Chained CPI–Don’t Cut Social Security

 

FCAN has fought many battles to keep Social Security strong for Floridians and it looks like we’re not done yet. Many seniors rely on Social Security as their only income.  Our friends at Strengthen Social Security have published a fact sheet on the Chained CPI Social Security Cut currently being proposed in Washington.

Their main points:

Some politicians in Washington are preparing to cut your Social Security COLA for good – even after two years without a cost of living adjustment. This COLA cut has an obscure name – the
chained CPI – but it would do real damage by changing the formula used to calculate the COLA. The important thing to know is that this change would cut the benefits of all beneficiaries, including current retirees, disabled workers, and others – even after politicians promised repeatedly that any changes to Social Security would not affect current beneficiaries. The COLA cut is a real threat to the financial security of every American who does currently or will rely on Social Security.

The average earner retiring at age 65 would get a $658 cut each year at age 75, and a $1,147 cut by age 85. By age 95, when Social Security benefits are typically needed most, that person faces a
staggering 9.2 percent cut. What is far more severe is the cumulative effect of the COLA cut as it compounds over time. The average earner retiring at age 65 would get a cumulative cut of $4,642 at age 75, $13,921 at age 85, and $28,015 at age 95.

`Source: Social Security Administration

 

Stop The Social Security Cuts TODAY!

Call your Senators and Representatives today and let them know they should increase Social Security, not cut it.

Senator Bill Nelson     202-224-5274

Senator Marco Rubio  202-224-3041

Look up your Representative or call the House switchboard at

(202) 224-3121

FCAN Letter on Ticketmaster Monopoly

 

Florida House Subcommittee on Business & Professional Regulation

On behalf of Florida consumers, FCAN implores you to oppose HB 1353, blatantly anti-consumer legislation supported by Ticketmaster and its industry partners in order to gain an even greater monopoly in the ticket industry.

HB 1353 seeks to ensure ticket sellers can use any ticketing method – including restricted tickets that limit or restrict a consumer’s ability to give away or resell their ticket. It also defines an admission ticket as a revocable license which “may be revoked at any time, with or without cause, by the ticket issuer.”

With this law behind them, ticket sellers will be legally authorized to sell restricted tickets for every seat to every show and only allow consumers to transfer tickets in the manner that ticket sellers choose.

This is a battle between consumers and big ticket sellers like Ticketmaster. Consumers want ownership of the tickets they buy and choice in the marketplace. Ticketmaster and its industry partners want to eliminate secondary market competition and create greater monopolies in the event ticket industry.

I urge you to stand with consumers and support ownership rights and a free market in Florida by opposing HB 1353.

Respectfully,

Bill Newton, Executive Director

FCAN Analysis of S 1770 the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee Insurance Bill

