to regulate this new industry.”
“It also ensures that we have enough public safety on the policing side so that we are following the rules and everyone is a good neighbor,” he said.
But some marijuana activists and industry leaders are concerned about the potential impact of the local taxes, which can add as much as 15 percent on top of the 15-percent state excise tax imposed by Prop. 64.
“We are very concerned about the problem of overtaxation,” said Dale Gieringer, director of the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, who noted that cultivation taxes also levied by Prop. 64 increase the state’s tax hit on the marijuana industry to nearly 25 percent.
“Throw in another 15 percent in local taxes, and there will be a very strong incentive for growers to evade regulation and sell on the illegal market,” he said.
With Prop. 64 explicitly allowing cities and counties to regulate and tax marijuana sales within their jurisdictions, however, many more of California’s 482 cities and 58 counties are likely to pass their own tax measures.
“You are going to see only more of this given the specific authorization in Proposition 64 for local governments to do that,” said Allen Hopper, an attorney who represents marijuana businesses. “As strapped for cash as local jurisdictions are, it’s not surprising they are doing so.”
There is a possibility that market forces will drive local tax rates down.
“Communities that impose too high a tax on marijuana will of course face competition from those that don’t,” said Gieringer of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “In the end, market competition will probably bring local taxes to a reasonable level. But the likelihood of a robust black market is high given the total taxation level mandated under Prop. 64.” (LOS ANGELES TIMES)
Nebraska’s main business tax incentive program, the Nebraska Advantage Act, spurred 69 businesses in the state to add jobs and boost investment from 2006 to the end of 2014, according to a state audit. That review also showed that businesses that received incentives under the program added more, and higher paying, jobs than those that did not.
But the Legislative Performance Audit also found that the Advantage Act helped attract only nine new companies to the state. And each job the program created cost the state and local governments between $24,500 and $320,000, depending on the way that cost is calculated.
Those mixed results indicate that it’s time to take a critical look at the ten-year-old program, according to Nebraska Sen. Dan Watermeier (R), who chairs the Performance Audit Committee.
“Given the increased public interest in the cost of tax incentives and the projected state budget shortfall in coming years, we need to talk about whether we can continue this program in its current form,” he said.
Among the specific issues Watermeier said policymakers need to address are whether the program should focus more on attracting new businesses, whether it should focus more on job creation than capital investment and whether there should be an annual cap on incentives, which reached nearly $109 million in 2013, well over the $24 million to $60 million a year originally projected for the program. (OMAHA WORLD-HERALD)
ALABAMA has approved a plan to use $850 million in oil spill settlement payments from BP to back a bond offering expected to generate $610 million. Those proceeds will be used to repay $400 million in transfers from the Alabama Trust Fund to bolster the state budget the past seven years, as well as provide $120 million for Medicaid and fund about $90 million in road projects. (BIRMINGHAM NEWS)
Forty-two states have under-reported payment errors in the federal food stamp program. The size of the problem has prompted a full-scale review by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as well as an investigation by the Department of Justice into the possible intentional under-reporting of payment errors by some states to qualify for federal performance bonuses. (ARGUS LEADER)
Over 30 mostly Republican-controlled states have passed voting restrictions - including strict voter ID requirements and scaled back early voting periods - in recent years. And although President-elect Donald Trump hasn’t announced any formal plans to address the nation’s voting laws, his administration could press GOP-led states to adopt voting restrictions as the Obama administration did with Democrat-led cities and states on liberal issues like raising the minimum wage. The Trump administration could also foster state and local efforts to complicate the voting process for Democratic-leaning voting blocks. According to the D.C.-based Leadership Conference, there were likely over 800 fewer polling places in 2016 than in 2012, largely because of the closure of those in left-leaning areas of conservative states. And with control of both the White House and Congress, Republicans could go further at the national level, such as passing legislation allowing states to require identification to register to vote.
Obama’s Department of Justice has sued to block particularly restrictive voting laws. And those lawsuits aren’t likely to end with Trump’s swearing-in, since many of them were jointly filed with the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal groups. But having the federal government throw its weight behind such lawsuits is symbolically important, and that’s unlikely to happen with a Trump DOJ.
The courts have struck down many of the recent GOP-backed voting laws for violating the rights of minorities.
