START THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON
BUDGET.
TODAY WE ARE HEARING THE NEXT
ROUND OF TRAILER BILL. SIX SIX
BILLS IN TOTAL.
THE HEARING IS COMPLETELY
INFORMATIONAL THERE WILL BE NO
ACTIONS TAKEN -- WE'RE GONNA BE
HAVING DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
PRESENT EACH BILL -- AND AGAIN
WOULD BE -- MOVING VERY VERY.
QUICKLY THROUGH OUR AGENDA ALL
ONE AGENDA AMENDMENT IS AN A. B.
SEVEN WILL BE TAKEN AT THE END
NOT THE BEGINNING.
SO WE'RE GONNA START OFF WITH SB
SEVENTY FIVE THE EDUCATION TRUST.
THANK YOU TO PART OF FINANCE FOR
FREE BEGIN WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS JUST BECAUSE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE I'M GOING
TO BRIEFLY HAD SOME OF THE HIGH
POINTS ON SB SEVENTY FIVE IT'S
THE EDUCATION ON THE THIS
TRAILER BILL SO THERE'S QUITE A
FEW PROVISIONS BUT ALL HAD SOME
OF THE BIG ONES AND THEN.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS HAPPY
TO ANSWER THEM.
SB SEVENTY FIVE INCLUDES THREE
HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS FOR FULL
DAY KINDERGARTEN FACILITIES
PROGRAM -- IN ADDITION TO SOME
CHANGES TO THE EXISTING PROGRAM --
THAT FOCUS ON ENSURING THAT MORE
SCHOOLS ARE CONVERTING FROM PART
DAY TO FULL DAY KINDERGARTEN.
THE BILL ALSO INCLUDES A HUNDRED
MILLION DOLLARS IN TEACHER
SERVICE GRANTS IN TRAINING.
AS WELL AS SPELLS OUT THE
ALLOCATION FORMULAS FORCE OVER
SIX HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION
DOLLARS AT THEBUDGET ACT
ALLOCATES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION.
NOT SPECIFICALLY IS GOING TO
PRESCHOOL -- FOR AGE CHILD
GRANTS -- AS WELL AS BASED GRANT
INCREASES FOR THOSE SCHOOL
DISTRICTS WERE CURRENTLY UNDER
THE STATEWIDE -- SPECIAL
EDUCATION FUNDING TARGET.
THE BILL ALSO INCLUDES -- THE
MASTER PLAN FOR EARLY LEARNING
CARE AS WELL AS THE EARLY
CHILDHOOD COUNCIL ON ESTABLISHES
THE COUNCIL IN PROVIDES TWO
POINT TWO MILLION EACH YEAR FOR
THREE YEARS -- TO SUPPORT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF BLUE RIBBON
COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE MASTER
PLAN AT WILL WHEN THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS BECOME AVAILABLE.
I'M IN ADDITION TO MANY OTHER
PROVISIONS THE BILL ALSO
INCLUDES MILLIONS HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
IN PAYMENTS FOR PROPOSITION
NINETY EIGHT SELLECK WHICH PAY
OFF DEBT -- TO SCHOOLS FROM
PRIOR YEARS.
SO WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT.
THINK YOU COME BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE.
SEEING NONE IN THE ANY PUBLIC
COMMENT.
IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO SB SEVEN
FIVE OKAY.
SEEING NONE WE'RE GOING TO MOVE
ON TO SB EIGHTY HUMAN SERVICES
THANK YOU
.
UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
SB EIGHTY AS THE HUMAN SERVICES
TRAILER BILL -- IMPLEMENTS
PROVISIONS.
IN THE HUMAN SERVICES AREA
ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUDGET
AGREEMENT.
SOME OF THOSE PROVISIONS INCLUDE
AN INCREASE TO THE CAL WORKS
MAXIMUM EIGHT PAYMENT.
MODIFYING THE CAL WORKS INCOME.
EARNED INCOME DISREGARD.
CONTINUOUS ELIGIBILITY AND CAL
WORK STAGE ONE CHILD CARE --
INCREASING THE CAL WORKS.
ASSET TEST.
A RE BASING THE COUNTY I JUST AS
A MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.
AND THE FAMILY URGENT RESPONSE
SYSTEM.
AND WITH THAT WE'RE HAPPY TO
TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU COMING BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE
COMMITTEE [inaudible]
COMMENTS.
OKAY NOTHING IN ANY PUBLIC
COMMENT.
ON SB EIGHTY OKAY REMOVED SB.
EIGHTY ONE DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES SB.
EIGHTY ONE SB EIGHTY ONE IN THE
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES UNDER
THIS TRAILER BILL -- SIGNIFICANT
PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL INCLUDE
A BROAD BASED RATE INCREASE.
FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES.
IMPROVED ACCOUNTABILITY
OVERSIGHT MONITORING OF SERVICES.
AND I'M SITTING AT FACILITY IN
CRISIS SERVICES -- WITH THAT
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU MISTER BERNARD.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR OF A
LITTLE DISAPPOINTED THAT -- WE
DIDN'T LOOK AT THE UNIFORM
HOLIDAY SCHEDULE AND A HALF DAY
BILLING ISSUES IN THIS TRAILER
BILL CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THOSE AND WHY THE DECISION
WAS MADE NOT TO ADDRESS THOSE
PROBLEMS.
SO THE BUDGET.
DOES INCLUDE -- A SUSPENSION OF
THE UNIFORM HOLIDAY SCHEDULE --
BUT HAVE THE BILLING WAS WAS NOT
ADDRESSED IN IN THIS BUDGET.
SURE WOMAN I THINK I THINK.
MOST OF US WOULD LIKE TO SEE
JUST A REPEAL OF THE UNIFORM
HOLIDAY SCHEDULE RATHER THAN
JUST YOU KNOW YOUR BY YOUR
SUSPENSION WHAT WHAT WAS WRONG
WITH REVEALING IT.
INSTEAD JUST SUSPENDING IT ONCE
AGAIN.
SO THE UNIFORM HOLIDAY WAS ONE
OF THE MANY GENERAL FUND --
PROVISIONS IN THIS BUDGET --
WHICH ARE I'M SCHEDULED TO
SUNSET DECEMBER THIRTY FIRST TWO
THOUSAND TWENTY ONE BASED ON THE
STATE'S OVERALL FISCAL PICTURE
AT THAT TIME.
AND SO -- THE ME REVISION
INCLUDED -- YOU KNOW SUNSETS --
AT THAT TIME OF SOME OF THE
GENERAL FUND AUGMENTATIONS IN
THE MAYOR VISION IN THE FINAL
BUDGET AGREEMENT -- INCLUDES
SUSPENSIONS AND SO THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THESE
AUGMENTATIONS -- MAY BE ON TO
TWENTY TWENTY ONE IF THE STATE'S.
YOU KNOW GENERAL FUND CONDITION
IS A SOLID SURE HIGH UNDERSTAND
IT I I JUST WOULD PREFER THAT WE
JUST FACE REALITY IN REPEAL IT
RATHER THAN.
EVERY DAY EVERY YEAR HAVING IT
BE AN ISSUE BUT THANK YOU FOR
THE RESPONSE.
THANK YOU START LITTLE BIT OF
DISTRACTION HERE -- ANY -- ANY
OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
YES MISS FRAZIER.
AND I JUST WANNA SEGUE ON NOW
WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
IS TALKED ABOUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT
THE AUGMENTATION OF WHAT'S
HAPPENED.
IN THE BUDGET FOR DDS SOME OF
THE PROVISIONS WITH YOU HAVE A
BILLING CAN BE ELIMINATED WITH
THE AUGMENTATION.
GOING FORWARD -- WE'LL LOOK
FORWARD TO MORE DISCUSSION OF
WHO AS THIS GOES FORWARD IF --
THIS AFFECTS DRAMATICALLY AND
THEN BUILD THE CASE GOING FOR
BILL WITH THE AUGMENTATION OF
THE BUDGET.
IT ACTUALLY DOES PROVIDE.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE
PROVIDERS [inaudible]
THANK YOU [inaudible]
OTHER QUESTIONS.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.
SB EIGHTY ONE DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICE IN A POWER COMING.
GOOD TO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE
HELLO.
WE LIVE OKAY GREAT.