Overall, this bill reflects the free market ideology of Chairman Simmons and to some extent the conservative Republican majority. Not everyone agrees. The idea is to raise rates in Citizens to help private companies that already benefit from subsidized reinsurance and dumping high risk customers. Citizens rates would be raises by S 1770 without regard to the impact on homeowners, but for the benefit of mostly out of state insurance companies. Here are the specifics that FCAN opposes or supports.
SUPPORT: Subjects Citizens Property Insurance Corporation to bad faith claims. FCAN: While Senators may do this for the wrong reasons (to make Citizens equal to private insurers) the best reason for doing this is so Citizens will have to meet its obligations to its customers.
OPPOSE : Requires the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) to calculate and publish an annual property insurance inflation factor. FCAN: Inflation has little effect on insurance costs. Insurance rates are based on risk.
SUPPORT: Allows insurance companies to include in their rate filing reinsurance that is purchased to cover potential shortfalls in the FHCF. FCAN supports this only if it is demonstrated that there really is a shortfall. This could be exploited by companies using affiliated or captive reinsurers to inflate profits.
SUPPORT: Requires the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology review the accuracy of hurricane models used to establish wind mitigation discounts. FCAN: To the extent that these models work, which is doubtful, FCAN hopes they will justify more mitigation, which is badly needed.
SUPPORT: Requires the OIR to hold a public hearing for a rate filing when the filing exceeds 15 percent in territories where there is not a reasonable degree of competition. FCAN: Hearings are good, but the threshold should be lower.
OPPOSE: Allows insurers to use consent to rate for up to 10 percent of commercial policies enforce and up to 5 percent for personal policies enforce in territories where the office determines there is not a reasonable degree of competition.
FCAN: This will be used to get customers to stay with a higher priced brand name even if the price is not justified. This preys upon consumers who do not know what is in their policy or what it should cost, and want to trust a brand name they see advertised on TV.
OPPOSE: Reduces the maximum Citizens’ policy limit from $2 million to $600,000. FCAN: This forces these more lucrative policies into private companies to the detriment of Citizens policyholders. Once again, the private companies "cherry pick" the best leaving us the rest.
SUPPORT: Prohibits Citizens from covering structures commencing construction after July 1, 2013, that are seaward of the coastal construction control line, unless built to code-plus. FCAN: This should help, but we should also simply avoid building in some areas, especially barrier islands.
OPPOSE: Requires Citizens disclose potential surcharge and assessment liabilities with each renewal notice. FCAN: This is a waste of good money since nobody really knows what this might be, it changes all the time, and it is really designed to scare people.
OPPOSE: Requires Citizens rates must be actuarially sound, include an appropriate risk load factor and not compete with the private market. A noncompetitive rate is defined as the highest rate among the top 20 insurers writing in a given territory but where OIR sees no competitive market exists, rates must be actuarially sound.
FCAN: This would need a definition of what "acturially sound" means. Your actuary might give a different answer from mine.
Secondly, Top 20 rates will be a disaster for many coastal areas. It would allow private companies to raise rates as much as they want without fear of losing customers to a more efficient Citizens. Citizens created competition where there was none. Even though Citizens is stuck with the highest risk customers, and we all know government couldn't possibly run a business, somehow Citizens is making money. Private companies say they can't compete, despite generous subsidies.
There really aren't 20 competitive insurance companies in Florida. There are 5 or 6 large competitive companies and the rest don't compare. These few companies don't really compete, which is one of the reasons they are regulated.
Citizens already has considerable disadvantages compared to private companies, so there is no reason to increase the burden paid by their customers. The effect would be, in part, to further enhance Citizens "profits", adding to their surplus at a rate that is not justified by the risk.
OPPOSE: Requires all new policies, non-homestead non-renter occupied properties, homes with a replacement cost over $300,000 and nonresidential commercial policies be placed at the top 20 rate. FCAN: same reasons as stated above.
OPPOSE: Applies the glide path percentage by territory and not policy. FCAN: the Glide Path, agreed to by all parties, is to make sure no one's rates increase by more than 10% a year, especially when times are tough and families have a difficult time even paying mortgages, let alone skyrocketing insurance premiums.
SUPPORT: Allows an increase of 3 percent for Citizens to purchase additional reinsurance and decreases by 3 percent (1 percent per account) the Citizens policy surcharge. FCAN: Citizens needs additional reinsurance to spread risk outside Florida, but the rate increase should be kept nearer 1% than 3%.
SUPPORT: Citizens Board must recommend to the Legislature a process in which policyholders with documented financial needs can receive some rate relief.
There are some good things in this bill, but some repairs are needed before it moved ahead.

FCAN Joins Stronger Safer Florida Coalition

You might think it strange to see FCAN joining the Chamber and AIF on anything. But sometimes we agree, and we are also joining some of our environmental allies in this coalition. On this issue I think the best interest of consumers is spreading the hurricane risk outside of the state through the reinsurance mechanism. However, I do not support rate increases above 3% and my hope is that any increase resulting from buying more private reinsurance would be more like 1%.  Right now, reinsurance prices seem low, with plenty of capacity. That should be a good thing for Florida consumers and we should take advantage.  The press release is below. – Bill Newton, FCAN Executive Director

Statewide Business, Consumer and Conservation Groups Committed to Making a Stronger Safer Florida

~Coalition Launches to Support Needed Reform of Citizens and the Cat Fund~

Tallahassee, Fla. – A collection of statewide business, consumer and conservation groups today announced the formation of the Stronger Safer Florida coalition. The nonpartisan coalition is comprised of a wide range of groups, and has formed in an effort to support state legislation that will reform Citizens Property Insurance Corp. and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund. The diverse membership reflects broad support for changes to the state-run insurance entities, which reports indicate do not insure the majority of Floridians, but due to their statutory power to levy assessments do tax them all in event of a major hurricane catastrophe.

For years, many of these groups have called on the Florida Legislature to make needed changes to Citizens and the Cat Fund in order to return Florida’s property insurance market back to a healthy state. Additionally, members of the Stronger Safer Florida coalition believe reform of Citizens and the Cat Fund are critical to better protecting all Floridians including consumers, businesses, charitable organizations, religious institutions and local government entities, as well as shielding environmentally sensitive areas throughout the state.

“We are pleased to join together with the other groups of Stronger Safer Florida in an effort to better protect our members and the interests of all Floridians,” said Thomas C. Feeney, III, President and Chief Executive Officer, Associated Industries of Florida. “When the Florida Legislature convenes next week for the 2013 state legislative session, it is imperative our elected leaders recognize the importance of implementing necessary and needed changes to Citizens Property Insurance Corp. and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund. Both of these underfunded state-backed programs place an unreasonable financial burden on the backs of the majority of Floridians, and there is no better time, or greater need, for reform than now.”

