Archive for May, 2016

REPLAY WEDNESDAY: Community Party Radio on So-Metro Radio

May 30, 2016

The planet’s PREMIER Soul, RnB and talk radio station. Community Party Radio on So-Metro Radio REPLAY WEDNESDAY. Co-hosts: Mary Sanders and David Samuels. Program note: Bernie Sanders supporter Josh Elliott, who is running for a seat in the Connecticut General Assembly, has been selected as a delegate at the CT Democratic Convention and was unable to appear. He will join us June 21. Due to technical difficulties, independent Hartford rap artist Protigee was also unable to join us. We will reschedule. Mary and I will discuss a Huffington Post story on a looming federal indictment of Hillary Clinton on racketeering charges, that was scrubbed by the website with no explanation. We’ll also talk about the Hartford stadium controversy, the city budget, Donald Trump’s decision to chicken out of a debate with Sanders, and the Hillary email investigation. 8:00 PM Eastern Time 7:00 PM Central 5:00 PM Pacific. Replays on the Tuesdays we’re not on live, and every Wednesday.
http://www.sometroradio.com/

 

Resources

Protigee Facebook page:

 

Hall of Shame: Baseball, Vanity & Ambition Trump Social Justice:

https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/hall-of-shame-baseball-vanity-ambition-trump-social-justice/

 

Suspending Democracy:

https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/suspending-democracy/

 

New Politics and the Bernie Sanders Movement:

https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/new-politics-the-bernie-sanders-movement/

 

Hillary & Trump Agree on Tax Evasion & Racism:

https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/hillary-trump-agree-on-tax-evasion-racism/

Huffington Post Removes Article Claiming Hillary Clinton Will Be Indicted:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/29/huffington-post-removes/

 

 

 

 

:

Advertisements

Prevent Another East Haven: Mike Lawlor’s Two-Faced Racial Profiling Stance

May 27, 2016

by David Samuels

This column appears in the May 26 – June 2 edition of the Hartford News….

Community Party Radio on So-Metro Radio

Commentary on urban issues from a grassroots perspective. First, third and fifth Tuesday of each month. 8:00 PM Eastern Time 7:00 PM Central 5:00 PM Pacific. Tune in! Replays on the Tuesdays we aren’t on live and every Wednesday, same time. Next show: Tuesday, May 31. Co-host: Mary Sanders. Guests: Bernie Sanders supporter Josh Elliott, who is running for a seat in the Connecticut General Assembly. Independent Hartford rap artist Protigee. http://sometroradio.com/ Check out our No Sellout blog for info on the rest of our Community Party Media lineup, including False Choice: the Bipartisan Attack on the Working Class, the Poor and Communities of Color. https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/community-party-media-3/

Community Party Radio Podcasts

Visit No Sellout to listen to podcasts of past shows. https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/podcast-community-party-radio-on-so-metro-radio/

Josh Elliott, Candidate for State Representative

Check out CP’s No Sellout blog Election 2016 Candidate Tracker for a profile provided by Josh Elliott, a Bernie Sanders supporter who is running for a seat in the Connecticut General Assembly. Includes info on making a donation to his campaign. https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/election-2016-candidate-tracker-josh-elliott/

Correction:

Josh Elliott’s primary opponent will be James Pascarella. We apologize for the error.

Policy Watch: Biased Policing in Connecticut

Following the 2012 Sandy Hook spree killings, Gov. Dan Malloy and the Connecticut General Assembly immediately drafted strict gun control legislation, which they said was meant to prevent another horrific crime like this from taking place again. Following the 2012 arrests and subsequent convictions of four East Haven police officers on federal charges related to harassment and brutality against Latinos, and a Department of Justice investigation that found a “culture of corruption” at the East Haven Police Department, the response of Malloy, Office of Policy and Management Under Secretary Mike Lawlor and legislators was totally the opposite: Lawlor spoke publicly about a “real or perceived” problem of racial profiling in Connecticut, despite the national racial profiling scandal that exploded in the town he represented as a legislator, from 1987 to 2011. Instead of taking swift action to prevent another East Haven, the mantra from Lawlor was that racial profiling remained a theory that needed to be studied. Last week WNPR reporter Jeff Cohen interviewed Lawlor for his story on a new report by the so-called Racial Profiling Prohibition Project, which found racial disparities in traffic stops throughout the state.

Cohen told me in a Twitter exchange that Lawlor spoke at length about the East Haven case, but time constraints prevented his comments from being included in the story. Cohen spent a lot of energy defending Lawlor, and attempting to minimize my points about Lawlor’s duplicity regarding racial profiling as a personal issue between Lawlor and I. Cohen bailed out of our conversation when I pointed out that Lawlor ignored an email from the Community Party sent to him during the DOJ investigation of the EHPD. Seth Freed Wessler of ColorLines.com reported that the EHPD and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, had teamed up to target Latinos AFTER the DOJ East Haven probe started; we sent Wessler’s article to Lawlor. He never responded. You can read my exchange with Cohen here. https://twitter.com/wnpr/status/730477597142986752

Wessler explained how East Haven cops manipulated the law to get Latinos deported. “According to a number of advocates and attorneys in the East Haven area, the issue was not just that the local cops wanted to deport immigrants; it’s that federal immigration authorities obliged them, even as the DOJ was investigating the East Haven police. John Lugo, an organizer with the New Haven group Unidad Latina en Accion told Colorlines.com that several of the group’s members and many others have been deported as a result of East Haven’s racist policing. Michael Boyle, an attorney who practices immigration law in nearby North Haven, says that in the last couple of years he’s seen a number of immigrants who’ve been arrested by the East Haven police and then sent into deportation proceedings. ‘ICE says it has more of a focus on people with criminal problems,’ says Boyle, ‘but then the question is what kind of problems result in a call to ICE. In a place like East Haven, everything gets called in.’ And in a place like East Haven, virtually every Latino Colorlines.com interviewed had been profiled or arrested.