“In North Carolina, restriction of voting mechanisms and procedures that most heavily affect African-Americans will predictably redound to the benefit of one political party and to the disadvantage of the other,” a federal appeals court said in declaring a North Carolina voting law unconstitutional earlier this year. “As the evidence in the record makes clear, that is what happened here.”
But although Myrna Pérez, who heads the Voting Rights and Elections project at the Brennan Center for Justice, said, “There’s a difference between what may be attempted and is a viable threat with what [the Administration and Congress] may actually be able to do,” she also said, “There will be a giant, strong, vigorous pushback on efforts - in the courts and legislatively.” (NBC NEWS)
More than 230,000 Oregonians have automatically registered to vote since their state became the first to adopt an automatic voter registration system last year. The automatic registration of those who visited a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office contributed to the state’s highest turnout in a presidential election to date last month, 2.02 million voters. The state’s turnout rate, however, was only 80 percent, the lowest in a presidential election there since 2000. Only 97,184 - roughly 43 percent - of those who were automatically registered voted. Those results seem to support one of the main arguments against automatic registration: that it will add voters to the voter rolls who simply aren’t inclined to vote.
Other results from the nation’s first test of automatic voter registration were similarly mixed. Of those who were automatically registered at an Oregon DMV office, only 20 percent responded to a subsequent mailed request to choose a party affiliation. And only 35 percent of those who didn’t reply to that mailing - who were automatically registered as unaffiliated voters - voted, far less than the 60 percent rate for unaffiliated voters who registered by mail or through the secretary of state’s website. But of the 20 percent who did choose a party affiliation, 84 percent of both Democrats and Republicans voted. (STATELINE.ORG)
Last month Maine voters approved Question 5, making their state the first to adopt ranked-choice voting. Under that system, instead of voting for just one candidate, voters rank the candidates from first choice to last. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes, the bottom ranked candidates are eliminated, and voters rank the remaining candidates, repeating the process until one candidate receives a majority of the votes.
Supporters of the system say it keeps candidates from being elected to office without the support of a majority of voters, as Maine Gov. Paul LePage(R) did in 2010, when he received only 38 percent of the vote, and as President-elect Donald Trump did last month. The system is currently used by only a handful of cities around the country, but it could catch on in states if Maine’s experiment goes well.
“There’s a lot of voter dissatisfaction out there,” said Dan Diorio, an elections analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures. “And maybe a way to react to that is to look at these changes and think: ‘Maybe we don’t have to do things the way we always have. Maybe there’s a better way.’” (WASHINGTON POST)
Responding to an uptick in hate crimes since the Nov. 8 election, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) recently announced the creation of a special State Police unit to combat those incidents. The governor also announced a legislative effort to expand the Empire State’s human rights law to include protections for all students, not just those at private education institutions. He said he would also establish the nation’s first public-private emergency legal defense fund that would ensure immigrants, regardless of status, receive adequate legal representation.
In an address given at a Baptist church in Harlem, Cuomo called the rise in hate crimes a “social poison [in] the fabric of our nation” and urged people who experience such attacks to call a special hot line set up with the state Division of Human Rights to report them.
“The ugly political discourse of the election did not end on Election Day. In many ways it has gotten worse, [turning] into a social crisis that now challenges our identity as a state and as a nation and our people,” he said. “This is a country that is built on differences. We’re not found on one race or one color or one creed. This nation was founded upon one compact and that compact has been agreed to by many races and many cultures. The demonization of differences erodes our democracy at its core and attacks the foundation of this nation.”
Cuomo did not mention either presidential candidate by name, but has in the past criticized President-Elect Donald Trump for campaign rhetoric that many observers considered racist, sexist or xenophobic. The Southern Poverty Law Center has logged almost 900 incidents of harassment or intimidation since Election Day. Most appear to be aimed at immigrants, people of color, women and people of the Muslim faith, though there have also been similar incidents of aggression carried out against Trump supporters. Cuomo said his administration will do all it can to prevent similar acts from being carried out against any group.
“New York is, and will always be, a place of acceptance, inclusion and a bastion of hope for all people,” Cuomo said. ”We will never allow fear and intolerance to tear at the fabric of who we are – New Yorkers are stronger than that, and we are better than that. With these decisive actions, we say to people of all backgrounds and beliefs: New York is your home and refuge, and we will do whatever it takes to keep you safe.” (CNN.COM, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, NEW YORK GOVERNOR’S OFFICE)