Today, the Stronger Safer Florida Coalition consists of 14 member and allied organizations, including Associated Industries of Florida, Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Consumer Action Network, Florida TaxWatch, the R Street Institute, 1,000 Friends of Florida, Audubon of Florida, CERES, Florida Coastal and Oceans Coalition, Florida Wildlife Federation, Sea Turtle Conservancy, Surfrider Foundation, The Nature Conservancy and James Madison Institute. Additionally, there are various field experts who also support the coalition’s efforts.

A number of these groups have been instrumental in pre-legislative session meetings, providing requested input to leadership of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee and by testifying at meetings. In addition, these groups are constantly working to educate the general public about the problems related to the structure of the current system.

“Without the appropriate changes to Citizens Property Insurance Corp. and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, Florida consumers and the financial security of our state are at risk,” said Bill Newton, Executive Director, Florida Consumer Action Network. “We appreciate the opportunity to be part of Stronger Safer Florida as this coalition provides our organization with another platform to share our position on responsibly spreading hurricane risk outside of the state, the importance of mitigation and the need to pass thoughtful legislation that has a minimal impact on rates.”

In the coming weeks, the Stronger Safer Florida Coalition will be launching an informative website with background information on the need for property insurance reform in the State of Florida. The group encourages the 77 percent of Floridians who are not insured by Citizens to join them in their efforts this upcoming legislative session.

“For years the Florida Wildlife Federation has supported reform of Citizens Property Insurance Corp. and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund,” said Manley Fuller, President, Florida Wildlife Federation. “On behalf of our members as well as the many conservation groups that support Stronger Safer Florida, we believe this nonpartisan coalition is representative of the majority of Floridians and hope the majority will consider assisting us in our efforts. Not only will returning Citizens back to the insurer of last resort and ‘right-sizing’ the Cat Fund better protect all Floridians from a potential financial nightmare, but these changes will positively impact Florida’s environment by better protecting our hurricane-prone state’s undeveloped barrier islands and wetlands that offer important environmental benefits and weather related safeguards.”

If you are interested in receiving further information or would like to be added to our mailing list, please email strongersaferflorida@gmail.com.

FCAN Analysis of the proposed Senate Insurance Committee bill

The Florida Senate Insurance Committee released a draft of a proposed committee homeowner’s insurance bill. This is a bill that would be sponsored by the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee itself. Here is FCAN’s analysis of the bill:

Section 1: “Right sizing” the Cat Fund – FCAN agrees that the Cat Fund (the State of Florida) has too much exposure to hurricane risk. We need to “spread the risk” beyond Florida’s borders through reinsurance or other mechanisms. The Cat Fund is a subsidy to private insurers and shields them from the actual cost of reinsurance. The bill reduces the “top layer” of reinsurance by $1 billion a year and increases “copays” for insurers so it does decrease the subsidy.

Section 3 gives insurers an inflation factor that they can use to raise rates. However, we have little information showing what “property insurance inflation” actually is. It is NOT the traditional inflation expected in the US economy because that has little effect on insurance rates. Insurance rates are more likely affected by competition, reinsurance costs, and the regulatory environment. These factors cannot be called “inflation.”

Sections 4 and 5 refer to the use of mitigation “models” that would be approved by the Commission on Models for lack of a better term. It is possible that this could work, but, of course, the devil is in the details. The problem here is that the insurance companies will still be using proprietary models rather than the public model for this calculation.

Section 6 is more egregious for consumers. It says public hearings would only be held on rate increases of 25% or more instead of the current 15%. Hearings could be eliminated completely. While hearings are of limited usefulness factually because citizen groups may not intervene in the proceedings to present witnesses and the public Consumer Advocate office is controlled by an elected official, they do serve as an important barometer of public sentiment. Politicians and regulators need to hear how their actions affect families.

Section 7 replaces hard won prior rate review provisions and replaces them with an honor system for rate increases. In 2007, consumer groups including FCAN fought hard to require insurance companies to prove that they really needed the rate increase before it was granted by OIR. File and Use expired in May of 2012, and we have now reverted to a Use and File system in which companies justify rate increases after the fact, within limits. The proposal here would continue this system and also expand “consent to rate” sometime referred to as consumer choice.

Consent to Rate means that an insurer may offer a policy at a higher than approved rate and the business or individual is free to accept that offer. The insurer can do this with up to 10% of their customers. The problem for consumers is that most of us don’t understand what’s in our policies, which is why they’re regulated. Regulation protects us from paying too much for a product we can’t effectively evaluate or compare. Consent to Rate erodes these consumer protections.