In July 2011, almost two years after the DOJ began investigating, Boyle says a young Ecuadoran man came into his office for immigration help. He’d been pulled over by the East Haven police and arrested for driving without proper registration. ‘The police called ICE and the next morning ICE showed up and told him he’d have to appear in immigration court.’ ‘It was one of these cases where he’d been staked out by the police at an Ecuadorian bakery. He was a really nice young man with a U.S.-citizen wife and he was targeted by the police there.’ Boyle decided to send the case over to the Yale law clinic, thinking that the man had been a victim of the very practices the clinic was litigating. Ultimately, according to Boyle, the clinic succeeded in getting the man relief from deportation. ‘But,’ he said, ‘had I taken the case and done the normal stuff without the civil rights claim, he’d be back in Mexico now.’ Another local immigration attorney, Glenn Formica, said he’d had a couple of cases from East Haven that resulted in deportation. Formica argued that even when ICE did not respond to calls from the East Haven Police over people picked up for simple traffic violations, the local police know what to charge immigrants with so that ICE *will* respond. ‘Five years ago the cops in the area didn’t really think much about getting people deported,’ said Formica. But as the federal government shifted its enforcement tactics to target local jails, ‘police departments that want to get people deported can do so pretty easily.’ ‘All you have to do is charge someone with the right thing. The East Haven police learned what to charge people with to get them deported.’ ”

Lawlor’s claim to Cohen that the East Haven case was the impetus for the work of the racial profiling board has been contradicted by one of its members. In October 2013 I interviewed Redding Police Chief Douglas Fuchs. I asked Fuchs why the board had not discussed the East Haven case during any of their televised meetings. Fuchs said, “That’s not our charge. Our job isn’t to look backward. Our job is to collect traffic stop data in the best manner possible.” The duplicitous behavior of Lawlor and board members such as Fuchs is especially disturbing, considering the fact that Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for President of the United States. Trump’s racist immigrant bashing is well documented, as is his rabid support of the police. A Trump Justice Department would certainly turn a blind eye and deaf ear to complaints about the type of police tactics Wessler described in his article on the EHPD and ICE. Fuchs has testified against CP’s racial profiling legislation, which includes protections against police harassment of Latinos for the purpose of deportation. My conversation with Cohen is another example of what Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman describes as the Access of Evil: reporters trading the truth, in exchange for access to people in positions of power. Lawlor has obstructed CP’s police reform work. His task as Malloy’s flunkie is to pay lip service to the racial profiling issue, while protecting the police.

Resources

How East Haven, Conn., Became Synonymous With Racial Profiling:

http://www.colorlines.com/articles/how-east-haven-conn-became-synonymous-racial-profiling

Trayvon Martin Act Report: Connecticut Racial Profiling Prohibition Project:

https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/trayvon-martin-act-report-connecticut-racial-profiling-prohibition-project/

Department of Justice investigative report on the East Haven Police Department:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-releases-investigative-findings-east-haven-connecticut-police-department

Follow CP on Twitter for state, national and world news headlines. https://twitter.com/CommunityParty1 Check out my Facebook page for daily news commentary. https://www.facebook.com/david.samuels.948 Listen to WQTQ 89.9 FM for CP’s public service announcements on our racial justice initiatives https://www.facebook.com/wqtqfm and So-Metro Radio the first, third and fifth Tuesday of each month at 8:00 PM for commentary on urban issues http://www.sometroradio.com/ Check out our No Sellout blog (https://hendu39.wordpress.com/) for the complete archive of CP columns and Northend Agent’s archive for selected columns (http://www.northendagents.com/). Contact us at 860-206-8879 or info.community.party@gmail.com

Josh Elliott, Candidate for State Representative

May 20, 2016

This column appears in the May 19 – 26 edition of the Hartford News…

Community Party Radio on So-Metro Radio

 

Commentary on urban issues from a grassroots perspective. First and third Tuesday of each month. 8:00 PM Eastern Time 7:00 PM Central 5:00 PM Pacific. Tune in! Replays the following Wednesday, same time. Next show: May 31. Co-host: Mary Sanders. Guest: Josh Elliott, a Bernie Sanders supporter who is running for a seat in the Connecticut General Assembly.  http://sometroradio.com/  Check out our No Sellout blog for info on the rest of our Community Party Media lineup, including False Choice: the Bipartisan Attack on the Working Class, the Poor and Communities of Color. https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/community-party-media-3/

 

 

 

 

Community Party Radio Podcasts

 

 

Visit No Sellout to listen to podcasts of past shows. https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/podcast-community-party-radio-on-so-metro-radio/

 

 

 

 

Guest Column

 

This week we’ll share a guest column by Josh Elliott, a Bernie Sanders supporter who is running for an open seat in the Connecticut General Assembly. Speaker of the House Rep. Brendan Sharkey, who represents House District 88 (Hamden), announced last weekend that he will not seek re-election. http://ctmirror.org/2016/05/15/house-speaker-j-brendan-sharkey-wont-seek-re-election/  James Pascarella will be Josh’s opponent in the Democratic Party primary that will be held in August. This column was written prior to Sharkey’s announcement.

 

 

*****

 

 

I’m reaching out to you because I have officially announced my candidacy for state representative, and I am now in fundraising mode for my nascent campaign. This column will also serve as a brief introduction to my race and some of the issues I plan on addressing if elected.

