Property Tax Independence Act

HB 76 AND SB 76 PROPERTY TAX INDEPENDENCE ACT

PROPOSAL EXPLAINED

 

 

 

Talk of eliminating school property taxes has been going on for some time. While it was expected to be introduced this year, it now appears it will be a major issue in the upcoming Governor race in 2018. The property tax is a discriminatory and outmoded method of raising education funding. Funding schemes need to broaden the base for taxation rather than demanding only property owners finance education. I will attempt to summarize the proposals being considered to eliminate school property taxes.

 

1. The major source of new funding would be to broaden the items covered by the sales tax and raise the sales tax from 6 to 7%. Items that would continue to be exempt would be basic food items, such as meat, dairy, and produce, utilities, heating fuels, health, hospital, and dental services, prescription drugs, home health care, tuition, day care, charitable organizations, and business to business or wholesale transactions. All other items and services would be taxable.

 

2. Raise the state income tax from 3.07% to 4.95%. While many say this will raise the taxes on high income people beyond their property taxes, that is unlikely. If someone is earning $200,000 a year in joint income, their state tax would go from $6140 to $9900. This would be an increase of $3760. I would expect such earners are paying more than that in school taxes. The idea is to spread the tax across all residents. All residents would be taxed based on their ability to pay.

 

3. Property taxes would continue for school districts who have incurred debt. This would continue until the debt is retired. This cost would then be an average of 10%  with a high of 18% of present property taxes. I would suggest a flat $500. per year adult per capita tax to retire the debt as this would broaden the base of taxpayers and pay off the debt in a shorter time.

 

4. New construction would need to be put to a local referendum with the costs revealed.

 

5. All schools would be funded by the state at the current level. The increases in school budgets would be tied to the average weekly wage increases in the state. In the last 20 years, school property taxes have increased 146%, the average weekly wage has increased 80% and the Consumer price index has increased by 59%. There needs to more restraint on taxes rather than the whims of Superintendents and School board members.

 

6. A constitutional amendment would be enacted to eliminate all property taxes.

 

The positive results of tax reform would be more disposable income for most residents, an increase in property values, an increase in economic activity, making the state more economically competitive compared to many other states. The state is in need of reform, as it is losing population and falling behind in economic opportunity. Responsible leadership requires that changes be made before a crisis level is reached and recovery made much more difficult.

Northwestern Lehigh board accepts renovation bids

NORTHWESTERN LEHIGH TO BORROW 13.5 MILLION

BUILDING PROJECT START NEAR

 

The Northwestern Lehigh Board voted 5-4 to accept the bids for High School renovation project.

Voting to accept the bids , Willard Dellicker, Todd Hernandez, John Casciano, Joseph Fatzinger and Todd Leiser, Voting against, Paul Fisher, Phillip Toll, Charlene Rauscher and Darryl Schafer. The no votes were voicing their opposition to the scope of the project rather than the renovation in general.

 

The successful bidders: General construction,       Gordon H. Baver Inc.       $5,982,000

                                       Mechanical construction  Master Mechanical           $1,108,920

                                       Electrical construction      Alabarell Electric             $2,312,512

                                       Plumbing                           Dewalt Plumbing             $   635,900

                                       Abatement                         Sargent Enterprises          $     95,250

                                       Total:                                                                          $10,134,582 

 

D'Huy engineering will oversee the project.

 

The Superintendent has been authorized to approve change orders up to $20,000.

 

There will be a bond offering to finance the $13,5 million cost.

 

There will be a public auction to dispose of the items removed for replacement.

 

It was also reported that enrollment for the elementary, middle and high school is now 2153 down from 2404 in 2007. This latest figure does not count cyber and charter school.  The Staff for the 4 schools is 377, 174 professional staff up from 167, 2 years ago, 188 support staff and 15 administrators.

 

 

 

Dems, still no platform, still no positive message.

DEMS AND ASSAD UNIFY REPUBLICANS

MEDIA DESCENDS INTO SPECULATION, GOSSIP AND RUMORS

 

 

The Democrat's partisan opposition to the nomination of Neal Gorsuch  and the stupidity of Syria's Assad has unified the Republican party in ways that Trump could not. The Dems used the excuse of retaliation for the Republicans not allowing a vote on Obama's pick for the court and just plain partisan opposition, demanded by the ever moving to the left base of the party, to not allow a vote on Trump's supreme court nomination. They have done Trump a great favor, as now future nominations by Trump will be much easier to pass. Can the 60 vote threshold for legislation last much longer? I think its days are also numbered, as it is clear the Dems will not support any initiatives by the Trump administration. While there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth by the Democrats they have yet to form any credible platform, or positive proposals. They are placing all their hopes on diminishing Trump and his administration in any way possible. This is the same strategy that contributed to their loss in November, if you don't have any original ideas, just stay with the same course and go down with the ship.