Section 8 says Citizens can no longer insure homes valued over $1 million. On its face, one would think that these wealthy homeowners should not be allowed into Citizens, but... wait a minute. Previous legislatures, savvy business people that they are, realized that these were some of Citizens best customers since they paid the highest rates and had the strongest homes. Perhaps we should not give up these good customers that improve the financial position of Citizens?

This is also why it is not a problem that second homes, or homes owned by people out of the state or even out of the country, are in Citizens. They are not being subsidized -- they are subsidizing Citizens because their homes are less likely to generate claims and they pay higher premiums (and taxes.) It is true that a very catastrophic event triggering assessments would be more costly if more high value homes are damaged, and then those assessments would be paid disproportionately by low income Floridians.  

Balancing these concerns, FCAN is neutral on this provision. Well off homeowners are easily able to navigate the insurance markets and find coverage. Their presence in the private market might attract more participants. If this passes, Floridians would give up the contribution these customers make to Citizens.

Section 9 changes how Citizens operates by making customers prove their continuing eligibility for Citizens at least every three years. This could create headaches for consumers, but good consumers should always shop for the best deal.

Section 10 requires “Top Twenty” prices for some Citizens customers, allows increases of 15% in some areas instead of the 10% we currently have with the Glide Path, increases the prices for some new customers to “actuarially sound” and provides a grant program for those rendered homeless by the increases. Gee thanks!

While Section 10 has several rate increases in bits and pieces and throws in a back door for damaged consumers. Throw this whole section out.

Much discussion in the committee, particularly from Senator Hayes, was about how Citizens and the Cat Fund “subsidize” coastal residents. FCAN disputes that claim, pointing to the economic engine that is coastal tourism and the substantial dollars it generates. Those dollars subsidize Senator Hayes rural district. He should be ashamed that his district might accept highway or school funds that come from outside his district.

There is little for consumers to be happy about in this bill. Sen. Simmons, the Chair, seems determined to push his free market ideology on Floridians, no matter how much it hurts. He and many in the private insurance industry say they need price increases to compete with Citizens. Leaving aside the fact that these same people say government can’t be operated efficiently, and the fact that Citizens has all the worst customers, what they are saying is that raising rates will be good for Florida.

How is it that raising rates will help us, again? You can’t say we will save money, because you’re raising rates. You can’t say our coverage will be better, because no one is complaining about Citizens except private insurers who can’t compete. If we reduce the Cat Fund and have Citizens buy more reinsurance to spread risk outside the borders of the state, there is no reason we can’t continue with the Citizens model until private insurers can find a way to do a better job than the government. It can’t be that hard.

Giving Car Dealers Special Rights

 

Rep. Matt Gaetz introduced HB 55 again. The bill would require consumers to give written notice to dealers at least 30 days before filing lawsuits. Customers would not be able to pursue cases if dealers agree to pay the amounts sought in what are known as "demand letters" and pay surcharges up to $500.

What’s wrong with that? Why should car dealers get a right that nobody else has? That’s what’s wrong. When a car dealer does something wrong, maybe illegal, then a consumer can go to court to seek justice. Believe it or not, sometimes the car dealer won’t voluntarily make things right, so we consumers need to defend ourselves.

What HB 55 does is say that car dealers, unlike everyone else, get a chance to pay off the consumer before court. And there’s a catch. Rep. Cynthia Stafford, a Miami Democrat who voted against the bill, said she was concerned about how low-income people would be able to navigate the process and whether it would give an unfair advantage to dealers.

But not just low income people could have trouble navigating these waters. Most consumers don’t take their lawyers with them when they go to buy a car, meaning they are likely to be completely unaware of this law. Of course, it is probably in the fine print on the paperwork we sign, but most consumers don’t take the time and don’t have the credentials to understand the legal language.

Don’t let car dealers gain an advantage over consumers simply because they give contributions to legislators. The bill is on the agenda for Next Meeting: February 06, 2013 2:00 PM in the Business and Professional Regulation Subcommittee. Check the committee page for legislators in your district, then call or email them with your opinion.

Senate Insurance bill in the works

 

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/omnibus-bill-en-route-citizens-insurance-higher-rates-likely

The Tampa Bay Times Buzz blog carried the following article about what the Senate Insurance Committee might do this year:

JANUARY 23, 2013

Omnibus bill en route for Citizens Insurance, with higher rates likely

A massive, multipronged bill to reform Florida’s property insurance market could be introduced soon in the Florida Legislature, as influential committee chairs are determined to shrink Citizens Insurance and stave off potential “hurricane taxes.”

Sen. David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs, said the Florida Senate and House will work on a major bill to fix the state’s property insurance market, encompassing several controversial ideas while trying not to cause “rate-shock.”

“We’re not going to pull the needle out of the arm of South Florida in one year,” he said. “We’re talking about being able to in fact provide a viable alternative to doing nothing. And that’s critical to us.”