 

In the last year, most of my free time went to supporting the Bernie Sanders campaign on a volunteer basis. During that experience I developed an extensive network of community members and organizers. Initially we planned on using our energy to begin reshaping the CT legislature. After checking my own district, I was satisfied to see that all of my representatives were Democrats, and primarying a fellow Democrat didn’t interest me, until…

 

Over the last few months the public discourse between the Speaker of the House, Brendan Sharkey, and the Governor, Dannel Malloy, has become more and more toxic. The basic crux is that there is over a $200MM budget shortfall, and no one is willing to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy – what the legislature and Governor are arguing is how to cut spending and which people, who rely on important government programs, will get punished. Sharkey has been proposing massive cuts to salaries and pensions against the wishes of the state labor unions. The unions refuse to come to the table, rightfully, because fairness dictates that all parties should feel the economic pain of the 2008-2009 recession equitably. Instead, Brendan Sharkey is taking out his frustration on unions and the Governor. At one point in their squabbles, Sharkey outright refused to even sit and negotiate with the Governor. Communications completely broke down nearing the end of the legislative session. Then, when the Democrats finally released their budget, it included fictional revenues, such as $58MM from settlements that haven’t taken place, are uncertain, and won’t help the crisis in future years. The magic wand theory of money management.

 

At my Democratic Town Committee meeting three weeks ago Sharkey was asked questions by some members, and his answers were appalling. First, when asked whether he would ever legalize and regulate weed he answered that he would not, because he “is not comfortable with it.” Meanwhile, Colorado raised $115MM dollars in tax revenue last year. This sort of revenue would go a long way in solving our budget crisis. Then, when asked if he would raise taxes on the highest income earners, he explained that raising taxes on the rich were completely off the table. A non-starter.

 

This is not what our community is looking for in a representative and that is why I am running to unseat him. Sacrifices must be felt across the board, not just by our state unions – and we must be looking at alternative ways to raise revenues for the state.

 

As an attorney and entrepreneur, I believe I have the skills necessary to take on the budgetary issues that Connecticut faces. Below is information on making contributions. Because I am part of CT’s Clean Elections Program, if I am able to raise $5,000 then $32,000 will be released to me by the state so that I am able to properly compete against my 15-year incumbent opponent. Because the maximum allowable contribution is $100, I would ask that if you know anyone who shares our ideals, please ask them to help my campaign. I am working with an exceptional team and we are going to make a very strong run this summer – but the first step is raising money, and that is where you come in.

 

If you have any questions about my candidacy and want to reach out to me, please email me at mrjoshelliott@gmail.com.

 

 

 

*****

 

Check out CP’s No Sellout blog Election 2016 Candidate Tracker for a profile provided by Josh, including info on making a donation to his campaign. https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/election-2016-candidate-tracker-josh-elliott/

 

 

Follow CP on Twitter for state, national and world news headlines. https://twitter.com/CommunityParty1 Check out my Facebook page for daily news commentary. https://www.facebook.com/david.samuels.948   Listen to WQTQ 89.9 FM for CP’s public service announcements on our racial justice initiatives https://www.facebook.com/wqtqfm and So-Metro Radio the first and third Tuesday of each month at 8:00 PM for commentary on urban issues http://www.sometroradio.com/  Check out our No Sellout blog (https://hendu39.wordpress.com/) for the complete archive of CP columns and Northend Agent’s archive for selected columns (http://www.northendagents.com/). Contact us at 860-206-8879 or info.community.party@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPLAY WEDNESDAY: Community Party Radio On So-Metro Radio

May 14, 2016

The planet’s PREMIER Soul, RnB and talk radio station. Community Party Radio on So-Metro Radio Replay Wednesday. Hosted by David Samuels and  Mary L. Sanders.  California police reform activist Laurie Valdez will share important news regarding the murder of her husband Antonio Guzman-Lopez, who was killed by San Jose State University police. Mary and I will talk about a new report on racial profiling in Connecticut, and how Gov. Dan Malloy’s administration and legislators have obstructed our police reform efforts. We will also discuss the 2016 Connecticut legislative session, Bill Clinton’s war on the poor, and the presidential elections.  8:00 PM Eastern Time 7:00 PM Central 5:00 PM Pacific.

Resources

Get Global Network Community Party Radio on So-Metro Radio podcasts:

https://www.spreaker.com/show/community-party-radio

Justice for Josiah:  https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Josiah/timeline

Laurie Valdez:   https://www.facebook.com/laurie.valdez1

Report Debunks Dan Malloy’s Lie About Taxes & Migration:

https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2016/05/12/report-debunks-dan-malloys-lie-about-taxes-migration/

Election 2016 Candidate Tracker: Josh Elliott:

https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/election-2016-candidate-tracker-josh-elliott/

The Clinton Legacy Is Black Impoverishment—so Why Are We Still Voting for Hillary?
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2016/02/the_clinton_legacy_decimated_black_america_so_why_are_we_still_voting_for.html

New report on racial profiling in Connecticut: http://www.ctrp3.org/reports/

How East Haven, Conn., Became Synonymous With Racial Profiling :

http://www.colorlines.com/articles/how-east-haven-conn-became-synonymous-racial-profiling

Trayvon Martin Act Report: Connecticut Racial Profiling Prohibition Project:

https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/trayvon-martin-act-report-connecticut-racial-profiling-prohibition-project/

Community Party Trayvon Martin Act Bill Language:

https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/community-party-trayvon-martin-act-bill-language/

CNN report on passage of 2012 Connecticut racial profiling bill. Includes a mention of the Community Party’s traffic stop receipt provision:

https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/community-party-trayvon-martin-act-bill-language/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Election 2016 Candidate Tracker: Josh Elliott

May 14, 2016

This is a profile provided by Josh Elliott, a Bernie Sanders supporter who is running for a seat in the Connecticut General Assembly. Brendan Sharkey, who represents House District 88 of Hamden, announced that he will not seek re-election. Josh will face James Pascarella in a Democratic Party primary in August.

Here is an article regarding my announcement.

Here is some recent press regarding Paid Family and Medical Leave.

Here is an article regarding why I’m running.

Here is an article about the future of our movement.

Recent articles:  https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=josh+elliott+hamden&tbm=nws

And finally, here is the link to donate.