THANK YOU GOOD AFTERNOON AS
CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE --
BERRY JUDGING FROM THE
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY SERVICES
ASSOCIATION WE WE WANNA REALLY
THANK THE ASSEMBLY FOR THE
STRONG WORK THAT THEY DID IN
BEHALF OF PROVIDERS THIS YEAR --
WE KNOW THAT WE'VE COME A LONG
WAY IN TERMS OF YOU KNOW WHERE
WE STARTED THIS YEAR -- HAPPY
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION MOVED
WITH US OFF THEIR MAY REVISED
PROPOSAL WE DO STILL HAVE
CONCERNS THAT BECAUSE THE NEED
IS IMMEDIATE NOW WE'RE WAITING
SIX MONTHS TO GET RELIEF AS WELL
AS HAVING CONCERNS ABOUT THE
SUNSET ON THE BACK AND THAT I
THINK WE'VE ALL.
TALKED ABOUT PLENTY -- ALSO
GRATEFUL FOR THE SUSPENSION OF
THE UNIFORM HOLIDAY SCHEDULE FOR
A LIMITED TIME WOULD HAVE HOPE
TO SEEN SOME OF THOSE OTHER
RECESSION OR CUTS BE INCLUDED AS
WELL BUT ON THE WHOLE HOPEFULLY
IS A GOOD FIRST STEP.
THE LAST POINT ONE MAKE IS ON
THE TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
REGARDING THE RATE STUDY
IMPLEMENTATION YOU KNOW THAT'S
OF HUGE CONCERN TO OUR COMMUNITY --
THIS IS A GOOD FIRST STEP IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION BUT UNLESS WE
TAKE CONCRETE STEPS IN THE
FUTURE -- I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THE ASSEMBLY STAFFS GREAT WORK
ON THEIR TOTAL BILL LANGUAGE ON
THAT POINT SO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
MR TEN MEMBERS THERESA ANDERSON
ON BEHALF OF THE ARC IN YOU SEE
P. CALIFORNIA COLLABORATION WE
WANTED KNOWLEDGE THE MAMMOTH
UNDERTAKING BY THE LEGISLATURE
IN ADMINISTRATION AND
DELIBERATING THE FUTURE OF A
SYSTEM THAT SUPPORTS. THREE
HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND
CALIFORNIANS WITH INTELLECTUAL
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES --
THE ASSEMBLY SUB BUDGET
SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSED THE
PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE DDS
RATE STUDY AND HEARD PUBLIC COM
AT LENGTH REGARDING FINANCIAL
STABILITY AND COMPREHENSIVE RATE
REFORM.
I'M ALSO ASSEMBLY MEMBERS HOLDEN
FRASER THINK VERY MUCH TO
EVERYBODY WHO WORKED ON THIS BUT
THEY CARRIED A PROPOSAL FOR A
PERCENT INCREASE IN THE DOWN
PAYMENT FOR STABILIZE FUTURE.
ADDITIONALLY MANY OF THE MEMBERS --
MAKE COMMENTS COMMUNITY MEMBERS
COMMITTEE MEMBERS MAKE COMMENTS
EMOTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE
COMMUNITY -- ARE COLLECT IT'S
ALL OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORTS TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S QUALITY
AND ACCESS TO QUALITY SERVICES.
THE RESULTS ARE INVESTMENTS IN --
POLICY CHANGES THAT WILL PROVIDE
CRITICALLY NEEDED TEMPORARY
RELIEF TO SOME OF THE SERVICES
IN CRISIS.
HOWEVER IT MUST BE ONLY -- THE
FIRST STEP WE REALLY REALLY NEED
TO FULFILL THE PROMISE OF
CALIFORNIANS WITH IDT WE
APPRECIATE THAT THIS BILL
INCLUDES MANDATES FOR
STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS AROUND
COMPREHENSIVE REFORM.
BEGINNING IN THE SUMMER -- BUT
AT THE SAME TIME IT'S ACTIONS
NOT DISCUSSIONS THAT WILL
ULTIMATELY BENEFIT INDIVIDUALS
AND FAMILIES.
BOTH THE SET THE ASSEMBLY AND
THE SENATE PASSED REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE GOVERNOR TO TAKE ACTION
TOWARD RIGHT REFORM NEXT YEAR.
IN THE BUDGET AND ALTHOUGH IT'S
NOT IN THIS BILL WE CONTINUE TO
LOOK -- TO THE COMMITTEES ON OUR
LEGISLATIVE CHAMPIONS TO LEAD US
TOWARD THAT REALIZATION NEXT
YEAR COUPLE SPECIFIC POINTS
ABOUT THE TRAILER BILL FIRST WE
THINK THE COMMITTEE ON THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FOR ITS WORK
ON SUSPENDING THE FOURTEEN DAY.
HOLIDAY SCHEDULE -- WE REALLY
REALLY WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT
THE HALF DAY -- AS WELL NEXT
YEAR AND ECOND THIS BILL
QUALIFIES -- RATE INCREASES AND
WHO -- DOESN'T IT'S NOT BASED ON
THE RAFT -- I'M SORRY -- THE
BILL CODIFIES WHO GETS RATE
INCREASES AND WHO DOESN'T BASED
ON THE DRAFT RATE STUDY
THEREFORE AS THE RATE MODELS ARE
REVISED AND FINALIZED IN OCTOBER.
THESE RATE INCREASES MUST BE
REVISITED IN THE JANUARY BUDGET
OR EARLIER THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THIS CHAIRMAN MEMBERS -- CARL
LUNDEN HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
ALLIANCE SUPPORTING.
PEOPLE WITH -- INTELLECTUAL
DEVELOPMENT DISABILITIES AUGUST
ECHO THE COMMENTS MADE BY MY
COLLEAGUES AND JUST ADD A COUPLE
OF BRIEF ONES THAT ARE A LITTLE
BIT DIFFERENT -- FIRST I DO AND
I THINK -- IN PARTICULAR IN THIS
HOUSE MISTER FRAZIER MR HOLDEN A
MISTER MATHIS.
FOR ALL OF THEIR DEDICATED
ADVOCACY ON THIS AND REALLY
PUSHING.
AND WE DO WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS
LEGISLATURE FOR STANDING THE
ADMINISTRATION UP A LITTLE BIT
AND CALLING FOR MORE BROAD BASED
APPROACH TO FUNDING.
THIS COMMUNITY THAN WAS
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THAT WAS
REALLY REALLY HELPFUL STEP.
THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE FELL
SHORT -- I THINK THAT PEOPLE
NEED TO REALIZE THAT THE RATE
STUDY.
YOUR SORTER REFERRING TO THIS
CONVENIENTLY IS THE BASIS OF THE
PROPOSALS WERE MAKING BUT IT
SEEM TIME IF WE'RE GOING TO USE
THE RATE STUDY AND REALLY USE
THAT.
IT ALSO CALLS FOR ONE POINT TWO
BILLION DOLLARS IN FUNDING NOT
TWO HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION -- TWO
HUNDRED THIRTY YEAR TWO HUNDRED
NINETY EIGHT CALLS FOR ONE POINT
TWO BILLION FUNDING.
SO WE NEED EVERYBODY TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS WORK
IN PROGRESS -- THIS IS A SYSTEM
THAT'S BEEN CHRONICALLY
UNDERFUNDED FOR YEARS.
WE ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT
SOME OF THE RECESSION ERA.
CUTS THAT DATE ALL THE WAY BACK
TO TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ARE STILL
IN PLACE INCLUDING THE HALF THE
BILLING.
A RESTRICTION INCLUDING THE
PROHIBITION OF FUNDING FOR
SOCIAL RACK IN CAMP PROGRAMS AND
I WANT TO NOTE ON THAT.
THOSE PROGRAMS IN PARTICULAR HIT
PEOPLE WHO ARE THE POOREST IN
CALIFORNIA I HAVE A TWENTY TWO
YEAR OLD SON WHO'S AT CAMP.
ODDLY ENOUGH RIGHT NOW I CAN
AFFORD TO SEND IN THEIR BROTHER
MANY PEOPLE THAT CANNOT.
IN UNLESS WE RESTORE THAT DEMI
DEMI DENY THEM OF THE ONE
OPPORTUNITYMIGHT HAVE FOR
SOCIAL INTERACTION.
AND GETTING OUT OF THEIR OWN
WORLD EVERY YEAR AND THAT'S IT
THAT'S IT CUT THE DIRECTLY
CORRELATES BACK.