The statement came after the Senate Insurance and Banking Committee heard testimony from a number of pro-business groups, state officials and other stakeholders. Most groups had a similar message: rates at Citizens are too low and are keeping the private market from expanding.

The bill to be introduced by the committee would likely encompass a number of different measures, including raising rates faster, shrinking the state’s Hurricane Catastrophe Fund and creating stricter requirements for homeowners seeking coverage from Citizens.

In a state with relatively high and constantly rising insurance premiums, passing the reforms—and rate hikes—envisioned by many of the pro-business groups may be difficult politically. With 1.3 million policies, Citizens is the largest insurance company in the state, and a push to raise its rates further would affect millions of voters.

In South Florida and other coastal areas where insurance rates are highest, voting for even higher rates is a politically risky move. Last year, controversial property insurance reform measures were defeated when South Florida Republicans joined with Democrats to vote down GOP-sponsored legislation.

Some of the presenters at the committee said it would be more risky to leave Florida taxpayers at risk of paying “hurricane taxes” after a once-in-a-lifetime type hurricane.

“It is unfair to continue to require 77 percent of Florida homeowners to subsidize Citizens policies, in addition to 100 percent of businesses, charities, religious institutions, renters, automobile policyholders, local governments and school boards,” said Tom Feeney, president of Associated Industries of Florida, in a statement.

Insurance Consumer Advocate Robin Westcott offered a plan that did not focus on rate hikes.

She pitched an idea that would call for the state to invest in strengthening unprotected homes along the coast, a move that would reduce Citizens exposure by as much as 20 percent.

“In every study that’s been done since Hurricane Andrew, we’ve found that the one central thing that has been brought up has been mitigation,” she said. “Mitigation reduces risk and really is the only answer.”

@ToluseO

What the Senate Insurance Committee is thinking about this year

The Florida Senate Insurance Committee is meeting in the weeks preceding the beginning of the Legislative session and talking about their plans for Florida’s insurance markets. As you may imagine, much discussion is about Citizens. Here are some of the things they are talking about.

Reducing the size of Citizens seems to be a big concern, but there is little discussion of why. The assumption is that we must have a private market for homeowner’s insurance no matter what the cost. One of the main ways to get people out of Citizens is to raise rates.

One suggestion is that Citizens have higher rates than the top 20 private carriers,  Currently, you may only elect Citizens if their price is 15% below the private market. This is designed to make insurance affordable. Using top 20 pricing would dramatically increase rates, a concern for the Committee. Homeowner backlash seems to be what holds the Senators back from taking some actions.

Another suggestion, possibly aimed at reducing that backlash, is to only charge new Citizens customers the highest rates, and grandfather in existing customers. That would have the effect of reducing home sales by raising insurance rates for home buyers.

The Committee is also looking again at “flex bands” which means that insurers can raise rates without approval of the Office of Insurance Regulation. One of the hard won reforms of the past few years is stricter regulation of insurance companies, and this would roll that back. The Committee suggests that insurers need this flexibility to function effectively. That has not been the case in the past.

Commissioner Kevin McCarty suggested that Citizens has a dual role as the insurer of last resort and an alternative insurer. He said those roles are in conflict and he wants Citizens to be an insurer of last resort only. What this means is ending the 15% rule above that creates competition in the market.

Think of it this way. Citizens has a 15% price handicap right out of the box. Citizens is also a government entity, meaning that, according to many, they couldn’t possible function efficiently. Lately, there has been some mismanagement and calls for a new Citizens board, so they do have some problems. Citizens is, of course, stuck with all the highest risk customers that the other companies don’t want.

Given all those factors, you wouldn’t think Citizens could possibly make money, but they have done well and built a surplus adequate to pay for an estimated 45 year storm.

Private companies are given a subsidy in the form of discounted reinsurance from the Cat Fund. Private companies also use sophisticated (so they say) computer programs to eliminate risky customers. One would think they would be happy and would write more policies, but no. Private insurers keep whining they can’t compete against Citizens and they simply must have higher rates, a lot higher, or they won’t write any policies. And the policies they do write won’t have coverage for flood, windstorms, mold, or sinkholes. So, fire and theft policies.

I for one, simply do not find the insurers story to be credible. I hope that some of the more reasonable Senators and Representatives ask relevant questions and dig into what’s really going on. I hope that our Senators and Representatives fear backlash from homeowners and fear what higher insurance rates would do to our economy. Tell the insurance companies to grow up and compete in the marketplace.

Senate Insurance Committee Chair:  David Simmons (850) 487-5010

House Insurance Committee Chair:  Bryan Nelson     (850) 717-5031

FCAN Supports Gun Restrictions

FCAN supported renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, and in fact worked on the issue throughout 2003. Many of our board and members were involved. Unfortunately, FCAN and allies lost the battle, and we find ourselves today dealing with the consequences.