 

Report Debunks Dan Malloy’s Lie About Taxes & Migration

May 12, 2016

by David Samuels

 

This column appears in the May 12 – 19 edition of the Hartford News…

Community Party Radio on So-Metro Radio
Commentary on urban issues from a grassroots perspective. First and third Tuesday of each month. 8:00 PM Eastern Time 7:00 PM Central 5:00 PM Pacific. Tune in! Replays the following Wednesday, same time. Next show: May 17. Co-host: Mary Sanders. Social worker Janet Frazao-Conaci will join us for a conversation about the 2016 legislative session, which ended May 4, the devastating effect of President Bill Clinton’s 1996 ‘welfare reform’ bill, and the presidential elections.  http://sometroradio.com/  Check out our No Sellout blog for info on the rest of our Community Party Media lineup, including False Choice: the Bipartisan Attack on the Working Class, the Poor and Communities of Color. https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/community-party-media-3/
Community Party Radio Podcasts
 Policy Watch:  Tax the Rich
The 2016 legislative session ended May 4 without a budget agreement. A special session was scheduled for this week. Last week Gov. Dan Malloy continued to defend his neoliberal attack on the public sector, the largest employer of Black people and women (I’m a state worker), as he rejected the call from unions that he tax the rich and close corporate tax loopholes, in order to balance the state budget. The state Judicial Branch began issuing 113 layoff notices last week, bringing their total to 239; Malloy intends to lay off as many as 2,000 state workers. Malloy repeated the neoliberal lie being perpetuated by compliant media outlets: that rich people will leave the state if CT’s regressive tax system is reformed. This week we’ll share a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report, which provides the facts about taxes and migration.  Check out the CBPP website.    http://www.cbpp.org/
                                                                                    ******

State “Income Migration” Claims Are Deeply Flawed

October 20, 2014
Some proponents of state income tax cuts are making highly inaccurate claims about the impact of interstate migration patterns on states with relatively high income taxes based on a misleading reading of Internal Revenue Service data.
Those making these arguments claim that many of the people who leave states with relatively robust income taxes do so largely in order to pay little or no income tax in another state, and that they take their incomes with them when they move, harming the economies of the states they left.  As a consequence, these “income migration” proponents claim, states with relatively high income taxes are suffering severe damage from the loss of income as “money walks” out of their states to lower-tax states.[1]
The first part of this argument — that interstate differences in tax levels are a major explanation for interstate migration patterns — is not supported by the evidence, as we documented in an earlier paper.[2]  People rarely move to lower their state income taxes.  Other factors, such as job opportunities, family considerations, climate, and housing costs, are much more decisive.
The second part of the argument — that states with relatively high income taxes are suffering severe economic damage because they are losing the incomes of people who migrate to other states — is also deeply flawed.
  • Income migration analyses ignore that the vast majority of people can’t take their income with them to a new state because they work for someone else.  When people leave a state, they usually also leave their job.  The income they made in that job then typically goes to the person who gets that job next; it does not leave the state.
    For example, consider a California sales representative who is transferred to Nevada.  According to “income migration” proponents, California’s economy is weakened because the sales representative moved away and took her income with her.  In reality, her income stayed with her employer and was then transferred to her replacement.  California’s economy was not harmed.
  • These analyses also ignore the income gains that accrue to other in-state small businesses when business owners move away.  For example, if a New York doctor in private practice retires and moves to Florida, his or her patients ? and their payments ? will go to some other New York provider, increasing that provider’s income.  Also, the owner of a successful business who leaves will often sell it to someone who will continue to operate it.  “Income migration” analyses miss these realities because they focus only on people who move from one state to another, ignoring what happens to the incomes of people who don’t move.
  • These analyses also do not trace what happens to the income of a person after he or she leaves a state.  Income migration proponents effectively assume that the income of a person who leaves a state will stay the same after the move, even if the person doesn’t find a job in the new location or is moving there to retire.  That assumption further skews their results.  For example, when someone from New Jersey retires to Florida, income migration analyses claim that New Jersey’s economy lost income equal to the person’s pre-retirement salary, even though their income probably would have declined even if they had stayed in New Jersey.
  • Other shortcomings in income migration analyses further exaggerate the size of interstate income flows.  For example, some people leave a state but continue to work there.  These people usually continue to contribute to the economy and tax revenue base of the state where they still work, even though their home is now elsewhere.  Income migration analyses exaggerate the income lost to the worker’s old home state by effectively claiming that all of their income is lost to the economies of the states from which they moved.
To be sure, some income does automatically follow a person when he or she leaves a state — pensions, Social Security, and investment earnings, for example.  But they represent a relatively small share of total taxable income — under one-fifth in most states.  And, as with other forms of income, much of such income that is “lost” to a state when people move out is replaced by income “gained” when others move in.
Policymakers should focus their attention on the policy choices most likely to grow the incomes of their current and future residents, and not be distracted by misleading claims about income migration.  The chief policy prescription that the income migration concept is used to justify — deep cuts in (or outright repeal of) state income taxes — would likely prove self-defeating, leading to deteriorating K-12 education, state universities, parks, roads, public safety, and other services that make states places where businesses want to invest and where the engineers, managers, and other personnel they need to hire want to live.