AS DIRECTLY AS IT CAN BE TO THE
RECESSION YEAR THAT WE HAD IN
THE STATE WE ARE NOT IN A
RECESSION TODAY.
SO TO KEEP THAT CUT IN PLACE WE
THINK IS A A REAL MISSTEP.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE
ARE MANY PROGRAMS OUT THERE THAT
GET NOTHING UNDER THIS BUDGET NO
INCREASE.
AND I KNOW WE HELP THEM HARMLESS
WE AGAIN USE THE RATE STUDY
JUSTIFY.
WHY THEY'RE GETTING NOTHING AND
THE THEORY WAS THAT THERE MAY BE
BEING OVER PAY TODAY?
BUT I CAN TELL YOU THOSE
PROGRAMS ARE OPERATING ABOUT IS
LENA BASIS AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN.
YEAH AND THEY STILL FACE ALL THE
COST PRESSURES.
THAT ARE GONNA BE.
BEFALL THEM DURING THE YEAR HEAD
MINIMUM WAGE FOR EXAMPLE GOES UP
BY 8% OVER 8% CHEN MY FIRST
THEY'RE GONNA BE SUBJECTED TO
THAT.
THEY'RE SUBJECTED TO ALL THE
OTHER COST PRESSURES.
THE END THIS STUFF HAS TO BE
LOOKED AT IN THE FUTURE WE WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU BEFORE THE END OF
THIS YEAR TO CONSIDER PUTTING AN
EVEN MODEST RELIEF. FOR THOSE
PROGRAMS SO THEY FEEL LIKE YOU
THEIR PART OF THE SYSTEM THAT
THEY'RE BEING LISTENED.
TO AND OTHERWISE AGAIN THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY MAKE FEW
COMMENTS THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH APPRECIATE
THAT THE COMMENTS.
ON ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.
OKAY SING THEN WE'RE GOING TO
MOVE ON TO S. B. IN.
NINETY SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION
PAYMENT.
A GOOD AFTERNOON EVELYN SUSANA
DEPARTMENT FINANCE.
I'M I'M JUST GONNA GO OVER -- OR
GO OVER THIS THIS PARTICULAR
TRAILER BILL AT A VERY HIGH
LEVEL -- THE TWENTY NINETEEN
TWENTY BUDGET PACKAGE PROVIDES
FOR ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO BOTH
CAL PERSON CAL STIRS TO PAY DOWN
RETIREMENT LIABILITIES AND ALSO
TO PROVIDE GREAT BELIEF FOR
SCHOOLS PENSION COSTS.
THE SECRETARY CHANGES IN THIS
BILL WILL ALLOW THE STATE TO
IMPLEMENT THOSE PAYMENTS.
HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT
THIS TIME.
THANK YOU ANY -- QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS [inaudible]
SB.
NINETY OKAY SEEING NONE ANY
PUBLIC COMMENT ON SB.
NINETY OKAY THANK YOU REALLY
WANT TO THE S. B. ONE OH SIX ON
BUDGET BILL JUNIOR.
THANK YOU CARLA BECAUSE THE
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE --
THE BILL PROVIDES A FEW
CORRECTIONS REFLECTING THE FINAL
BUDGET AGREEMENT -- DOES A FOR
PREMIUM ASSISTANCE SUBSIDIES AS
WELL AS HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING --
IT ALSO ADDS CLARIFICATIONS IN
PROVISIONS -- INCLUDING SOME
REPORTING LANGUAGE AND WHAT TO
INCLUDE IN THOSE REPORTS --
FINALLY THE BILL PROVIDES
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE
BILL'S PROVIDING APPROPRIATIONS
RELATED TO THE BUDGET BILL.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS
INSTRUMENT.
I THANK YOU MR CHAD A QUESTION
ABOUT THE HEALTH INSURANCE
SUBSIDIES SO THIS TRAILER BILL
WOULD PROVIDE THOSE SUBSIDIES AT
INCREASED INCOME LEVELS UP
26100% OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY
LEVEL.
WHICH IS A LOT OF MONEY.
I'M WONDERING WHAT'S THE ****
EVIDENCE WE HAVE THAT PROVIDING
SUBSIDIES TO THOSE -- INCOME
RANGES IS EFFECTIVE IN
INCREASING INSURANCE COVERAGE --
UNDERSEA BERMAN FINANCE I THINK
THAT -- YOU KNOW I DON'T HAVE.
A LOT IN TERMS OF STATISTICS IN
FRONT OF ME TODAY THE HAPPY TO
FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR STAFF ON
THIS BUT YOU KNOW GENERALLY
SPEAKING AT LOWER INCOMES THAT
YOU'VE GOT A MUCH MORE GENEROUS
SUBSIDY WITH RESPECT THAT THAT
FEDERAL LEVEL WITH RESPECT TO
CAPPING THE PERCENTAGE OF INCOME --
THAT PEOPLE NEED TO SPEND IN
ORDER TO AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE
AND THERE'S THERE IS NO SUCH
CAPEN SO THIS PROPOSAL THAT THE
CONFERENCE COMPROMISED PROPOSAL --
WOULD RESULT IN PEOPLE NOT
SPENDING MORE THAN ABOUT 18% OF
THEIR INCOME -- ON ON ON HEALTH
INSURANCE THROUGH THE EXCHANGE --
AND THE TO GIVE YOU A KIND OF A
SENSE IN TERMS OF HOW THE
PROPOSAL'S EVOLVED IT MAY
REVISION AT THAT FUNDING LEVEL
THAT WAS AROUND 25% OF OF
SOMEONE'S INCOME ON HEALTH
INSURANCE.
SO -- THAT THE PROPOSAL'S
DESIGNED TO REALLY -- REDUCE --
THE UNINSURED RATE BY BY MAKING
THE COVERAGE MORE AFFORDABLE FOR
PEOPLE IN THAT MIDDLE INCOME
RANGE WHERE THERE AREN'T
SUBSIDIES AVAILABLE TODAY.
OKAY WELL I THINK THAT YOU'VE
GOT TO THE CRUX OF OUR
DISAGREEMENT WHICH IS THAT -- I
THINK THAT OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO
INCREASE COVERAGE RATES -- AND
EAT THE YOU SAID THAT THE GOAL
WITH THIS LEGISLATION IS.
TO US CAP THE PERCENTAGE OF
SOMEONE'S INCOME THAT THEY SPEND
ON HEALTH INSURANCE WHICH ARE
TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS
BECAUSE I DISPUTE THAT GIVING
SOMEONE A SUBSIDY OF INTO A SIX
ARE PERCENT OF THE FPL.
THAT SO SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL IT'S
ALMOST A HUNDRED AND THIRTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR A FAMILY OF
FOUR THREE ACTUALLY FAMILY.
THREE SO I DON'T THINK THAT
GIVING A SUBSIDY TO PEOPLE IN
THOSE RANGES IS GONNA WHAT IS
GOING TO BE WHAT MAKES THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM THEM
GETTING HEALTH INSURANCE AND I'M
NOT GETTING HEALTH INSURANCE --
AND AND YOU KNOW THE OTHER
PROBLEM THAT I HAVE AND I
REALIZE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A
SEPARATE TRAILER BILL THAT
IMPLEMENTS THE MANDATE AND THE
PENALTY THAT SUPPOSEDLY GOES TO
FUND.
THIS EXPANSION OF SUBSIDY BUT
THE PEOPLE IN THOSE THE PEOPLE
WILL BE PAYING THE PENALTY TO
FUND OF THESE SUBSIDIES ARE IN A
MUCH LOWER.
INCOME RANGE I MEAN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
THIRTY TO FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
A YEAR MOST OF THEM SO AND TO ME
IT MAKES NO SENSE TO TAKE MONEY
FROM SOMEONE MAKING THIRTY TO
FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR
AND GIVE IT TO SOMEONE MAKING
752-003-0000 DOLLARS A YEAR --
AND AND I GUESS THAT'S THE
PROBLEM THAT I HAVE.
THANK YOU MISTRESS.
THANK YOU MISTER.
IN RELATION TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS APPROPRIATED.
TO FUNDING FOR RAPID RE HOUSING
ON PAGE.
TWENTY TWO I SINCERELY
APPRECIATE THE DEFINITION OF
HOMELESS AND HOT HOUSING AND
SECURE.