We still support banning assault weapons, closing the gun show loophole, banning large capacity magazines, and other gun regulations. FCAN believes, like many others, that we cannot live with massacres like Newtown, and we must act. Other measures like guns that only fire in the hands of their owners, pistols that won’t leave a cartridge unseen in the gun when the clip is removed, and more mental health care.

New measures will be introduced next year, but Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband was a victim of a mass shooting has introduced legislation in every Congress and will do so again. Here are links to current legislation.

H.R.308 : Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
H.R.591 : Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011
H.R.1781 : Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011
H.R.6241 : Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2012

The assault weapons ban hasn’t been introduced since 2007, but here is a link. Sen. Feinstein and Rep. McCarthy plan to reintroduce a similar bill in 2013.

H.R.1022 : Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007

This illustration shows why simply banning certain models isn’t effective. The new law must be comprehensive and ban weapons with certain features, like pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and large magazines rather than focusing on specific models:

Write your members of Congress today and demand action.

Dozens of Pinellas Residents Demand “Jobs not Cuts” During National Day of Action

 Activists rally to call on Rep. Young to do the stand with them in “Lame Duck” Congress

St. Petersburg, FL (Thurs, Nov 8th) – As part of a national day of action in over 50 cities, more than three dozen members of the Florida Consumer Action Network, Florida Public Services Union, Awake Pinellas, and other community groups, gathered together after President Obama’s big election win to call for “jobs, not cuts” during the lame duck session of Congress. Activists called on newly re-elected Congressman Bill Young to heed the signs that his constituents want jobs, not cuts in the upcoming “lame duck” Congress.

Activists pointed to President Obama’s victory not only nationally, but also in Florida and especially Pinellas County as a clear rejection of Republican trickle-down economics and job killing budget cuts, and validation of the philosophy that the rich need to pay their fair share in taxes and that we need to invest our future to create good jobs.

Standing behind a sign that read “99% mandate,” software designer Chuck Terzian spoke about how this election was a clear rejection of Republican trickle down economic philosophy and a validation of policies for those who support the 99%.

“On Tuesday, The will of the people was very clear. We reject the idea of providing more tax cuts for the very, very wealthy at the expense of the less fortunate… we need to focus on jobs, quality jobs that are going to lift people out of poverty and into the middle class.”

Earlier in the day, Jazmin Johnson, went to Rep. Young’s office to deliver a pledge asking the Congressman to support the ‘jobs not cuts’ agenda.  Johnson is the epitome of a “99% voter” that this election was about.  At 18, Jazmin spent most of her childhood growing up on programs such as Medicaid and food stamps.  Now she is working a minimum wage job while preparing to go to school to become an ultrasound technician, so she can live the American Dream and move into the middle class.

Later at the rally she spoke about the importance of protecting vital services investing in our economy.

“People like me don’t need a hand out, but we do need a hand up.  We can’t afford to cut programs that help people afford to go to college or put food on the table.  We need to invest in our economy so there are good jobs when I graduate college, not just minimum wage jobs.”

FPSU member Shuronda Hill, who works for Head Start, called on Congressman Young to protect the program from cuts.  She brought with her two honor students who had gone through the program. 

“This is our future.  They are products of Head Start, they are honor roll students.  Without Head Start, they would not be there.  Save Head Start!”

Faun Weaver, a Gulfport resident, noticed how during his re-election campaign, Congressman Young moved his positions farther to the left, running television ads promising to be a champion for Social Security, Medicare, and veterans. 

“During the election Congressman Young ran ads stating that he would be champion for our senior citizens and veterans by protecting programs such as social security and Medicare.  He also said he would reach across the aisle… Based on the Congressman’s past record, a lot of us are skeptical of these claims. We’d love for him to go back to Washington and prove us wrong.”

Voters respond to Bill Young’s Misleading Ad on His Record for Seniors

Constituents speak out his votes for the Ryan Budget, which would end Medicare as we know it and make huge cuts to Medicaid. 

 

­ 

Constituents responded to Bill Young’s misleading new ad on his record on seniors with a video of their own, which sheds light on Bill Young’s real voting record for Pinellas’ seniors. 

In his ad, Bill Young claims to have stood up for seniors by “protecting Social Security and Medicare,” when in reality he’s done neither. Instead, when Bill Young had the opportunity to put his words into actions and protect both current future seniors, he voted against them.

“Bill Young says he cares about seniors, but Bill Young doesn’t care about seniors.  Bill Young voted to twice to turn Medicare into a voucher system, which would cost seniors, on average, over $6000 more,” said Gulfport Resident Greg Stemm. The Kaiser Foundation estimated that the “Path to Prosperity” Budget supported by Paul Ryan would cost seniors on average $6,800 more for their healthcare costs.

