Jonathan Kantrowitz

Some Dems Contribute As Well

The Senate is unlikely to act on legislation to extend the estate tax at 2009 levels before the end of the year because most Republicans oppose the tax. Some Democrats are divided over the terms of an extension as well.

What a mess – if things don’t change there will be no estate tax in 2010 and very heavy one in 2011. Not a pretty picture for potential heirs with sickly testators towards the end of the year.

Meanwhile, thanks to republican recalcitrance, even if this is fixed relatively quickly in 2010 the estates of those who die before the fix are themselves in a fix.

“For several years, most people have assumed that some sort of ‘fix’ to the estate tax that would avoid outright repeal but would also restrict the tax to relatively large estates would be enacted by the end of this year,” said CCH Senior Estate Planning Analyst Bruno Graziano, JD, MSA. “Instead, if nothing is done, we’ll get outright repeal for 2010 and then a significant increase in the present tax in 2011.”

If Congress takes no action before the end of 2009, the following major changes will be made to the current transfer tax regime:
• Estate and generation-skipping transfer (GST) taxes will be repealed for 2010;
• Gift tax will be retained with a top rate of 35 percent and an exclusion amount of $1 million;
• The stepped-up basis at death rules will be repealed and replaced with modified carryover basis. The recipient of the bequeathed property will receive a basis equal to the lesser of the adjusted basis of the property in the hands of the decedent, or the fair market value of the property on the date of the decedent’s death;
• Executors will be able to increase the basis of estate property by up to $1.3 million, or $3 million in the case of property passing to a surviving spouse. Thus, an estate will be allowed to increase the basis of property transferred to a surviving spouse by as much as $4.3 million. However, the basis of an asset cannot be adjusted above its fair market value at the date of the decedent’s death; and
• Executors of estates will also be required to report certain details relating to transfers at death of non-cash assets in excess of $1.3 million and appreciated property received by the decedent within three years of death for which a gift tax return was required to be filed.

House lawmakers had previously approved the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Bill of 2009 (H.R. 4154) by a vote of 225 to 200 on December 3. That measure would have capped the tax at its current rate, with a $3.5 million exclusion.

However, the Senate had several major problems with the bill, mainly its failure to allow for inflation adjustments and the use of H.R. 2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Bill of 2009, to fund the legislation.

Short-term Extensions Fail

Democratic leaders in both houses had initially planned to attach a short-term extension to the Department of Defense appropriations bill (H.R. 3326). However, they abandoned that plan when it became clear that the Senate did not have the 60 votes needed to pass the legislation.

In what appeared to be a last-ditch effort, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus attempted on December 16 to pass a three-month extension at current levels by unanimous consent.

“It would be irresponsible to further the yo-yo effect by allowing current law to expire and create all this massive confusion, this chaos that will apply to heirs of the estates on January 1 because of this change in capital assets from step-up to a carryover basis, among other things,” Baucus said, appearing before the Senate.

The Republicans objected to the move, making unanimous consent impossible.

Under current law, the estate and the GST taxes expire at the end of 2009. Lawmakers have said they will revisit the tax early in 2010 and will likely approve retroactive provisions. However, the application of the estate tax retroactively could face constitutional challenges in court.

In addition, if no action is taken by Congress in 2010, the estate and GST taxes will come back into force in 2011. The estate and gift tax applicable exclusion amounts would be reunified at $1 million, and the top marginal tax rate would be 55 percent.

“The impasse concerning the estate tax will have an immediate impact on executors who find themselves administering the estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2009,” Graziano noted. “Due to the immediate effective date of the modified carryover basis regime, executors will be faced with an additional level of complexity with respect to decisions on selling or holding appreciated assets if the total appreciation exceeds $1.3 million. The sooner Congress makes its intent clear, the better for everyone.”

The average low-income person loses 8.2 years of perfect health, the average high school dropout loses 5.1 years, and the obese lose 4.2 years, according to researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. Tobacco control has long been one of the most important public health policies, and rightly so; the average smoker loses 6.6 years of perfect health to their habit. But the nation’s huge high school dropout rate and poverty rates are typically not seen as health problems.

This new study published in the December 2009 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, shows that poverty and dropout rates are at least as important a health problem as smoking in the United States.