A FOR MANY YEARS WE HAVE KNOWN
THE TO DO THE TO TRADITIONAL
TERMS AND VIEWS ON STUDENT
HOMELESSNESS WE'RE NOT PROVIDING
THE LEGISLATURE OR OUR CAMPUSES
THE FULL SCOPE OF THE CHALLENGES.
FACED BY OUR STUDENTS WHO
EXPERIENCE HOMELESSNESS OR
HOUSING AND SECURITY.
THE OBSTACLE.
THE OBSTACLES TO IDENTIFYING
STUDENTS FACING THESE CHALLENGES
HAMPERS EFFORTS TO LINK STUDENTS
WITH FUNDING AND PROGRAMS THAT
CAN ASSIST THEM OUT OF THIS
DIFFICULT SITUATION.
I WANT TO COMMEND THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE STAFF.
THE LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP AND
THE GOVERNOR FOR INCLUDING THIS
IMPORTANT DEFINITION THAT
CAPTURES THE VARYING VARYING
CIRCUMSTANCES OF STUDENT
HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING AND
SECURITY.
I THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANY ERA.
OTHER.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE.
OKAY SEEING NONE ANY PUBLIC
COMMENT.
BETH CAPELL ON BEHALF OF HEALTH
ACCESS CALIFORNIA IN ANSWER TO
MISTER OBERNOLTE IS QUESTION WE
ACTUALLY HAVE TWO SEPARATE.
MODELING EFFORTS USING MY
CHRISTIAN RELATION MODELS
DEVELOPED BY ECONOMIST AND
HEALTH POLICY EXPERTS.
THAT INDICATE THAT THE
ADDITIONAL SUBSIDIES WOULD
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED
BY A HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND IF
I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY.
WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE
ADDED FUNDING THAT IS IN THIS --
BUDGET BILL JUNIOR THAT WILL
ACTUALLY REDUCE WHAT PEOPLE ARE
EXPECTED TO PAY FROM AS MUCH AS
40% OF THEIR INCOME 218% OF
THEIR INCOME.
I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY IN
THEIR EARLY SIXTIES LIVING
ANYWHERE IN CALIFORNIA CAN
AFFORD TO SPEND 40% OF THEIR
INCOME JUST ON THE PREMIUM FOR
HEALTH INSURANCE.
WE'VE BEEN PLEASED TO HAVE
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT ON THESE
EFFORTS UP TILL NOW AND LOOK
FORWARD TO FURTHER CONVERSATION
ON THAT WE ALSO VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THE LEADERSHIP OF THE
ASSEMBLY.
IN ASSURING THAT THOSE WHO ARE
UNDER A 138% OF POVERTY WHO FOR
WHATEVER REASON USUALLY BECAUSE
THERE CARE GIVERS AND A FAMILY
ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICARE
MEDICARE ALL WILL NOW PAYS ZERO
PREMIUMS AND SO WE THANK YOU FOR
THE ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION.
LINDA WAY WITH WESTERN CENTER ON
LAW AND POVERTY ALIGNER COMMENTS
OF HEALTH ACCESS WE HAVE
PARTICULARLY APPRECIATE --
INCREASE ASSISTANCE FOR
INDIVIDUALS LOW INCOME
INDIVIDUALS THOSE UNDER ONE
THIRTY EIGHT AND DATA MODELING
FROM CALIFORNIA SHOWS THAT THE
ADDITIONAL SUBSIDIES IT WILL.
INCREASE COVERAGE FOR THIS GROUP
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER PUBLIC
COMMENT.
OKAY SING THEN WE'RE GONNA MOVE
TO A. B. NINETY ONE SLASH A. B..
TWO ONE SEVEN THE LOOPHOLE
CLOTURE AND SMALL BUSINESS AND
WORKING FAMILIES TAX RELIEF ACT
OF TWENTY NINETEEN AFTER BERMAN
FINANCE CANNELLA
.
GO TO THE MICROPHONE ON THANK
YOU.
I'LL DESCRIBE THIS ITEM IN BRIEF
I KNOW -- MISTER CHAIR AT BREACH
DE AT REVENUE AND TAXATION
COMMITTEE A COUPLE DAYS AGO ON
THESE ITEMS SO WILL RUN FOR VERY
BRIEFLY AND THEN HAPPY TO TAKE
ANY QUESTIONS.
THE FIRST THING THAT THIS BILL
DOES IS EXPAND THE EARNED INCOME
TAX CREDIT BY A TOTAL OF SIX
HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.
AND IT FOCUSES ON THREE MAJOR
CHANGES THE FIRST IS
IMPLEMENTING A NEW YOUNG CHILD
TAX CREDIT THAT MEANS THAT
ANYONE WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE
CREDIT ANY HOUSEHOLD IF THEY
HAVE A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF
SIX THEY WILL RECEIVE AN
ADDITIONAL ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS.
THE SECOND ITEM IN THIS BILL IS
INCREASING THE INCOME
ELIGIBILITY THRESHOLD TO THIRTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS THIS MEANS THAT
ANYBODY IN THE FAMILY MAKING
FIFTEEN DOLLARS AN HOUR WHAT THE
MINIMUM WAGE IS SCHEDULED TO BE
IN -- TWENTY TWENTY TWO WHICH
COMES TO ABOUT THIRTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS A YEAR THAT WORKING
HOUSEHOLD WILL BE ABLE TO
QUALIFY FOR THIS CREDIT.
AND THEN THE THIRD THING THAT
THIS BILL DOES ON THE EARNED
INCOME TAX CREDIT SIDE IS
INCREASE THE BENEFIT FOR
FAMILIES THAT MAKE BETWEEN TEN
THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THIRTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS.
RIGHT NOW THE EARNED INCOME TAX
CREDIT IS VERY GENEROUSLY TILTED
TOWARD FAMILIES BETWEEN -- ZERO
AND TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AS IT
SHOULD BE BECAUSE THOSE ARE
LOWEST INCOME WORKING FAMILIES
BUT THIS BILL ALSO PROVIDE SOME
ADDITIONAL BENEFIT FOR THOSE
BETWEEN TEN THOUSAND AND THIRTY
THOUSAND WHEN IT COMES TO THE
TAX CONFORMITY PROVISIONS.
THESE ARE PROVISIONS THAT OFTEN
WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PASSES A TAX BILL THE STATE
TAKES CONFORMING ACTIONS EITHER
BECAUSE THEY REDUCE THE NUMBER
OF ERRORS IN ANY PENALTIES THAT
GO WRONG WITH THOSE ERRORS.
THEY REDUCE THE BURDEN ON
TAXPAYERS SO THAT THEY DON'T
HAVE TO COMPLY WITH TWO SETS OF
RULES OR THEY MAKE GOOD PUBLIC
POLICY SENSE FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THEY ARE PRUDENT AND
LOGICAL.
SO THIS BILL UNDERTAKES A NUMBER
OF THOSE CONFORMITY ITEM SOME OF
WHICH COST REVENUE SOME OF WHICH
RAISE REVENUE.
ITEMS THAT COST REVENUE INCLUDE
A LIMITATION ON LOSSES FOR NON
CORPORATE TAXPAYERS TO OFFSET
OTHER INCOME THIS ONLY AFFECTS
TAXPAYERS WHO MAKE MORE THAN
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN
NON CORPORATE PERSONAL INCOME
TAX THAT PERSONAL INCOME EACH
YEAR.
IT ALSO INCLUDES A LIMITATION ON
A LIKE KIND EXCHANGE DEFERRAL.
REMOVES THAT OPERATING LOSS
CARRY BACK.
CAPS TO DEDUCTION AT THE ICY
PREMIUMS FOR BANKS LIMITS
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION FOR CIOS
WHEN THEY MAKE OVER A MILLION
DOLLARS AS WELL OFFICE OF A CUP
OR A COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS
RELATED TO PARTNERSHIP
TERMINATION RULES AND MERGERS
AND ACQUISITIONS.
ON THE ITEMS THAT COST REVENUE
BUT WE THINK MAKE GOOD PUBLIC
POLICY SENSE FOR CALIFORNIA
THREE IN PARTICULAR ONE AND
NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT MAKE IT EAT
MUCH EASIER FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
FOR THEIR ACCOUNTING PROVISIONS.
RAISING THE THRESHOLD FROM GOING
FROM CASH TO ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING
FROM FIVE MILLION DOLLARS TO
TWENTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS.
