Today we are checking the facts from last night's presidential debate. We'll have a comparison of competing tax measures, Prop 30 and Prop 38. Plus, can California pay for schools without raising taxes? All that and more on today's AirTalk.
Obama brings his “A” game to second presidential debate
Round one of the series of presidential debates went to Mitt Romney, with President Barack Obama delivering a lackluster and disappointing performance. But the general consensus on last night’s rematch is that both candidates were on their game.
The setting, a town hall style forum at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York, was in a state generally dominated by the Democratic Party, which certainly didn’t hurt the president’s case. Questions came from the audience of undecided voters and covered a variety of issues including energy independence, job creation, pay equity for women, foreign policy and of course, the economy. This gave each candidate the opportunity to spin off into their favorite talking points.
Obama leaned heavily on his record of accomplishments in health care, foreign policy, middle class tax breaks and the auto industry bailout. Meanwhile, Romney criticized the President’s economic policies, expounded on his own tax plan and positioned himself as a job creating machine. The two clashed over everything from the administration’s handling of the Benghazi attack to where their pensions are invested to who had more time left on the clock.
Moderator Candy Crowley kept things in check despite sometimes volatile verbal sparring and intense, near-physical confrontations. The event offered up plenty of Twitter-worthy moments, with phrases like “binder full of women” quickly going viral. And Obama used his final statement to his advantage, getting in a dig about Romney’s hidden-camera reference to the “47 percent.”
Both sides are claiming a victory, but did the performance sway any of those who are still undecided? Is there a clear winner of round two? What did you hear last night that surprised you? What were your favorite moments?
Guests:
Eugene Kiely, deputy director, FactCheck.org, a project of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center
Frank Newport, Editor-in-Chief for the Gallup Poll
Prop 30 vs Prop 38: What’s best for California schools?
One of the most heated contests in this November’s election is between two prominent Californians who aren’t running for anything. Governor Jerry Brown and civil rights lawyer Molly Munger have been out stumping for competing tax proposals, both aimed at giving a financial leg up to California’s struggling schools.
Brown’s Proposition 30 asks wealthier taxpayers to pay 1 to 3 percent more in income tax for the next seven years and imposes a modest quarter-percent increase in sales tax for the next four years. Munger’s Prop 38 also increases income taxes, but on a sliding scale across all income levels and for the next 12 years.
Prop 38 funds will be allocated to K-12 schools and early childhood programs, with a portion going to pay down state debt. Anticipated revenues for both plans range from $6 billion annually (Prop 30) to $10 billion+ (Prop 38). Both campaigns have been on the offensive, with Prop 38 ads implying that Prop 30 money will end up in the hands of Sacramento politicians, and Prop 30 backers saying their opponents stand to sink both ships unnecessarily.
Brown has been going after the youth vote, warning students that if his proposition fails it will spell disaster for California’s public colleges. All of this sniping and number-play has left many voters confused, so much so that many may decide to vote against both.
Weigh In:
Are these competing measures locked in a battle to the death? Will negative campaigning on either side hurt the chances for both? How will voters cut through the rhetoric and choose between them? Which plan puts more money in the classroom? What will it mean to California’s students if both measures fail at the ballot box?
Guests:
Molly Munger, author and chief backer of Proposition 38, civil rights attorney and co-director, Advancement Project (Yes on 38)
John Mockler, spokesperson for Yes on 30 campaign, former Executive Director of the State Board of Education and Secretary for Education for the State of California. Mockler was the chief architect of Proposition 98, California’s school finance law. (Yes on 30)
Los Angeles street vendors cooking up a challenge to the sidewalk ban
If you’ve ever stumbled out of a bar on Hollywood Boulevard at closing time, you know the smell: Bacon wrapped hot dogs. They’re very tasty, but are they legal?
Right now, street vendors can be fined up to $1,000 and face jail time for selling food on L.A. sidewalks. The carts are generally operated by immigrant vendors who make a living selling quick late-night snacks to concert, club and bar-goers.
Los Angeles County’s Street Vending Compliance Program does require vendors to pay fees and get public health permits, but they are still not permitted to prepare or sell the food on sidewalks. With the help of City Councilman Jose Huizar, street vendors in Boyle Heights recently came to an agreement with the city to be allowed to sell food at the Boyle Heights Farmers Market once a week.
The East Los Angeles Community Corporation (ELACC) in Boyle Heights is organizing a series of forums and working with community members to try and garner support for the legalization of street vendors.