State Taxes Have Negligible Impact on Interstate Moves

Proponents of the income migration concept cite it — and the IRS data that allegedly measure it — in service of a broader claim: that interstate differences in tax levels drive large numbers of people to consciously “vote with their feet” and move from higher-tax states to lower-tax ones.  Studies, however, don’t support this claim, as a recent CBPP papera explained:
  • Relatively few Americans relocate from state to state, and a miniscule share of them report that they moved because of taxes.  Only about 1.5 to 2 percent of U.S. residents relocate across state lines each year, and the rate seems to be declining.  And of that 1.5 to 2 percent, the vast majority cite new, transferred, or lost jobs or family-related reasons (like needing to care for an ailing relative).
  • People who move are nearly as likely to move from low-tax states to high-tax states as the reverse — in some cases, more likely.  Between 1993 and 2011, for example, no-income-tax Florida lost households to 15 states, 11 of them with income taxes.  Net in-migration of households to North Carolina, which had the highest income taxes of any Sunbelt state throughout this period, was more than double that of its no-income-tax neighbor Tennessee.  Other migration patterns also confound the taxes-drive-migration thesis; for example, almost as many people moved to Arizona (which has an income tax) as to Texas (which doesn’t), even though Texas is a much larger state with many more jobs for a potential in-mover to fill.
  • Migrants to no-income-tax states aren’t disproportionately high-income.  For example, more than three times as many people moving from New York to Florida between 2008 and 2012 had incomes below $50,000 as above $100,000 — a ratio roughly in proportion to their shares of the population.  If income taxes were a major reason that more people move from New York to Florida than vice versa, one would expect the people moving to Florida to be disproportionately high income.
  • Climate is a major driver of interstate migration; people — especially retirees — continue to move from cold, snowy states to Sunbelt states regardless of the tax levels in either the origin or destination stateNo-income-tax Florida and Texas had the highest net in-migration of any states from 1993-2011, but income-tax-levying Arizona and relatively high-income-tax North Carolina were close behind.
  • Reductions in housing costs, not taxes, are what save families the most money when they move from states like New York and California to states like Texas and Florida.  Taxes are much less consequential than housing costs for most families making many of the specific state-to-state moves often attributed to taxes.  For example, a typical family with a $75,000 income selling its home in Los Angeles in 2010 and buying one in Houston would have saved more than two and a half times as much in mortgage payments as in state and local taxes.  The same family moving from New York City to Miami would have saved more than three times as much in housing costs as in state and local taxes.
aMichael Mazerov, “State Taxes Have a Negligible Impact on Americans’ Interstate Moves,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, revised May 21, 2014, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4141.

IRS Data on Interstate Migration

Proponents of the income migration thesis base their findings on a misleading reading of IRS data.  Those data define an interstate move as having occurred when a tax return filed under a particular Social Security number in a specific state in one year is filed under the same Social Security number but in a different state the following year.[3]  These data are available for all possible combinations of state-to-state moves from the late 1980s to 2011.[4]
The IRS data confirm what common sense would suggest: every year, every state sees some households moving in and others moving out.  “Net migration” is the difference between the two and can be positive or negative.  Many states, primarily northern “Frostbelt” states, have experienced fairly consistent net out-migration for several decades, while many “Sunbelt” states have experienced fairly steady net in-migration.
Beginning with interstate moves that occurred between 1992 and 1993, the IRS included in its migration data the total household income (adjusted gross income, or AGI) of the tax returns that moved between states.[5]  Proponents of the income migration concept simply aggregate the AGIs reported on all the migrating household tax returns — those moving into a given state and those moving out.  Accordingly, a state experiencing net out-migration of households will generally show what proponents characterize as a net “loss of income due to migration.”[6]
For example, the IRS data show that the 3.3 million households moving out of New York between 1993 and 2011 reported aggregate AGIs of approximately $170 billion, while the 2.3 million households moving into New York reported aggregate AGIs of approximately $103 billion.  Income migration proponents cite these numbers to argue that New York “lost” approximately $67 billion in income as a result of the net out-migration of households and suffered lost jobs and other economic damage as a result, since that income was no longer available for consumer spending in the New York economy. These claims are deeply flawed, for a number of reasons discussed below.

Vast Majority of Income “Lost” Due to Out-Migration Never Leaves the State

The IRS data provide an incomplete — and thus seriously misleading — picture of whether states experiencing out-migration actually “lose income.”  In reality, the income allegedly lost when people leave a state generally goes to two groups of people: those moving into the state and those already in the state who are entering the state’s labor force.
  • People moving into a state replace the vast majority of the income of people moving out of it.[7]  The IRS migration data show that in 20 of the 26 states that experienced net out-migration of households between 1993 and 2011, at least 80 percent of the income supposedly lost through out-migration was replaced by income gained through in-migration.
  • People entering a state’s labor force receive most of the rest of the income previously earned by people who left the state.  If the jobs of people who leave a state are filled by people already in the state who have just reached working age, graduated from high school or college, were previously unemployed, or are otherwise re-entering the labor force, their income will not show up in the IRS migration data because they haven’t migrated.  Likewise, if immigrants from foreign countries fill the jobs of out-movers, their incomes usually will not be counted either.[9]
    As Table 1 indicates, every state that experienced net out-migration in 1993-2011 except Michigan nevertheless saw an increase in the total number of people employed.  For example, even though California lost 768,000 households due to migration, it both filled the jobs of those who left and generated almost 2.3 million new jobs.[10]  Since these states did not suffer a net loss of jobs, it is highly misleading to treat the wages of people who left the state as income “lost” to the state economy, as income migration proponents do.[11]  This particular misinterpretation of the IRS data has a substantial impact on the overall income migration figures often cited, because wages and salaries account for more than two-thirds of total AGI reported on federal tax returns.[12]
Table 1
All States Except Michigan Gained Jobs and Income from 1993-2011 Regardless of the Change in Households from Interstate Migration
Net Change in Households
Due to Interstate Migration
(in thousands) 1993-2011
New Non-Farm Jobs
(in thousands)
1993-2011
Average Annual Growth in Adjusted Gross Income of State Residents 1993-2011
Alabama 34 153 4.2%
Alaska -11 78 4.6%
Arizona 466 828 6.0%
Arkansas 49 176 4.7%
California -768 2,261 5.0%
Colorado 242 588 5.7%
Connecticut -135 94 4.6%
Delaware 34 68 4.4%
District of Columbia -25 56 5.1%
Florida 931 1,702 5.3%
Georgia 402 758 5.0%
Hawaii -31 55 3.5%
Idaho 57 177 4.8%
Illinois -438 346 4.0%
Indiana -59 220 3.6%
Iowa -73 208 4.2%
Kansas -59 205 4.3%
Kentucky 43 246 4.2%
Louisiana -123 245 4.5%
Maine 0 75 4.1%
Maryland -36 438 4.7%
Massachusetts -179 414 5.0%
Michigan -360 -47 3.0%
Minnesota -32 437 4.8%
Mississippi -7 89 4.5%
Missouri 26 272 4.1%
Montana 17 105 4.9%
Nebraska -41 183 4.6%
Nevada 292 454 6.3%
New Hampshire 17 126 4.9%
New Jersey -329 355 4.3%
New Mexico 19 177 4.9%
New York -1,049 927 4.6%
North Carolina 454 670 4.9%
North Dakota -22 112 5.4%
Ohio -332 179 3.3%
Oklahoma 10 317 4.8%
Oregon 145 302 4.5%
Pennsylvania -215 561 4.1%
Rhode Island -39 31 4.1%
South Carolina 180 263 4.6%
South Dakota -5 90 5.1%
Tennessee 205 330 4.4%
Texas 500 3,082 5.9%
Utah 18 398 5.8%
Vermont -7 43 4.3%
Virginia 122 775 5.3%
Washington 173 607 5.1%
West Virginia -7 103 3.9%
Wisconsin -57 346 4.1%
Wyoming 1 76 6.1%
Source: Internal Revenue Service interstate migration and Statistics of Income databases, and Bureau of Labor Statistics
Similarly, most of the business income of self-employed people and other small business owners isn’t lost when they leave a state.  Departing small business owners often sell their businesses to people who will keep operating them.  Even if they shut them down, different businesses already in the state will often fill the demand for the goods and services they provided.  If a doctor or a plumber leaves a state, for example, some other doctor or plumber will pick up the leaver’s patient or client.  Under scenarios like these, business owners or self-employed individuals remaining in the state will see a corresponding increase in their AGIs, but that increase will not show up in the IRS migration data.[13]
As Table 1 shows, every state saw total AGI reported by state residents grow significantly between 1993 and 2011.  In other words, none of the states that experienced net out-migration during that period actually “lost income.”