THAT WILL COST -- THE STATE TWO
HUNDRED EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS
IN THE BUDGET YEAR BUT WE
BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND OUR
ECONOMY.
AS A CONFORMITY ITEM.
WE ALSO -- EXPAND THE ABILITY TO
CONTRIBUTE TO ABLE ACCOUNTS
THESE ARE ACHIEVING A BETTER
LIFE EXPERIENCE ACCOUNTS
PROVIDING A HIGHER THRESHOLD AS
WELL AS WELL AS ROLL OVERS FROM.
FIVE TO NINE COLLEGE SAVINGS
ACCOUNTS FOR THE CARE OF PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITIES.
AND FINALLY EXPANDING STUDENT
LOAN FORGIVENESS TO EXCLUDE FROM
INCOME WHEN A STUDENT LOANS
FORGIVEN ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH OR
TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY.
SO THOSE ARE THE MAIN PROVISIONS
AND MISTER CHAIR HAPPY TAKE ANY
QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU MISTER OVER.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR SO I HAD
A COUPLE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
CONFORMITY ITEMS.
THE FIRST WITH RESPECT TO LIKE
KIND EXCHANGE IS WHEN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
IMPLEMENTED THE ROLE THE PHASE
OUT OF LIKE KIND EXCHANGES FOR
MOST PROPERTY THEY ALSO ADDED A
BONUS DEPRECIATION PROVISION.
SO THAT -- JUST KIND OF REPLACE
WHAT THEY WERE TAKING WAY WITH.
WITH ROLLING BACK THE OKAY HE'S
NOW WE ARE CONFORMING TO THE
ROLLBACK OF THE LIKE ANY CHANGES
WE WERE WE ARE NOT CONFORMING TO
BONUS DEPRECIATION WHICH MAKES
NO SENSE TO ME CAN YOU TELL ME
WHY.
THAT DECISION WAS MADE.
YES SO THE GENERAL APPROACH THE
TAXING FOR MANY PACKAGES IS NOT
A FULL CONFORMITY BUT ONLY THOSE
ITEMS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION
WORKING WITH MEMBERS OF THE
LEGISLATURE BELIEVE MAKES SENSE
SO WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE KIND
EXCHANGE IS.
THIS BASICALLY ALLOWS.
CORPORATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS WHO
PARTICIPATE IN THOSE CHANGES TO
DEFER OR SHELTER THE TAX GAIN ON
THAT ASSET WHEREAS WHEN YOU YOU
ARE ICE SELLING A CAPITAL ASSET
WE GENERALLY HAVE TO PAY TAX AT
THE TIME OF THAT TRANSACTION.
AND SO YOU ARE RIGHT THAT AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL THEY PAIRED IT
WITH BONUS DEPRECIATION -- BUT
THE FACT IS SOME OF THE POLICIES
AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL MADE SENSE
AND SOME DID AND FOR EXAMPLE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CUT THEIR
CORPORATE TAX RATE AS PART OF
THEIR TAX PACKAGE WE HAVE
CORPORATE TAXATION IN CALIFORNIA
BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO CUT THAT
RATE.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
ENACTED CHANGES TO THE MORTGAGE
INTEREST DEDUCTION -- IN TERMS
OF THE VALUE OF THE HOME WE
DON'T CONFORM TO THAT -- THAT
FEDERAL TAX START THE FEDERAL
TAX BILL MADE CHANGES FOR
REGARDING THE STATE AND LOCAL
TAX DEDUCTION WE HAVE LOCAL YOU
KNOW SOME STATE TAXES HERE IN
CALIFORNIA BUT WE CAN CONFORM TO
THAT PROVISION AS WELL SO.
WITH REGARD TO THE BIKE KIND
EXCHANGES THAT PROVISION MADE
SENSE TO US WE DID INCLUDE A
CARVE OUT FOR PERSONAL INCOME
TAXPAYERS WITH INCOMES.
OF LESS THAN HALF A MILLION
DOLLARS FOR MARRIED HOUSEHOLDS
BUT WE DON'T BELIEVE IT MADE
SENSE TO INCLUDED EXPENSING OR
BONUS DEPRECIATION PROVISION AS
WELL.
OKAY WELL KNOWN AS WE WERE NEVER
TALK ABOUT 1100% CONFORMITY TO
FEDERAL TAX LAW.
BUT CERTAINLY FOR GOING TO
CONFORM A PROVISION TO FEDERAL
TAX LAW I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT
TO CHERRY PICK AND SAVE WE'RE
GONNA CAR ABOUT THAT.
AND WE'RE JUST GONNA TAKE THE
PARTS THAT INCREASE STATE
REVENUE AND WE GONNA CARVE OUT
THE PARTS THAT DECREASE STATE
REVENUE.
AND I DISAGREE WITH YOUR
ASSERTION THAT -- THIS ISN'T
GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON
TAXPAYERS IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE
BUT FOR BUSINESSES.
IF YOU HAVE A BUSINESS A PIECE
OF BUSINESS EQUIPMENT.
AND IT'S FULLY DEPRECIATED AND
YOU BUY A NEW PIECE OF BUSINESS
EQUIPMENT TO REPLACE IT UNDER
THE OLD LAW YOU COULD CALL THAT
LIKE AND TO CHANGE AND NOT AND
NOT HAVE TO RE CAPTURE A BUNCH
OF DEPRECIATION ON THAT ASSET.
IN -- WITHOUT BONUS DEPRECIATION
WITH THE ACTION THAT YOU'RE
PROPOSING TO TAKE YOU WELL AND
SO I MEAN THAT THAT'S A PROBLEM
THAT I HAVE I'LL GIVE ANOTHER
EXAMPLE.
THE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE
ABLE ACCOUNTS.
AND ARE CONFORMING TO FEDERAL
LAW TO BE ABLE TO ROLL OVER A
FIVE TWENTY NINE PLAN A COLLEGE
SAVINGS PLAN INTO AN ABLE
ACCOUNT WHICH I THINK IS GREAT.
BUT WE ARE NOT PROPOSING TO
CONFORM FEDERAL TAX TO FEDERAL
TAX LAW.
THAT PERMITS THE DEDUCTIBILITY
OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO A FIVE
TWENTY NINE PLAN.
SO AGAIN THE QUESTIONS WILL WIRE
WITH CHERRY PICKING AND SAYING --
WE'RE JUST GONNA CONFORM THIS
THIS AND THIS BUT NOT THIS IN
THIS AN ENEMY ON THE FIVE TWENTY
NINE THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS
THAT THAT WOULD BE THE SINGLE.
BIGGEST THING THAT THE STATE
COULD DO TO INCREASE COLLEGE
SAVINGS RATES AND YET WE'RE NOT
CONFORMING THAT SO WHY NOT.
SO ON THE FIVE TO NINE I NEED TO
LOOK THAT UP SIR YOU SAYING THAT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALLOWS
TAX DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO
A FIVE TWO NOTES CORRECT.
YEAH THE I I DON'T I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT WAS PART OF THE TAX
CUTS AND JOBS ACT BUT IT WAS IT
WAS IT NO WAS NOT IT WAS OKAY IT
REALLY IS ALREADY RIGHT YEAH
THAT'S THAT'S A PROVISION OF
FEDERAL LAW THAT THE STATE IS
NEVER COME RIGHT.
RIGHT YEAH.
BUT MY QUESTION IS WE HAVE A
WIFE OR CONFORMING SOME OF STATE
LAW.
ON FIVE TWENTY NINTHS TO FEDERAL
LAW WHY NOT CONFORM ALL OF THEM.
WELL I I I'D SAY -- IN ORDER TO
TO HAVE THESE ACCOUNTS WORK
PROPERLY DEDUCTIBILITY IS NOT.
IS NOT ESSENTIAL BUT HAVING THIS
THE INCOME LIMITS AND HAVE THE
THE AMOUNTS THAT THAT ARE
CONSIDERED QUALIFIED THAT IS
REALLY ESSENTIAL TO HAVING THESE --
TO HAVE THESE WORK BETWEEN
FEDERAL AND SAY YOU WANT HAVE
THIS THOSE SAME RULES BUT AS FAR
AS DETECTABILITY THAT ISN'T
ESSENTIAL. TO TO IT TO HAVE THE
THE I I GUESS WHEN ONCE AND YOU
DON'T WANT TO HAVE A SYSTEM
WHERE IF YOU COMPLY WITH
CALIFORNIA LAWS.