These researchers define “low-income” as household earnings below 200% of the Federal Poverty Line, or roughly the bottom third of the U.S. population.

On average, poverty showed the greatest impact on health. Smoking was second, followed by being a high school dropout, non-Hispanic Black, obese, a binge drinker, and uninsured. The findings are based on data from various national datasets that are designed to measure both health and life expectancy. Healthy life lost combines both health and life expectancy into a single number, sometimes known as quality-adjusted life years.

“While public health policy needs to continue its focus on risky health behaviors and obesity, it should redouble its efforts on non-medical factors, such as high school graduation and poverty reduction programs,” according to Peter Muennig, MD, assistant professor of health policy and management at the Mailman School of Public Health and principal investigator of the study. Specific policies that have proven successful in the past include reduced class size in grades K-3 and earned income tax credit programs, according to Dr. Muennig.

To analyze the medical and non-medical policies that might affect population health, the researchers examined such policy goals as smoking prevention, increased access to medical care, poverty reduction, and early childhood education to provide policymakers with a sense of how different policy priorities might influence population health.

Building on prior research, the researchers examined health disparities resulting from an individual’s membership in a socially identifiable and disadvantaged group compared with membership in a non-disadvantaged counterpart. Although public health policy has always been directed at individual social and behavioral risks, until now there had been little systematic investigation of their relative contribution to U.S. population health. The researchers were not able to capture all population health risks. For instance, they did not include an analysis of transportation policy, which can affect health through reduced accidents, reduced pollution, and increased exercise.

“The smaller impact of schooling in our analyses probably had a lot to do with the fact that we are only measuring the health of people in the general population. We miss those in prisons and chronic care facilities, most of whom lack a high school diploma. If we captured these individuals, the numbers would be higher.

“As with other burden of disease studies, the policies we identify will not eliminate the risk factor in the population; our estimates can only serve as guideposts for policymakers,” says Dr. Muennig.

December 21, 2009

Memo to Interested Parties

State of the 2010 Connecticut Senate Race

(Emphasis added)

From: Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research

Senator Chris Dodd enters 2010 in a close race with potential Republican opponents Rob
Simmons and Linda McMahon. Dodd is holding his ground in the vote against both
Republicans, and benefits from a very favorable partisan environment for Democrats in the
state.

In a survey conducted December 15-17 among 601 likely Connecticut voters, Dodd and
McMahon are locked in a dead heat with 46 percent of the vote apiece, and he trails Rob
Simmons by a margin of 46 to 51 percent. Once voters hear both positive and negative
information about all three candidates, Dodd gains ground and leads McMahon by 5 points, 50
to 45 percent, and is in a statistical dead heat with Simmons, 49 to 48 percent. Furthermore,
voters respond positively to Dodd’s work in the Senate, particularly on health care reform, the
passage of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act, and Dodd’s
economic plan to help small businesses and create jobs.

The partisan environment in Connecticut remains among the best for Democrats out of any
state in the country. President Obama is viewed favorably by a 2 to 1 margin, and the
Democratic Party receives a favorable-unfavorable rating of 51 to 37 percent (+14 points). By
contrast, the Republican Party is viewed very unfavorably and receives a poor rating of 29
percent favorable to 49 percent unfavorable (-20 points).

Connecticut voters are supportive of the President and the Democratic Party, and with a strong
and aggressive campaign, Chris Dodd can win next November.

ConnCAN grades 1,000+ Connecticut public schools A through F

The Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN) has released its 2009-2010 School Report Cards, assigning letter grades to over 1,000 Connecticut public schools and 160 school districts based on their students‚ academic performance in four categories.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE SCHOOL REPORT CARDS

Using the data from the School Report Cards, ConnCAN also released the Top 10 Connecticut public schools in 14 categories.The lists are reproduced below, with Fairfield County Schools in bold.

Bridgeport’s elementary and middle schools are prominent on these lists, especially its magnet schools, but also some traditional and charter schools. The rest of Fairfield County doesn’t do very well at all.