 

The media seems to have the same goal as the Dems. I guess they really are on the same ship. They continually attempt to force their ideas of correct policy by criticizing and diminishing every proposal, all the while Trump is rolling back years of regulation and orders by the previous administration. There are real changes being made. White house press conference are now not viewed as a way to recieve information on the days events, but an opportunity for the media to attempt to find a contradiction, a verbal error or anything to make a story negative to the white house. I watch most all of them, the white house should limit these events, and refuse to answer the same question more than once. The media has descended into having panels that continuously speculate on rumors, gossip and unfounded claims. Unnamed sources say this and that. The Trump administration is rife with infighting, they have no stated policy, Bannon is trying to overshadow Trump. Spicer should resign because he did not clearly state chemical weapons used in combat. It is all a bunch of catty bullshit without any substance. I guess it is cheaper and less risky to hire a bunch of young Journalist majors and former partisan operatives to serve on panels rather than go about the business of real reporting. I guess the drudgery, time consuming and unglamorous business of real reporting is now just too much like work. The so called establishment media is now so biased and ineffective that it needs some serious reform from the top down, or it will be regarded in the same league as the National Inquirer.

 

I remember when CNN, in the lead up to the gulf war, was in Iraq interviewing Saddam Hussein and others in his administration. They were focused on news, the facts, real stories. This was the role that the media played for years. I suspect that world leaders will no longer talk to them, as they are now considered to be untrustworthy to give an accurate accounting.Yes, there always was a little bias, but generally they stayed with the facts. Now it is no holds barred partisan propaganda. This can only be corrected by the citizens themselves demanding a better account of the media. There are big stories at work all around the world and all they can do is obsess on Trump. They no longer can blame Trump for their failures, they have spent two years ragging on Trump with little to show for it, if they spend three more years with same goals, they will deserve their reward of complete irrelevance.

New ideas about Health care delivery

IS IT TIME TO RETHINK THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE DELIVERY MODEL?

 DO NOT GIVE UP FREEDOM, CHOICE AND CONTROL

 

 

 

The system we have today for health care delivery is the same idea that started 6 decades ago, you pay a premium for insurance and the insurance company pays for the service. This is true whether it is private insurance companies or government run insurance. Hardly anyone pays for their own health care directly and most don't even pay the premium. This system tends to remove incentives by consumers to be conscious of costs. There have been moves to increase deductibles, co-pays and  consumers share of the premium in an effort to encourage consumers to be conscience of cost savings, but it has been largely ineffective.
 

There are moves being made by health care providers to get out of the insurance based system. One idea that is being used on a limited basis is called Boutique Medicine or Concierge Medicine, were a doctor or group of doctors now charge a limited number of clients an annual fee and then provide health care. They no longer take payments from Insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. Another that I have heard about is  Clinic's run by Orthopedic doctors that have a flat rate of say $300.00 cash for their diagnosis and evaluation, then a flat rate price of around $8000.00 for a knee replacement. These are pure free market ideas that eliminate insurance and cut the costs of business and red tape. This same system is available in some other countries like India where you can have open heart surgery in the $10,000 range including your stay there. Sadly those who espouse government run healthcare believe that such practices would be made illegal and all providers would need to work for the government. While these providers now are limited and small in number, if allowed and encouraged they could begin to encourage competition in health care, they advertise their prices and open up some options to consumers.
 

Of course, there always is the problem of those who do not have the resources to be part of such a plan. Why not eliminate Medicaid, and in a cooperative effort expand the clinic system that has been around forever in America. These clinics would be administered by a local hospitals, they would be staffed by nurse practitioners and interns, overseen by doctors. They could also encourage qualified volunteers. Citizens under a certain income would be assigned a clinic and charged a monthly premium based on income. They would also pay a set amount say $20.00 per visit. These clinics would take care of minor injuries, immunizations, evaluations etc. and distribute common drugs like antibiotics. They would be subsidized if necessary by former Medicaid money. They would be encouraged to be self supporting as much as possible. More serious problems would need to be moved on to another facility. This could possibly provide better health care because of its availability. We are seeing Hospitals expanding local care facilities now.