WE COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAWS YOU
NOW OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH.
WITH THE OTHER LAW.
OKAY AND AND AND THAT'S WHERE
THAT'S WE WERE KIND OF CONFORM
YOUR NOW DEDUCTIBILITY IS JUST A
MATTER OF WHEN I MAKE A
CONTRIBUTION TO I GET TO TAKE A
DEDUCTION [inaudible]
FOR OUR OKAY.
I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING
YOUR POINT BUT I THE SENSING
THAT WE'RE DISAGREEING AND SEVEN
I'M GONNA MOVE ON BUT THEY'LL
LET ME JUST SAY THAT THIS WAS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US. TO TAKE SOME
OF THIS REVENUE.
AND MAKE THOSE FIVE TWENTY NINE
PLANS -- CONTRIBUTIONS
DEDUCTIBLE BECAUSE EVERY I MEAN
WE EVERY COUPLE HERE'S SOMEONE
IN THE LEGISLATURE PROPOSES
MAKING FIVE TWENTY NINE
CONTRIBUTIONS DEDUCTIBLE AND
EVERY YEAR GOES TO
APPROPRIATIONS AND EVERY YEAR IT
GETS HELD AND THE REASON IS
BECAUSE REVENUE LOSS AND SO WE
ARE.
WAS OUR GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO
TAKE SOME OF THIS REVENUE AND
SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING
THAT I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE
IS GOOD PUBLIC POLICY.
AND WHEN WE'RE NOT DOING IT SO
THAT THAT'S MY FRUSTRATION WITH
THIS CONFORMITY BILL I THOUGHT
IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE'RE CHERRY
PICKING WE'RE SAYING.
WE'RE ONLY GOING TO TAKE THE
CONFORMITY ACTIONS THAT INCREASE
STATE REVENUE AND WE'RE NOT
TAKING THE ACTIONS THAT WOULD
DECREASE STATE REVENUE.
AND I WE WE JUST MISSED A BIG
OPPORTUNITY THERE [inaudible]
THANKS MEASURE.
THANK YOU MISS RIVAS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR -- YOU
DON'T MY COMMENTS ARE RELATED --
TO THE EXCLUSION OF I TEN
WORKING TAX PAYERS FROM THE THE
CURRENT -- CALAIS T. I. T. C.
PROPOSAL I KNOW I BROUGHT THIS
UP AND RUNNING TAX.
REVENUE TAXED -- TO YOU -- AND
YOU MENTIONED THAT IT WAS A
TRADE OFF RIGHT TRYING TO
INCREASE -- THE INCOME THE
MAXIMUM INCOME -- TO THIRTY
THOUSAND BUT I THINK IT'S JUST
VERY IMPORTANT -- AND IT'S
SOMETHING THAT I WILL CONTINUE
TO BRING UP I MEAN I AM SURE
ALONG WITH OTHER MEMBERS -- THAT
THE DISPLACEMENT OF EXCLUDING I
TEN FILERS FROM QUALIFIED FOR
THE E. I. T. C. CREDIT THIS YEAR.
THANK YOU MISTER FRAZIER.
THANK YOU AND I WANT TO JUST
KIND OF SEGUE ON WHAT MISTRAL
OBERNOLTE HAD BEEN DISCUSSING
LIKE.
KIND EXCHANGES WE HAVE A OTHER
REGULATORY AGENCIES ARE NOW --
IN FORCING -- FOURTEEN THOUSAND
GVW TRUCKS HAVE TO BE WERE A
COMPLETELY REPLACED BY
BUSINESSES THIS YEAR.
WHO HAVE FULLY AMORTIZED THEM
INCLUDED DEPRECIATION?
AND HAVE TO BUY NEW RIGS.
APPROACHED ME A HUNDRED TWENTY
THOUSAND DOLLAR RATE.
SMALL BUSINESS CAN'T AFFORD THIS
AND NOT.
BE ABLE TO GET THESE DEDUCTIONS
GOING FORWARD -- AND AGAIN WE
HAVE AN AGENCY IS REQUIRING THIS
BUT THE NO.
THIS WILL BE A DETRIMENT FOR
THEM MOVING FORWARD.
UNLESS THEY BUY SOMETHING USED
IN TWO THOUSAND TEN OR BETTER.
SO I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE
AGENCIES DISCUSS.
WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE IN THE
REAL WORLD.
BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO HAMPER
REINVESTMENT OR WILLINGNESS TO
GO FORWARD AND ENGAGE IN THEIR
BUSINESS -- I REALLY THINK THIS
IS HARMFUL WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT --
I WAS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR ONE
TIME I HAD ONE OF THESE TRUCKS.
AND I GUARANTEE YOU I COULDN'T
AFFORD TO REPLACE AND NOT GET
THE DEDUCTION.
SO I'M SAYING.
THANK YOU.
FOR I WONDER IF YOU COULD --
JUST EXPLAIN A TOUCH ON
OPPORTUNITIES OWNS WHAT HAPPENED
TO IT -- CERTAINLY WITH -- ARE
AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGES IN
CRISIS FACING THE STATE -- IT
WOULD BE KIND OF A WHAT WAITED
TO ALLOW MORE CAPITAL TO FLOW
INTO AREAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE
AND BE BUILT SO I WAS PLANNING
IF YOU COULD JUST TOUCH ON THAT
FOR A MOMENT.
YES I'LL SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT
THAT AND IT'S JANUARY PROPOSAL
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
ADMINISTRATION HAD EXPRESSED
INTEREST IN WORKING WITH MEMBERS
OF THE LEGISLATURE ON AT
PROPOSAL ON OPPORTUNITY ZONES.
NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE
CONFORMITY WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BUT ON PROJECTS IN
OPPORTUNITIES OWNS THAT EITHER --
HELP WITH GREEN JOBS OR HELP
WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING SICKLY
TECHNOLOGY AND HOUSING AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DESIGNATED
I THINK WAS -- EIGHT HUNDRED
SEVENTY NINE SUCH ZONES ACROSS
THE STATE -- WHERE THESE
PROJECTS COULD TAKE PLACE --
BETWEEN JANUARY AND TODAY IN
JUNE WE WEREN'T ABLE TO REACH A
FINAL AGREEMENT WITH MEMBERS OF
THE LEGISLATURE ON WHAT THAT
WOULD LOOK LIKE BUT WE'RE
COMMITTED TO DOING THAT -- AND
SEEING IF WE CAN WORK OUT AN
AGREEMENT BEFORE THE END OF THE
YEAR.
IF I IF I JUST A LITTLE MORE
QUESTION WHY WOULD NOT WHY WOULD
WE JUST COMPLETELY CAN FORM AND
AND EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES OWNS
NOT SPECIFIC TO ONE THING BUT
ALLOW IT. TO BE USED MORE WIDELY.
SO THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD
WITH A NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS
SUGGESTED THAT THE FEDERAL
PROPOSAL HAD A LOT OF BENEFITS
BUT ALSO RAISED A NUMBER OF
CONCERNS AND I THINK WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE
BENEFITS BUT SOME OF THE
CONCERNS WORK.
IF IT'S CASTING TOO WIDE AND
THAT WE MAY BE CUTTING TAXES FOR
PROJECTS THAT MIGHT ALREADY BE
HAPPENING ANYWAY AND DON'T
NECESSARILY NEED AN ADDITIONAL
INCENTIVE -- AND SO WE'RE
DEPRIVING THE STATE OF REVENUE
FOR OTHER PROGRAMS WITHOUT
NECESSARILY SPRING YOU ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ANOTHER CONCERN WAS
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THIS TAX
BENEFIT MIGHT BE BENEFITING
PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
WHICH ARE GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY
BUT IN TERMS OF WHERE WE ARE
PUTTING OUR STATE DOLLARS MIGHT
NOT MAKE THE MOST SENSE FOR
CALIFORNIA.
AND THEN FINALLY AND WITH REGARD
TO PROJECT AREAS -- IN TERMS OF
MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE FOCUSED
ON THOSE THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT
FOR THE STATE TO THE
ADMINISTRATION AS IDENTIFIED
HOUSING AS WELL AS CLEAN
TECHNOLOGIES TO KEY AREAS --
WERE OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS ON HOW
TO DEFINE THOSE ARE LOOK AT
THOSE DEFINITIONS BUT WE
WONDERED WHETHER A CLEAN
CONFORMITY MIGHT CAUSE MORE
PROBLEMS IN COST AND THE
BENEFITS THAT THE STATE RECEIVES
AS A RESULT.