Bill Young also voted to raise seniors out of pocket healthcare costs by voting over 30 times to repeal Obamacare.   This would cost seniors more by reopening the Medicare prescription drug loophole and take away free preventative care seniors receive that is now guaranteed by Obamacare.

“If my healthcare costs go up anymore, I will not be able to make it,” said Medicare recipient Ann Toalster.

When it comes to social security, Bill Young claims to have stood up to privatizing social security

Perhaps worst of all, the Ryan Budget leaves its harshest cuts for Medicaid, a program that millions of low income seniors rely on for healthcare.

“Bill Young voted to cut over $1 trillion from Medicaid, cuts that could hurt millions of low income and disabled seniors,” said Joanne Lentino, a teacher from St. Petersburg.

When Bill Young’s votes are put to the test against his rhetoric, the truth becomes clear: Bill Young does not stand with our seniors.

FCAN becomes a Fair Share Affiliate

Today, FCAN joined the Fair Share Alliance and is now an affiliate. Find out more about the Fair Share Alliance here.

Fair Share has affiliates in a growing number of states, and is part of the Public Interest Network, which is familiar to Floridians through organizations including Florida PIRG, Environment Florida, and Progress Florida.

Through this strategic alliance, FCAN joins another national network which will allow us to collaborate with long time allies on consumer and economic justice issues. FCAN maintains its long time affiliation with USAction, Consumer Federation of America, and Pesticide Action Network,  as well as newer relationships including Florida New Majority.

Fair Share Florida is working in Orlando and West Palm Beach this year.  FCAN brings 25 years of organizing experience to the table. FCAN has a membership base, established name recognition and a solid network of coalition partners. This year, FCAN’s C3 partner, FCAN Foundation, registered 10,000 new voters in Tampa, mostly minority and low income constituents.

Fair Share is known for door to door canvassing, something FCAN has done since Day 1, Dec. 27, 1984.

FCAN believes it can better serve it constituents and more vibrantly challenge powerful interests through our partnership with Fair Share.

FCAN on Constitutional Amendments

FCAN joins with other groups including the League of Women Voters in urging voters to vote NO on all Constitutional Amendments this year.  Why?  All 11 amendments were placed on the ballot by the Legislature, which should be reason enough for most people.  FCAN believes many of the amendments are deceptive and voters won’t know from the title they see on the ballot what the real effect will be on their quality of life.

Our amendment by amendment analysis, with our thanks to the LWV for their work on these issues.

1. Health Care Services

This amendment would allow Florida to opt out of Obamacare – the Affordable Care Act. FCAN supports Obamacare, although we would like it to go further and provide affordable, available care to everyone in America.

 

2. Veterans Disabled Due to Combat Injury; Homestead Property Tax Discount

This amendment expands the homestead exemption to disabled veterans who were not Florida residents when they entered military service. This is an example of a deceptive title. Who doesn’t want to give disabled Vets a break?  FCAN cares about veterans as much or more than others, but there are plenty of ways to help them besides lowering their taxes. The real agenda, which is in several amendments, is to starve the government of funding because conservative legislators are anti-government. 

3. State Government Revenue Limitation

This amendment replaces the existing state revenue limitation based on Florida personal income growth with a new state revenue limitation based on inflation and population changes.  Commonly called TABOR, this policy has been a disaster where implemented. In Colorado, voters repealed it after they saw the damage. FCAN believes it is presumptuous and arrogant for present day legislators to say they know everything that will happen in the future and limit what our state can do.

For more information about Amendment 3's impact on state government services, please read the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities' report on the topic here.

4. Property Tax Limitation; Property Value Decline; Reduction for Non-Homestead Assessment Increases; Delay of Scheduled Repeal

This amendment would reduce the annual growth in assessment limitation on certain non-homestead property from 10% to 5%. It would prohibit increases in the assessed value of homestead property and certain non-homestead property when the market value of the property decreases. It also gives first time homesteaders an additional exemption equal to 50% of the median just value of the property; this exemption diminishes to zero over a five year period. This amendment would also give out-of-state residents the benefit of the homestead tax exemption.

Again, a back door way to limit government revenue, not based on any practical issues, but a blind, anti-government ideology,  Vote NO.

For more information about Amendment 4's impact on local government services, please read the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities' report on the topic here.

5. State Courts

This amendment adds a requirement that Supreme Court justices appointed by the Governor must also be confirmed by the Senate in order to take office.  It also authorizes the repeal of a court rule by a simple majority of the legislature instead of the 2/3 majority now required. The amendment also would allow the House of Representatives to review all files of the Judicial Qualifications Commission without regard to whether the request is specifically related to impeachment considerations.