Other Limitations of IRS Migration Data Further Exaggerate Income Migration

Other significant limitations in the IRS migration data cause them to substantially exaggerate the amount of income that can reasonably be characterized as “lost due to (out) migration.”  Those limitations concern four groups of people:
  • People who are retiring.[14]  A large share of the people leaving relatively high-income-tax states like New York and New Jersey for no-income-tax states like Florida do so upon retirement.  Their AGIs in the IRS migration data likely include, in part, salary or wages received before they quit their job.  (The IRS data cannot determine the month in which the person moved, nor does the IRS trace movers to determine how much income they report in the first full year of residence in their new state.)  Counting all of the income of retiring workers as “income lost due to migration” ignores the fact that much of it would have been “lost” even if they hadn’t left,[15] since people’s AGI usually drops sharply when they retire.[16]
  • People who are laid off.  When people leave a state after being laid off, a substantial share of their AGI reflected in the IRS migration data was likely earned before the layoff and would have been lost to the state economy even if they hadn’t left.  In other words, the state economy did not “lose income” because they migrated; they migrated because they — and the state economy — lost income.
  • People who leave the state but continue to work there.  The IRS migration data treat people who change their state of residence as having migrated even if they continue to work in their old state.  That income legally can be (and usually is) taxed by the state in which the work is performed.[17]  In turn, that tax revenue will be spent — and thereby provide employment — in that state’s economy.  In addition, people who move away but still work in their old state likely patronize that state’s restaurants and stores to some extent, injecting additional demand (and sales tax revenue) into the state’s economy.
    This shortcoming of the IRS data may exaggerate the “income loss due to migration” of New York and Massachusetts in particular, two states that income migration proponents often criticize for their income tax rates.  Between 1993 and 2011, 492,000 households left New York for New Jersey, 164,000 left New York for Connecticut, and 151,000 left Massachusetts for New Hampshire.  Many workers commute into New York City from New Jersey and Connecticut, as well as from southern New Hampshire to the Boston metro area.  These commuters undoubtedly include many people who migrated into these three states, and the amount of income migration out of New York and Massachusetts is exaggerated because both states continue to tax the salaries of these non-residents and benefit from their workday spending.
  • People who haven’t completely left their home state.  There is no requirement that the address on a federal tax return be that of the taxpayer’s legal state of residence under state law.  Accordingly, if a legal resident of New York (for example) who spends December through April at a second home in Florida decides to start listing the Florida address on his or her tax return, the IRS will deem this person — and all of his or her income — to have migrated to Florida in that year, even if the person continued to spend the same amount of the year (and the same share of his or her income) in New York.
    Florida, which has no income tax, has an enormous “snowbird” population, estimated at 800,000 people in a 2007 study.[18]  Accordingly, a significant share of the alleged income migration to this state actually reflects the IRS’s equation of a change in tax filing address with a permanent move.  The same is likely true to a lesser extent of some other areas in no-income tax states that are popular locations for second homes or winter rentals — for example, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, southern Nevada, and the south Texas coast.