THANK YOU MISS WORKS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR I WANTED
TO ALIGN MYSELF WITH A SEVEN
MEMBER REVERSES COMMENTS -- I'M
YOU KNOW EXCITED ABOUT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO INVEST EXPAND IN --
YEAH TO SEE I THINK IT'S A
CRITICAL SOCIAL SAFETY NET HAS
IN THAT.
HUGE IMPACT ON A LOT OF PEOPLE'S
LIVES -- AND BELIEVE WE SHOULD
BE MAKING THESE INVESTMENTS I DO --
AND DISAPPOINTED OTHER THE AYE
TO COMMUNITIES NOT -- EXCLUDED --
AND WHAT MY HOPE MY STRONG HOPE
WE WOULD THAT WE COULD RECTIFY
THIS AND THE FUTURE SETTINGS ARE
CRITICAL OF THESE ARE CRITICAL
MEMBERS OF OUR SOCIETY THAT I
THINK SHOULD BENEFIT FROM.
FROM THIS AS WELL.
THANK YOU MISTER KARGER.
YEAH AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS
ALREADY TALKED ABOUT BUT YOU
KNOW ONE OF THE BIGGER ONES IS
THE THE ABILITY TO DEDUCT NON
CORPORATE BUSINESS LOSSES RIGHT.
AND SO EXPLAIN THAT TO ME IT
REALLY THE CHANGES.
THERE'S THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A
CAP -- IT'S JUST A CHANGING
CHANGING WHAT THE CAP IS ON
BUSINESS NON CORPORATE BUSINESS
LOSS DEDUCTIONS RIGHT CAN YOU.
WHAT IS IT NOW WHAT WOULD IT
CHANGE TO UNDER THIS SIZE NOT
SURE IF THEY WERE PRE IF THERE
WAS PREVIOUSLY A CAT THERE WAS
NOT PREVIOUSLY A CAP ON
DEDUCTION AGAINST OTHER INCOME?
OKAY.
AND AND SO YEAH SO SO THERE IS
NO CAP PREVIOUSLY WHICH MEANT
THAT.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU
MADE WAGES ARE CAPITAL ONE TIME
OR INTEREST INCOME -- IF YOU HAD
A BUSINESS LOSS THAT EXCEEDED
BACK THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO
PAY ANY TAXES ON THAT WAGES SO
WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DID
WAS SAY THAT -- UNLESS IT'S MORE
THAN UP TO FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS FOR A MARRIED COUPLE YOU
CAN STILL DO THAT BUT ABOUT FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS YOU
CAN'T DO THAT IN THAT TAX YEAR
AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO CARRY IT
FORWARD. TO A FUTURE YEARS THE
FEDERAL ALSO DISALLOWED KERRY
BACKS WHICH ARE BILL PROPOSES
CONFORMING TO AS WELL.
RIGHT SO YOU'D STILL BE ABLE TO
DEDUCT UP.
TO TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND OF
LOSSES RIGHT SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE
TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND OF
INCOME FIRST OF ALL.
THAT'S CORRECT FOR MORE -- IN IT
TO DEDUCT THAT TWO HUNDRED FIFTY
DOLLARS IF YOU'RE MARRIED IT'S
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND THAT'S
CORRECT.
OF LOSSES -- I BELIEVE
PREVIOUSLY WASN'T THERE A RULE
ABOUT YOU CAN ONLY DEDUCT UP
280% OF YOUR INCOME.
SO THIS IS ACTUALLY.
THIS IS ACTUALLY THE NEW ROLE SO --
WHAT THE PREVIOUS ROLE WAS
BEFORE THAT DAY TAX REFORM BILL
PASSED IN DC WAS?
YOU CAN ONLY CARRY FORWARD UP TO
TWENTY YEARS I BELIEVE THAT'S
RIGHT BUT YOU CAN DEDUCT ALL OF
THE INCOME ALL ALL THE ALL THE
LOSSES THAT YOU HAD.
YOU COULD YOU COULD USE UP ON
YOU COULD OFFSET A 100% OF YOUR
INCOME IN THE IN THE FOLLOWING
YEAR THAT'S RIGHT IN THE
FOLLOWING YEAR YES AND AND KERRY
THOSE.
FORWARD YEAH SO THAT THAT NET
OPERATING LOSS CARRY FORWARDS
AND NOW CHANGED TO WHERE THERE'S
NO TWENTY YEAR TIME LIMIT IT'S
NOW ON LIMITED AT THE FEDERAL
LEVEL -- BUT FOR ON YOUR FEDERAL
TAX RETURN YOU CAN ONLY OFFSET
80% OF YOUR INCOME RIGHT WE ARE
NOT PROPOSING TO CONFORM TO THAT
AND THAT GOES THE NEXUS SO.
YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO GET THE
FULL BENEFIT OF THOSE LOSSES
THAT YOU EXPERIENCE YOU'RE JUST
GOING TO BE -- YOU JUST TAKEN
OVER TIME.
YES -- UNDER OUR PROVISIONED --
AND ANY GIVEN YEAR YOU IT'S
CAPPED AT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS
FOR A COUPLE BUT BACK IN THE
CONTINUE TO BE CARRIED FORWARD.
RIGHT.
AND THAT'S IN ITS UNLIMITED
THERE'S NOT A TWENTY YEAR TIME
LIMIT NOW RIGHT. FOR THERE IS A
TWENTY BECAUSE WE CAN COULD HARM.
I DO I DO I DON'T BELIEVE THERE
IS YEAH WHICH I CAN GET BACK TO
AND THERE IS NO POLICE ON THE
YEAH I BELIEVE IT IS BECAUSE I
BELIEVE WE ARE CONFORMED WITH
THAT PREVIOUS FEDERAL ITEM ON
THAT RIGHT.
THE MINUTE I MEAN IN AND I AM
THIS THE REASON BEHIND THAT
OBVIOUS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WAS
YOU KNOW WE WANTED WE DON'T KNOW
SO I WANT TO INCENTIVIZE
ENCOURAGE LOSSES WHO WANT TO
ENCOURAGE.
PRODUCTIVITY.
RIGHT AND SO CERTAINLY WAS TO
ALLOW PEOPLE TO DEDUCT LOSSES
BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE LOSSES
WHEN YOU TAKE A RISK YOU INVEST
IN BUSINESS -- BUT PUT SOME KIND
OF LIMIT ON THAT ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS.
OBVIOUSLY TO INCENTIVIZE.
YOU KNOW -- MORE OBVIOUSLY
PRODUCTIVITY FROM THAT FROM THAT
BUSINESS IS THAT IS THAT KIND OF
THE AND I MEAN.
YEAH THAT'S GENERALLY CORRECT
AND WE DO SEE INSTANCES WITHOUT
GOING INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL SOME
BUSINESSES SOME.
PEOPLE ENGAGE IN A BUSINESS ARE
VERY ADEPT AT GENERATING LOSSES --
YOU THROUGH USE OF STRATEGIC USE
OF DEPRECIATION AND OTHER
TECHNIQUES AND AND NOT ACTUALLY
PAYING.
ANY INCOME TAX -- SO WE THOUGHT
AT LEAST THE SHOULD BE CAPPED AT
HALF MILLION DOLLARS FOR A FOR A
MARRIED COUPLE.
OKAY THANK YOU DOCTOR WHAT.
YES THANK YOU JUST A QUICK
QUESTION -- REGARDING UNDER THE
I. T. C. -- TALK ABOUT A
REFUNDABLE CHILD TAX CREDIT OF A
THOUSAND DOLLARS PER QUALIFY TAX
PAYER SO THAT MEAN A HUSBAND AND
WIFE.
EACH WITH IF THEY'RE BOTH
EMPLOYED WOULD EACH GET A
THOUSAND DOLLAR TAX CREDIT.
SO IT WOULD BE PER HOUSEHOLD --
SO PREFER ONE FILING UNIT THEY
WOULD WHOEVER'S QUITE WHICHEVER
RETURN IS CLAIMING THE CHILD AS
A DEPENDENT I WOULD GET THAT
THOUSAND DOLLAR CREDIT FOR THE
HOUSEHOLD.
AND WHAT WHAT CONSTITUTES A
QUALIFIED TAXPAYERS.