“We’re taking a different approach and want to make sure at the front end, that residents are engaged in the policy development versus of having it be behind closed doors and then bringing them to react to it,” said Isela Gracian, associate director of ELACC. “Those town halls are really so see where the residents are at, what they would want to see in legalizing it.”
However, the downside to street vendors preparing food and doing business on the streets are the issues of lack of health inspection, property tax payments, a lack of bathroom facilities, and sometimes the improper disposal of waste.
Leron Gubler, the president and CEO of Hollywood chamber of commerce, spoke to some of these concerns.
“Number one, there are no health inspectors out that late at night. There is no supervision and review to be sure that they comply with health requirements,” said Gubler. “Then secondly and perhaps even more importance [sic], is the competition they provide. They don’t pay any business license fee, they’re not registered. They just show up and they may be right out in front of businesses that are open.”
Bob from central Los Angeles called into the show to add that he knows that the, “model for the country is New York,” referring to street vending being so widely successful in Manhattan. But Bob points out that Los Angeles does not have a concentrated mass and, unfortunately, this has lead to L.A.’s inability to adequately facilitate the street-eating culture in terms of restrooms and trash.
Gracian points out that she has been made aware of local complaints regarding sanitation issues and payment of licensing fees for street vendors. ELACC is trying to work with vendors and residents so the vendors are accountable for their equipment in addition to the surrounding area of their cart and that each vendor is paying a licensing fee.
“We have seen where there have been street vendors that are outside of shops that have already done a kind of informal agreement that actually supports each others business,” said Gracian. For example, the street vendor will sell pupusas only in front of a liquor store, which, according to Gracian, can help boost foot traffic for both businesses.
Summing up the issue of street vending at its fundamental core is former L.A. City Councilman Mike Woo. He introduced ordinance to legalize street vendors in the 80s and now thinks that ,“It should be tried. If the city regulates it, let’s give it a go.”
Weigh In
:
Is this a form of discrimination toward Latino immigrants? Do these vendors hurt other local storefront shops? Do they help these establishments?
Guest:
Isela Gracian, associate director of the East Los Angeles Community Corporation
Leron Gubler, president and CEO, Hollywood chamber of commerce
Khaled Hassan, owner, Zena Grand Commissary
Can California pay for schools without raising taxes?
Now that we’ve debated Propositions 30 and 38, a pair of competing tax initiatives that would restructure the way California’s tax structure pays for its education system, let’s take a step back and examine the common link between both initiatives.
Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to pay for education in the Golden state is Prop 30, which features an incremental sales and personal income tax increase. Pasadena attorney Molly Munger has been stumping for the California PTA supported Prop 38, which would use a sliding scale income tax increase to raise more funding for the state’s struggling schools. But California voters will likely note what both plans have in common: a tax increase.
Organizations like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association stand in opposition to both initiatives because of that commonality and the belief that higher taxes would imperil California’s economic climate.
Is this hard-line no-new-taxes stance a viable path forward for funding California’s schools? Where can lawmakers turn to find enough places to cut spending and close loopholes to balance the budget and pay for education?
Guest:
David Spady, California state director of Americans for Prosperity
Obama vs. Romney: Dueling tax and job policies put to the test
Two major points of contention during last night’s presidential debate were the divergence between the two opponents’ tax policies and plans to increase employment. Some experts criticize President Barack Obama for exaggerating the benefits of taxing the wealthy, while others say Mitt Romney’s numbers simply do not add up.
In the debate and throughout his campaign, Obama has emphasized the importance making sure wealthy Americans pay their fare share in taxes. What he doesn’t seem to mention is that even if all Americans in the highest income bracket pay significantly more in taxes, it would only be a small drop in the bucket toward paying down the nation’s towering deficit. Meanwhile, Romney has proposed to cut taxes for all Americans, including the wealthy, but has not provided a detailed account of how to fill the gap left by the major loss in tax revenue that would occur under his plan.
The candidates have also expressed very different views on how to create more jobs. Obama seems poised to focus on fostering employment in newer and greener industries, while Romney supports increasing jobs in more traditional industries such as domestic oil production.
Which plan has the most holes in it? What more can be done to solve America’s financial difficulties for the long-term?
Guests:
Michael Ettlinger, Vice President, Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress
Curtis Dubay is a Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation, where he specializes in tax issues