 

Whatever reforms are to made should include a group of random selected providers who are not affiliated with any lobbying group or special interest and engage in listening sessions to see what reforms would help providers cut their costs. Doctors now have large staffs just to keep track of regulations, paperwork and claims. This all raises costs. Why not have one universal form that everyone can use to file a claim. Malpractice insurance often costs $250,000 a year, this needs to be addressed. This could be replaced by an independent group that investigates malpractice in a professional way and makes recommendations as to ratings on doctors and penalties.

There is and has been a lot of pressure to go to a government run system, Medicare for all they say. They fail to address the problem that the subsidizing of Medicare by private insurance through cost shifting has been a large factor in the rising cost of health care. Does anyone really believe that the medical profession will attract the best and the brightest if they will be working for a large government run bureaucracy that will do its hiring and promotions with an eye to social engineering as much as good health care. You can bet that would be the end of all malpractice claims as most government entities are immune from such claims. You can also bet that at certain age, whether it 75 or 80, your access to care will become limited. Americans spend $3.8 trillion on health care a year. This is very close to the entire budget of the Federal Government, which has not balanced a budget since 1969, shortly after the passage of Great Society spending programs. To finance a government run health program could result in  possibly a 30% increase of the Federal budget. Also a 30% rise in taxes. While it is true that the money is spent one way or another, this needs to be a last resort as once the move is made to government health care it will never be reversed. Rather than these large comprehensive reforms that often slip in political ideology and special interest motives, we need to address targeted solutions one thing at a time. It should be an evolution not a revolution.

Are we better off since ACA.?

HAS ACA DAMAGED OUR HEALTH CARE?

REFORM IS IMPERATIVE

Before introduction of the Affordable Care Act the majority of Americans had a very positive view of the quality of health care. The problem was the cost, which really did not have any realistic connection to the rest of the economy. Let's face it, without insurance, very few people could afford major surgery or extended hospital stays. We were told that the problem was the uninsured, and to bring down the costs we would mandate everyone buy health insurance and force all employers with over 50 employees to purchase insurance. At the same time the mandated coverage was expanded to include many services that could never be used by the policy holders. Insurance companies were also mandated to not use actuarial tables to set prices. Usually young groups of policy holders paid less than older folk. The idea was to force the young to subsidize the older. You could also purchase insurance on-line from exchanges.

When these exchanges went on line, out of curiosity, I put in my son's information to get a price for insurance. The premium at that time for a bronze plan cost around $110.00 a month, but had a $6000.00 deductible and paid 60% of the cost. If you were a low income person, you would be better off to put your $110.00 in the bank, because if you didn't have $6000 you really didn't have much insurance unless it was a catastrophic event and then you would still owe 40% of the cost. Before the Affordable Care Act, I paid for my son's insurance while he was in college. I paid $100 a month from Highmark with a $1200 deductible; it paid 80% of the cost with a maximum of $3000 out of pocket. Coverage for him was more affordable before the ACA. At that time there was about a dozen providers, but I understand the situation now is much worse.  Many older people who self pay their insurance have had to drop all coverage as they cannot pay the premium. My daughter's husband has a small company, they have gone through several insurance companies since the ACA because their insurance companies keep going out of the health care business. Every time they start over, it is another group, new doctors, no continuity of care. The ACA has not only become unaffordable for working families, but has also lowered the quality of health care. The government also took over $700 billion in Medicare money and moved it to ACA to subsidize low income care and to expand Medicaid. They compounded the initial problems of rising costs and uninsured individuals by creating problems across the board. Medicaid payments to doctors have been cut so much that many doctors claim they lose money on Medicaid and will no longer see Medicaid customers. Some will no longer take new Medicare people who have not been previous patients.  

Instead of looking at other ways to lower costs, the government tried to reduce costs by forcing providers to take less reimbursement and by hoping to force the young to subsidize the system. It really is not working except for low income or no income people who are subsidized, who may have insurance, but do they really have good health care?

The easiest way to cut health care cost would be to eliminate all insurance. This would be a pure free market solution and the cost of health care after some serious chaos would settle at a realistic price linked to the real economy. Two examples are breast implants, which are not covered by insurance are now advertised as low as $2500 and Lasik eye surgery, again not covered by insurance, advertised at $250.00 and up. Both these procedures can be purchased by most anyone who wants them.  It is interesting that there is tremendous competition in uninsured items, while no one ever asks about the costs of procedures that are insured. Now I know we are not going to eliminate health insurance, but we now have two choices, rely on government controlled and paid health care or introduce more market forces and market cost reductions. Government interference in the health care business has not made things better. Can more government control make it better? We will talk about those ideas next time.