SO IN THIS INSTANCE IT WOULD BE
ANYONE WHO PUTTING THIS
PROVISION ASIDE QUALIFIES FOR
SOME OTHER PART OF THE EARNED
INCOME TAX CREDIT.
SO SO IF YOU -- MAKE OF THIRTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS OR LESS -- AND
YOU HAVE EARNED INCOME WHETHER
THROUGH WAGES OR SELF EMPLOYED
BUSINESS AND CALM -- AND YET TO
THE POINT THAT WE WERE
DISCUSSING BEFORE YOU HAVE A
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER -- YOU
WOULD QUALIFY FOR THE TAX CREDIT.
YOU COULD YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY
ON A THOUSAND DOLLARS AND GET A
THOUSAND DOLLAR TAX CUT THAT'S
CORRECT YES [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISS REYES.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
I WANT TO JOIN WITH MY
COLLEAGUES -- THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT KELLY ITC I REALLY AM GLAD
ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION.
I AM SO DISAPPOINTED THAT THOSE
WERE FILING WITH INDIVIDUAL TAX
IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS THE AYE
TENS ARE BEING EXCLUDED.
THIS EXPANSION WAS INCLUDED IN
BOTH THE ASSEMBLY AND OF THE
SENATE BUDGET SO WERE SENT IN.
BUT WERE REMOVED AS PART OF THE
LARGE TO GO CATIONS.
THAT'S DISAPPOINTING -- IT I
THINK IT'S CRITICAL TO
UNDERSTAND.
THAT INDIVIDUALS WITH AYE TENS
ARE TAXPAYERS.
AND THE PLACE SIGNIFICANT ROLE
IN OUR LOCAL ECONOMIES THE THE
YET THEY DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO
THIS CRITICAL SERVICE.
MEANT TO SUPPORT LOW INCOME
CALIFORNIANS I THINK FOR THIS
ACT TO BE TRULY A WORKING
FAMILIES TAX RELIEF.
IT HAS TO SUPPORT ALL FAMILIES
AND NOT.
FALL SHORT OF CHANGING -- THOSE
LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS SIMPLY
BECAUSE ONE OF THE PERSONS
FILING HASN'T I TEN NUMBER.
EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE OTHERS
WITH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS BUT
AT THE MOMENT YOU HAVE AN AYE
TEN FILER.
THE ENTIRE FAMILY IS DENIED THE
CREDIT.
I AS LONG WITH MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES I I AM COMMITTED TO
CONTINUE WORKING.
ON THIS ISSUE AND I HOPE THAT
THE LEGISLATURE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION WILL ONE DAY.
VERY SOON FIND AT THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT LOW INCOME.
FAMILIES IT DOES INCLUDE OUR
IMMIGRANT FAMILIES WHO
CONTRIBUTE SO MUCH TO OUR
ECONOMY.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
CASEY NOW WE'RE MOVING ON THE
PUBLIC COMMENT.
YOUR MEMBERS COUNTY MUST FOR
HERE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTER AS WELL
AS THE ASSOCIATION OF FOOD BANKS
AND AS WELL MY COLLEAGUE FROM
WESTERN CENTER WHO HAD TO LEAVE
FOR ANOTHER MEETING.
WE WANT TO ECHO THE COMMENTS
MADE HERE REGARDS THAI TENS WE
ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED WE
CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE
EXPANSION HERE AND FOR LOW
INCOME FAMILIES BUT WHEN YOU
LEAVE OUT.
LOW INCOME FAMILIES -- THAT
CONTRIBUTE OVER THIRTY BILLION
DOLLARS IN STATE AND LOCAL TAXES
THAT'S A PROBLEM THESE ARE FOLKS
THAT ARE EARNING ON AVERAGE ON A
YEARLY BASIS A LITTLE OVER
SIXTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.
THEY HAVE CITIZEN CHILDREN MANY
TIMES IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD AND BY
LEAVING THEM OUT OF THIS YOU'RE
LEADING TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND
PROXIMALLY TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND
KIDS WITHOUT THE BENEFITS OF
THIS INCREDIBLY.
HELPFUL PROGRAM FOR LOW INCOME
CALIFORNIANS SO WE DO HOPE TO
CONTINUE AS WAS NOTED HERE THE
LEGISLATURE DID HAVE THIS IN
BOTH SIDES OF THE HOUSE -- WE
HOPE TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
THIS ADMINISTRATION AS WE MOVE
FORWARD INTO THE NEXT BUDGET
CYCLE AND HOPING THAT WE CAN GET
THESE A LOW INCOME FOLKS
INCLUDED.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE MEMBER SILVIO FOR
HEARING BEHALF DISSOCIATION
GLOBAL AUTOMAKERS WE ARE OPPOSED
ONLY TO THOSE PROVISIONS THAT.
PERTAIN TO THE REPEAL OF LIKE
KIND EXCHANGE.
WE NEED TO SEE LANGUAGE IN THIS
BILL THAT UPPER TAX AND THE
THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF
LEASED VEHICLES THAT ARE ON THE
ROAD TODAY.
THAT HAVE A LEASE RATE THAT
REFLECTS AN EXPECTATION UPON
WHEN THAT CAR IS RETURNED THAT
NOT LIKE KIND EXCHANGE IS THERE.
THIS IS GOING TO RESULT IN
REALLY.
TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF
TAX OBLIGATION THAT IS
UNEXPECTED IS GONNA HAVE A MAJOR
HIT TO THOSE LEASING OPERATIONS.
AT AT AT COMPANIES ACROSS THE
STATE SO WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK
ON THAT AND SEE IF THAT'S
POSSIBLE TO GET IN THERE -- BUT
AT THIS POINT -- WE ARE POSTING
KILL.
GOOD AFTERNOON JOHN MOFFITT ON
BEHALF OF THE ALLIANCE OF
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ONE
ECHO THE COMMENTS OF MY
COLLEAGUES -- YOU KNOW THE
BOTTOM LINE IS THIS PROPOSAL IS
GOING TO INCLUDE IN INCREASE
LEASE RATES FOR VEHICLES IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- THERE IS
I THINK AN EQUITY ISSUE -- AND
THE FAIRNESS ISSUE HERE WITH
RESPECT TO LEASES ON VEHICLES
THAT EXIST RIGHT NOW VERSES
LEASES THAT WILL BE ENTERED INTO
IN THE FUTURE ONE IS MANAGEABLE.
ONE IS NOT -- AND THAT'S
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT WHEN WE
LOOK AT LEAST AS BEING A A LOW
COST OPTION FOR FOR CUSTOMERS TO
GET INTO A NEW VEHICLE AND ALSO
THE FACT THAT 95%.
OF THE ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES IN
THE STATE ARE LEAST. FOR THOSE --
FOR THOSE REASONS WE OPPOSE THE
L. K. E. PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
THANK YOU.
YES MY IS CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
BOARDS ASSOCIATION -- JUST TO
LET YOU KNOW OUR SUPPORT FOR
CONFORMITY.
REALLY DRIVES ON THE IMPACT IT
HAS ON THE PROPOSITION IDEA
GUARANTEE THERE'S ALMOST A HALF
A BILLION DOLLARS IN THE
GUARANTEE THAT IS -- IN THE
BUDGET THAT THIS RELIES ON AND
ON ABOUT TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY
MILLION ONGOING. TO FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE AS YOU'RE THINKING
ABOUT THE DIFFERENT IMPACTS ON
WHAT CONFORMITY MEANS FOR US IT
MAY MEAN THE DIFFERENCE OF
INVESTMENT THIS BEING MADE FOR
SPECIAL EDUCATION THE ELSE IF OF
CALL OTHER THINGS THAT WE ARE
RELYING.
ON THIS BILL TO PASS A TAKE YOUR
TIME.
THANK YOU ANY THE PUBLIC COMMENT
[inaudible]
OKAY.
AGAIN THIS HEARING WAS ONLY
INFORMATIONAL WE PRESENTED ALL
THE DIFFERENT -- BUDGET TRAILER
BILL DOES SIX REMAINING BUDGET
TRAILER BILLS AT THIS TIME.
WE ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL BE.
TAKING UP SOME OF THESE ITEMS ON
THE FLOOR TOMORROW WE ALSO WILL
BE HAVING AN ADDITIONAL.
BUDGET COMMITTEE HEARING MONDAY
ACT.
SO WITH THAT WE ARE TRYING THANK
YOU