A few trends stand out among the Top 10 lists:

Of the four years ConnCAN has produced Top 10 public school lists, 15 schools have made the lists three or more times: High Horizons, Multicultural Magnet, Park City Magnet, and Winthrop School in Bridgeport; Amistad Academy and Elm City College Prep Middle in New Haven; Rogers School and Westover School in Stamford; Jumoke Academy in Hartford; Second Hill Lane School in Stratford; JP Vincent in Bloomfield; Nathan Hale Middle in Norwalk; Irving Robbins in Farmington; Broadview Middle in Danbury; and Bethel Middle in Bethel.

The Achievement First network of charter schools showed a very strong performance. For example, three of the top ten middle schools for African American performance were Achievement First schools. Achievement First Bridgeport Academy was also number one for middle school performance gains.

The categories of Top 10 lists are: Improvement, African American Achievement, Hispanic Achievement, and Poor Student Achievement. Each category is scored separately for elementary, middle and high schools.

More than 60,000 people access the School Report Cards online each year. According to web research firm Alexa.com, more Connecticut parents get their school information from ConnCAN‚s School Report Cards than from the state‚s official websites, www.cmtreports.com and www.captreports.com.

Top 10 Rankings—Elementary School

Low-Income Student Performance

Rank Name District Type of School % At/Above Goal
1 Multicultural Magnet School Bridgeport Intradistrict Magnet 77.2
2 Jack Jackter Intermediate Colchester Traditional 72.0
3 High Horizons School Bridgeport Intradistrict Magnet 71.5
4 Hopeville School Waterbury Traditional 70.8
5 Eli Whitney School Stratford Traditional 70.0
6 Westover School Stamford Intradistrict Magnet 69.0
7 University of Hartford Magnet Hartford Interdistrict Magnet 68.7
8 Stafford School Bristol Traditional 66.4
9 Winthrop School Bridgeport Traditional 66.0
10 Anna V. Molloy School West Haven Traditional 65.5

African-American Student Performance

Rank Name District Type of School % At/Above Goal
1 Elm City College Prep New Haven Public Charter 68.1
2 University of Hartford Magnet Hartford Interdistrict Magnet 64.8
3 Rogers School Stamford Intradistrict Magnet 63.0
4 Davis Street 21st Century New Haven Interdistrict Magnet 62.6
5 Regan School Waterbury Traditional 59.9
6 Winthrop School Bridgeport Traditional 59.3
7 J. P. Vincent School Bloomfield Traditional 57.1
8 Maloney Magnet Elementary Waterbury Interdistrict Magnet 56.0
9 Poquonock Elementary School Windsor Traditional 55.5
10 Park City Magnet School Bridgeport Intradistrict Magnet 52.2

Hispanic Student Performance

Rank Name District Type of School % At/Above Goal
1 Ralph M. T. Johnson School Bethel Traditional 72.0
2 Multicultural Magnet School Bridgeport Intradistrict Magnet 71.4
3 Rogers School Stamford Intradistrict Magnet 70.8
4 Winthrop School Bridgeport Traditional 69.8
5 High Horizons School Bridgeport Intradistrict Magnet 68.0
6 Hopeville School Waterbury Traditional 64.4
7 Toquam Magnet School Stamford Intradistrict Magnet 63.9
8 B. W. Tinker School Waterbury Traditional 62.2
9 Jefferson Elementary School Norwalk Intradistrict Magnet 61.2
10 Second Hill Lane School Stratford Traditional 60.6

Improvement

Rank Name District Type of School % Point Change
1 Hall School Bridgeport Traditional 21.6
2 Lincoln School New Britain Traditional 17.8
3 Jefferson Elementary Norwalk Intradistrict Magnet 17.6
4 Andrew Avenue School Naugatuck Traditional 16.6
5 Hill And Plain School New Milford Traditional 14.8
6 Kathleen E. Goodwin Old Saybrook Traditional 14.6
7 Burr District Elementary Regional 17 Traditional 14.1
9 Dwight School Hartford Traditional 14.0
9 Noah Wallace School Farmington Traditional 13.8
10 Forbes School Torrington Traditional 12.9