Only a Small Share of Total Income Actually “Migrates”

Some types of income can reasonably be described as “migrating” when their recipients move, but they account for a relatively small share of total taxable income — under one-fifth in most states.  These include things like pensions, Social Security benefits, and interest, dividends, and capital gains from bank accounts and other passive investments in stocks and bonds.  In general, these types of income can only be taxed by the state in which the person receiving them resides.  Accordingly, if a recipient of this income permanently leaves a state, the state’s economy and income tax base generally lose that income.
Taxable interest comprised just 1.2 percent of total AGI reported on federal tax returns in 2012, dividends 5.1 percent, and capital gains 6.8 percent.[19]  Taxable Social Security benefits comprised 2.5 percent of federal AGI and pensions and annuities an additional 6.7 percent, but a majority of states substantially or completely exclude these types of income from taxation.[20]

Out-migration to Other States Remains a Concern

The fact that proponents of the income migration concept wildly exaggerate the economic harm to states from out-migration does not mean that policymakers should be indifferent to people leaving their states.  Net out-migration can be a signal that a state’s economy is not providing sufficient opportunities for some residents to use their skills fully and to improve their standard of living.  Out-migration can damage a state’s long-term growth prospects if the people leaving tend to be working-age adults with critical job skills, high levels of education, and strong entrepreneurial drive.
While some claim that high state taxes are driving these types of people to move out of state, the evidence doesn’t support this claim.[21]  Moreover, the incorrect assumption that state and local taxes are driving entrepreneurs, engineers, venture capitalists, and other skilled professionals to low-tax states leads some conservatives to advocate policy choices that ultimately could be self-defeating with respect to stemming out-migration and encouraging long-term growth.
Because income taxes provide such a large share of revenue in the states in which they are levied, even modest cuts would likely impair a state’s ability to provide high-quality education programs that train the engineers and business executives of tomorrow.  Declining quality of local schools, state universities, roads, parks, mass transit, and other critical services also would likely discourage in-migration by the same kinds of highly skilled people that states need to attract.  State policymakers thus would be wise to reject both the income migration concept and the misguided tax policy prescriptions that flow from it.
                                                                                               ******
Follow CP on Twitter for state, national and world news headlines. https://twitter.com/CommunityParty1 Check out my Facebook page for daily news commentary. https://www.facebook.com/david.samuels.948   Listen to WQTQ 89.9 FM for CP’s public service announcements on our racial justice initiatives https://www.facebook.com/wqtqfm and So-Metro Radio the first and third Tuesday of each month at 8:00 PM for commentary on urban issues http://www.sometroradio.com/  Check out our No Sellout blog (https://hendu39.wordpress.com/) for the complete archive of CP columns and Northend Agent’s archive for selected columns (http://www.northendagents.com/). Contact us at 860-206-8879 or info.community.party@gmail.com  

Hillary & Trump Agree on Tax Evasion & Racism

May 5, 2016
by David Samuels
This column appears in the May 5 – 12 edition of the Hartford News…
Community Party Radio on So-Metro Radio
Commentary on urban issues from a grassroots perspective. First and third Tuesday of each month. 8:00 PM Eastern Time 7:00 PM Central 5:00 PM Pacific. Tune in! Replays the following Wednesday, same time. Next show: May 17. Co-host: Mary Sanders. Social worker Janet Frazao-Conaci will join us for a conversation about the 2016 legislative session, which ended May 4, the devastating effect of President Bill Clinton’s 1996 ‘welfare reform’ bill, and the presidential elections.  http://sometroradio.com/  Check out our No Sellout blog for info on the rest of our Community Party Media lineup, including False Choice: the Bipartisan Attack on the Working Class, the Poor and Communities of Color. https://hendu39.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/community-party-media-3/
Community Party Radio Podcasts
Community Update –   Face the Hate
WFSB Face the State host Dennis House continued his biased coverage of the state budget issue, by having Journal Inquirer managing editor Chris Powell on as a guest. Powell justified state employee layoffs by whining about us getting holidays off and the state “paying people to have children outside marriage”, while saying nothing about Connecticut corporations stashing $180 billion in offshore accounts, or this state losing $7.2 billion in revenue due to corporate tax breaks.

Powell’s idiotic, bigoted comments are nothing new. Powell wrote a 2013 op-ed, where he blamed SINGLE MOTHERS for the decline in newspaper sales. Powell used sexism and coded racism, saying single mothers lived on welfare, had children by different fathers, couldn’t speak or read English and “moved every few months to cheat their landlords”.  Amanda Hess of Slate blasted Powell’s remarks. “Perhaps these illiterate, ignorant, felonious welfare queens aren’t buying Powell’s newspaper because they do not actually exist. Despite Powell’s assertion that a ‘rising’ proportion of single-parent families have killed the newspaper industry, several of the social ills he identifies are not, in fact, escalating. The U.S. illiteracy rate has not budged in 10 years. The U.S. poverty rate did rise during the recession—to about the level it was in 1993. Other claims in Powell’s piece—that single mothers can hardly speak, ‘barely know what town they’re living in,’ and are single-handedly imbuing their children with ‘developmental handicaps’—are too made up to refute. (If Powell had properly optimized his op-ed for publication on the Internet, perhaps he could have provided links to his sources?)  Here’s an alternate theory: Nobody wants to read Chris Powell’s newspaper because it is the worst.”