This is essentially a takeover of our state courts by the Legislature. Conservative legislators have been upset when the Supreme Court of Florida rules their laws are unconstitutional. This would allow the legislature to make sure that all judges had to answer to the legislature, leaving us with two branches of government, a very dangerous idea.

6. Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions; Construction of Abortion Rights

Federal law prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for most abortions; this amendment would enshrine those prohibitions in the state Constitution. There is another provision in the amendment that would stop the use of the state Constitution's privacy clause in abortion cases; courts would no longer be able to use the clause in defending abortion rights.

FCAN believes people should be able to make their own choices rather than have the Legislature be in control of these personal matters.

(Amendment 7 was removed)

 

8. Religious Freedom

This amendment would repeal a 126-year-old provision in the state Constitution that prohibits taxpayer funding of religious institutions. If passed, the amendment would allow the state to use taxpayer monies to fund religious institutions and schools.

FCAN believes in separation of church and state. This amendment would attempt to overturn one of the cornerstones of our freedom.

9. Homestead Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouse of Military Veteran or First Responder

This amendment grants full homestead property tax relief to the surviving spouses of military veterans and first responders killed in the line of duty. The deceased must have been a permanent resident of Florida as of January 1 of the year they died.

This is the same at the other veteran related amendment above. It is an attempt to limit government revenue by deceiving people into believing that this is really about veterans.

10. Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption

This amendment affects businesses only and pertains to equipment or furniture used in a business. Under current law, the first $25,000 of tangible personal property is exempt from taxation; this amendment will raise that exemption to $50,000. Cities and counties will be able to grant additional exemptions.

Once again, an attempt to reduce revenue with a deceptive title.

11. Additional Homestead Exemption for Low-Income Seniors who Maintain Long-Term Residency on Property; Equal to Assessed Value

This amendment grants full homestead property tax relief to low-income seniors who have lived in their home for at least 25 years.

Same thing, only this time you’re supposed to feel sorry for low income seniors.  If approved, it would make it more likely that those low income seniors would lose state services like medical care and meals on wheels.

12. Appointment of Student Body President to Board of Governors of the State University System

The State University System is governed by a 17-member Board of Governors. Currently, the president of the Florida Student Association is a member of the board. This amendment would create a new council composed of student body presidents, and the chair of that council would replace the current FSA representative on the Board of Governors.

While it sounds simple, the amendment does not point out that there is already a student representative on the Board of Governors, and would make the system more complex. The Legislature has always disliked the Board of Governors, and tries to weaken it so that the Legislature itself would gain more powers.

These amendments are clever and misguided set of deceptions aimed at locking in and ideology that controls our present extremely conservative legislature. These are not things the majority of Floridians would support if they understood them. That’s why the deception is necessary. It is tragic that legislators charged with serving the people instead try to get people to vote against their own self interests.

 

VOTE NO ON ALL AMENDMENTS

Fed up Constituents tell Bill Young that it’s Time for a Change in Washington

Young spurns constituents’ efforts to meet, refuses public debate forums—yet   represents the rich and his corporate donors 

St. Petersburg – Constituents who for months have been trying to get a meeting with Rep. Young on issues that matter most to them – crucial economic issues impacting ordinary working families, seniors and others not in the richest 1% -- announced that they are fed up and plan to work to oppose him on Tuesday  (Sept, 25). The group rallied in front of the house of a millionaire donor who was hosting a closed door fundraiser for Rep. Young.

“I have voted for Mr. Young in the past, but it’s time to hire a new representative who will represent those of us in the 99%,” said veteran and SPC College Student Bill Hurley

Constituents have been frustrated with Young’s refusal to meet with them, or attend a public debate or forum, while he has made himself available to donors and large corporations.

“He can’t show up to a single public debate or forum, yet he’s more than willing to come to one of the 1%ers mansion here to raise money,” said frustrated Gulfport resident Greg Stemm.  A recent article by the Tampa Bay Times revealed that the last time Congressman Young agreed to debate an opponent was 20 years ago.

The group of constituents -- who now call themselves “99% voters” -- gathered outside the fundraiser to speak out about why they feel Congressman Young no longer represents them. 

“He’s so in lockstep with Romney and Ryan, even though everything shows that their economic plan is going to be utterly disastrous,” said activist Faun Weaver, referring to Congressman Young’s support for the Ryan Budget plan, which would cut vital services while giving the rich massive tax breaks.

The group is fed up, and ready for a change.  They will start hitting the streets on September 29^th to knock on doors and run phone banks to elect Jessica Ehrlich to Congress-a candidate who stands firmly with constituents, not the ultra-rich. 

NOTE:        This effort by 99% Voters in the community and members of the Florida Consumer Action network is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.