Performance Gains

Rank Name District Type of School % Point Change
1 Enfield Street School Enfield Traditional 25.5
2 Nathan Hale School New London Traditional 21.4
3 Eli Whitney School Enfield Traditional 20.0
4 Elm City College Prep New Haven Public Charter 19.9
5 Forbes School Torrington Traditional 19.8
6 Gilmartin School Waterbury Traditional 19.0
7 Dwight School Hartford Traditional 18.5
8 Lincoln School New Britain Traditional 18.0
9 Second Hill Lane School Stratford Traditional 17.6
10 Vogel-Wetmore School Torrington Traditional 16.7

Top 10 Rankings—Middle School

Performance Gains

Rank Name District Type of School % Point Change
1 AF Bridgeport Academy Bridgeport Public Charter 21.2
2 Hop Brook Intermediate Naugatuck Traditional 14.0
3 Bethany Community Bethany Traditional 13.3
4 Elm City College Prep New Haven Public Charter 12.3
5 Sayles Elementary School Sprague Traditional 12.2
6 Cross Street Intermediate Naugatuck Traditional 11.9
7 Sheridan Comm. & Tech New Haven Interdistrict Magnet 11.4
8 Waltersville School Bridgeport Traditional 11.2
9 Ashford School Ashford Traditional 10.7
10 Longfellow School Bridgeport Traditional 10.5

Low-Income Student Performance

Rank Name District Type of School % At/Above Goal
1 Multicultural Magnet Bridgeport Intradistrict Magnet 81.2
2 Tyrrell Middle School Wolcott Traditional 80.6
3 Reed Intermediate School Newtown Traditional 79.1
4 Jared Eliot School Clinton Traditional 77.1
5 Bethel Middle School Bethel Traditional 74.9
6 Newtown Middle School Newtown Traditional 73.5
7 Harborside Middle School Milford Traditional 73.1
8 Irving A. Robbins Middle Farmington Traditional 70.4
9 Amistad Academy New Haven Public Charter 68.8
10 Chalk Hill School Monroe Traditional 68.8

African-American Student Performance

Rank Name District Type of School % At/Above Goal
1 Multicultural Magnet School Bridgeport Intradistrict Magnet 77.4
2 Amistad Academy New Haven Public Charter 73.6
3 Elm City College Prep New Haven Public Charter 65.9
4 Metropolitan Learning Center Bloomfield Interdistrict Magnet 61.2
5 Sedgwick Middle School West Hartford Traditional 60.8
6 Two Rivers Magnet East Hartford Interdistrict Magnet 59.3
7 Achievement First Bridgeport Bridgeport Public Charter 58.2
8 Scofield Magnet Middle School Stamford Intradistrict Magnet 58.0
9 Broadview Middle School Danbury Traditional/Regular 56.3
10 Capitol Preparatory Magnet Hartford Interdistrict Magnet 54.3

Hispanic Student Performance

Rank Name District Type of School % At/Above Goal
1 Multicultural Magnet School Bridgeport Intradistrict Magnet 85.0
2 Bethel Middle School Bethel Traditional 74.5
3 Gideon Welles School Glastonbury Traditional 65.6
4 Silas Deane Middle School Wethersfield Traditional 65.2
5 James H. Moran Middle Wallingford Traditional 61.3
6 Nathan Hale Middle School Norwalk Traditional 60.7
7 Martin Kellogg Middle School Newington Traditional 60.5
8 Western Middle School Greenwich Traditional 59.6
9 Scofield Magnet Middle School Stamford Intradistrict Magnet 58.0
10 Park City Prep Charter School Bridgeport Public Charter 56.8

Improvement

Rank Name District Type of School % Point Change
1 Thomaston Center School Thomaston Traditional 15.7
2 MicroSociety Magnet School New Haven Interdistrict Magnet 15.4
3 Noah Webster MicroSociety Hartford Interdistrict Magnet 11.0
4 Longfellow School Bridgeport Traditional 10.6
5 Annie-Fisher Multiple Intel. Hartford Interdistrict Magnet 10.4
6 Winthrop School Bridgeport Traditional School 10.4
7 North Canaan Elementary North Canaan Traditional School 10.3
8 Sheridan Comm. & Tech New Haven Interdistrict Magnet 10.0
9 Jumoke Academy Hartford Public Charter School 9.7
10 Kennelly School Hartford Traditional School 9.0