Policy Watch  –  The Clintons & Donald Trump Exploit Racism  
Next week’s column will feature an analysis of the 2016 legislative session, which ended Wednesday.
Hillary Clinton net worth: $45 million
Bill Clinton net worth: $80 million
Donald Trump net worth: $4.50 billion
Democracy Now report: “Clinton and Trump share one thing in common in Delaware: an address known for helping companies avoid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. The Guardian reports the two-story office building in Wilmington is the registered address of more than 285,000 companies, more than any other address in the world. By registering in Delaware, companies can avoid taxes by shifting earnings from other states. Clinton and Trump both have companies registered at the address, and both have refused to explain why.”
Last week we shared a Huffington Post column by activist Miles Mogulescu, who presented a plan for a permanent Bernie Sanders political organization. Mogulescu talked about the challenges the organization would face after the November presidential election. “If a corporate centrist Democrat like Hillary Clinton becomes president, a mass national social democratic/socialist/liberal organization is needed to prevent her from moving to the right and to build a base for real progressive change. If a right-wing populist like Donald Trump becomes president, such an organization is needed even more to mobilize mass resistance to his potentially divisive and racist policies.”  Clinton’s neoliberal agenda is also racist. She supported her husband’s racist crime and so-called welfare reform bills, which entrenched Black mass incarceration and fueled poverty, respectively. The voting patterns in the 2016 Democratic primary, which have been tipped in Clinton’s favor as a result of overwhelming support by Black voters, underscore the need for a Sanders organization to develop alliances with racial justice movements, and form a connection with Black, Latino and Indigenous communities. Racial justice movements that are truly dedicated to liberation would have to be vigilant about holding the Sanders organization accountable, as it would be susceptible to being co-opted and swallowed whole by the Democratic Party establishment EVERY DAY. Supporting grassroots, third-party candidates would have to be a mandatory function of the organization. Josh Elliott, a Sanders supporter who launched CT Progressives, will challenge Speaker of the House Brendan Sharkey in the August Democratic primary. http://www.courant.com/politics/elections/hc-bernie-sanders-connecticut-future-20160502-story.html Sharkey has represented the Hamden district for 16 years.
Trump is now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, after knocking out Ted Cruz with a victory in the Indiana primary on Tuesday. The events at Trump’s rally last Thursday in Costa Mesa, California are well documented. Violence pops off at Trump rallies, because Trump is a purveyor of violence. He is a white nationalism candidate, who uses hate speech as the foundation of his rhetoric. Trump promotes a mob mentality, that has resulted in his followers assaulting protesters at multiple Trump rallies. Trump’s campaign has received donations from white supremacists. The Imperial Wizard of the Rebel Brigade Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Virginia, who would not reveal his name, has endorsed Trump. Talking Points Memo reported on the story. “Asked who he was supporting in the 2016 race, the wizard replied: ‘I think Donald Trump would be best for the job.’ ‘The reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes in, we believe in. We want our country to be safe,’ he said.”  http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/richmond-kkk-leader-endorses-donald-trump  Former KKK leader David Duke endorsed Trump in February; Trump did not immediately denounce Duke and claimed that he didn’t know who Duke is, which was proven to be false. Former Indiana University coach Bobby Knight said people should vote for Trump, because he is willing to repeat the nuclear holocaust that the U.S. inflicted on Japan. Republican delegates who oppose Trump have received death threats.
While activists on the left rightfully confront Trump’s bigotry, they also should remember that Clinton and her husband Bill’s track record of neoliberal, racist policies have already wreaked havoc in communities of color. Black Agenda Report commentator Richard W. Behan talked about the Clintons’ despicable manipulation of racialized politics. “They have relied on the black vote in virtually every election either of them has faced over the past 24 years, but their respective incumbencies have savaged this faithful community.  ‘From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America.’ Those are Michelle Alexander’s words, accompanying her recent online essay, ‘The Clinton Legacy is Black Impoverishment–So Why Are We Still Voting for Hillary?’ (The article appeared in print form in the Nation magazine on February 29 under the title, ‘Black Lives Shattered.’).
As chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council in 1991, Bill Clinton helped redesign the party, enabling it to trump the Republicans’ signature issues. The New Democratic Party, as it came to be known, would outdo the Republicans; it would be tougher on ‘crime’ and ‘welfare’—and deliberately seek out campaign funding from corporate sources. This transformation was not trivial, and it would be disastrous for America’s working families and communities of color. In fact, the New Democratic Party simply abandoned those constituencies—but never changed its campaign messaging.

First he attacked the welfare issue, with The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Since the end of the Clinton Administration, poverty in the U.S. has nearly doubled: ‘...the number of Americans living in high-poverty areas rose to 13.8 million in 2013 from 7.2 million in 2000, with African-Americans and Latinos driving most of the gains.‘  http://www.ibtimes.com/poverty-has-nearly-doubled-2000-america-2045579
To show how tough on crime he could be, Clinton next guided The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 through Congress.  When Clinton took office in 1993 the prison population in the U.S. was roughly 855,000. When he left office eight years later it exceeded 2 million. Today it is about 2.25 million, and 4.7 million more citizens are on parole or probation. So our total ‘Correctional Population’ is nearly seven million citizens. Most of them are black, and minor drug offenses are by far the most common. (Terminology and figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.)” Behan pointed out that Hillary used coded racism in the form of her “super-predators” remark, describing at-risk Black youth, to whip up support for the crime bill. Hillary and Trump have more in common than they have differences: they are both racist imperialists who want to be the next caretaker of the U.S. empire.
Follow CP on Twitter for state, national and world news headlines. https://twitter.com/CommunityParty1 Check out my Facebook page for daily news commentary. https://www.facebook.com/david.samuels.948   Listen to WQTQ 89.9 FM for CP’s public service announcements on our racial justice initiatives https://www.facebook.com/wqtqfm and So-Metro Radio the first and third Tuesday of each month at 8:00 PM for commentary on urban issues http://www.sometroradio.com/  Check out our No Sellout blog (https://hendu39.wordpress.com/) for the complete archive of CP columns and Northend Agent’s archive for selected columns (http://www.northendagents.com/). Contact us at 860-206-8879 or info.community.party@gmail.com  

 

REPLAY WEDNESDAY: Community Party Radio on So-Metro Radio

May 2, 2016

The planet’s PREMIER Soul, RnB and talk radio station. Commentary on urban issues from  grassroots perspective. Dan Durso, a retired Teamster now volunteering as the Outreach Coordinator with the grassroots Bernie Sanders Connecticut Team, will join us. Lisa Ganser of Poor Magazine will talk about her report on the deaths of Black, Latino and Indigenous people in police custody. We’ll have an update on Marcus Musante, the California congressional candidate who is running on a police reform platform. 8:00 PM Eastern Time 7:00 PM Central 5:00 PM Pacific. http://www.sometroradio.com/

 

Resources

 

Marcus Musante for Congress:

https://www.facebook.com/MusanteForCongress/timeline

 

Dan Durso, Outreach Coordinator for the grassroots Bernie Sanders Connecticut Team:

https://www.facebook.com/Skydogct

 

Poor Magazine:

http://poormagazine.org/

 

Lisa Ganser: writer at Poor Magazine:

https://www.facebook.com/lganser