Top 10 Rankings—High School

Low-Income Student Performance

Rank Name District Type of School % At/Above Goal
1 Newington High School Newington Traditional 50.2
2 Farmington High School Farmington Traditional 48.2
3 Glastonbury High School Glastonbury Traditional 48.2
4 Bethel High School Bethel Traditional 47.3
5 New Milford High School New Milford Traditional 47.0
6 Simsbury High School Simsbury Traditional 44.8
7 Bristol Central High School Bristol Traditional 41.2
8 Trumbull High School Trumbull Traditional 40.2
9 Joseph A. Foran High School Milford Traditional 39.6
10 Fairfield Warde High School Fairfield Traditional 38.5

African-American Student Performance

Rank Name District Type of School % At/Above Goal
1 Farmington High School Farmington Traditional 53.3
2 Trumbull High School Trumbull Traditional 43.5
3 South Windsor High School South Windsor Traditional 40.9
4 Metropolitan Learning Center Bloomfield Interdistrict Magnet 38.7
5 Newington High School Newington Traditional 36.9
6 Hall High School West Hartford Traditional 36.4
7 W. F. Kaynor Technical High Waterbury Technical School 35.7
8 Fairfield Warde High School Fairfield Traditional 32.5
9 Glastonbury High School Glastonbury Traditional 32.5
10 Conard High School West Hartford Traditional 32.0

Hispanic Student Performance

Rank Name District Type of School % At/Above Goal
1 Newington High School Newington Traditional 47.4
2 U. High School of Science & E. Hartford Interdistrict Magnet 47.1
3 Hall High School West Hartford Traditional 44.6
4 Trumbull High School Trumbull Traditional 43.7
5 Platt Technical High School Milford Technical School 41.9
6 Bristol Central High School Bristol Traditional 40.7
7 Bristol Eastern High School Bristol Traditional 39.6
8 Greenwich High School Greenwich Traditional 36.5
9 Conard High School West Hartford Traditional 35.4
10 Naugatuck High School Naugatuck Traditional 34.1

Improvement

Rank Name District Type of School % Point Change
1 The Gilbert School Winchester Traditional 12.4
2 Metropolitan Business High New Haven Interdistrict Magnet 11.9
3 Cooperative Arts & Humanities New Haven Interdistrict Magnet 10.7
4 Oxford High School Oxford Traditional 8.9
5 Shepaug Valley High School Regional 12 Traditional 8.8
6 University HS of Science & E. Hartford Interdistrict Magnet 8.4
7 J. M. Wright Technical High Stamford Technical School 6.8
8 Eli Whitney Technical High Hamden Technical School 6.7
9 Tourtellotte Memorial High Thompson Traditional 6.5
10 Waterbury Arts Magnet High Waterbury Interdistrict Magnet 5.7

Contrary to a press release issued yesterday, the Rell Administration did not make any formal outreach to reopen discussions. Leaders of the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) have affirmed they are ready and willing to meet with the Rell Administration to discuss real solutions to the continuing economic crisis.

At the same time, SEBAC emphasized that they will not be returning to the bargaining table to negotiate additional concessions. At the beginning of the year, SEBAC and its thousands of members were responsible for providing Connecticut taxpayers with nearly $1 billion in savings to preserve critical public services.

“Without the concessions already agreed to by state public service workers, our budget deficit would be even larger. We were the first, and one of the only groups to step up to the plate, roll up our sleeves and help in this crisis by providing significant cost reductions and savings,” said Rick Tanasi, President of the State Vocational Federation of Teachers, Local 4200A, AFT Connecticut.

Cuts in services and resources have made it more challenging for state and local government workers to meet the needs of Connecticut’s citizens during a deep recession. Continued cuts to public services will send Connecticut even deeper into an economic hole, with more layoffs and more people put in crisis.

The State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition’s (SEBAC) member unions are:

• AFT Connecticut

• American Association of University Professors – Connecticut State University

• American Association of University Professors – UCONN

• American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees – Council 4

• Congress of Connecticut Community Colleges/SEIU Local 1973

• Connecticut Association of Prosecutors

• Connecticut Employees Union Independent/SEIU Local 511

• Connecticut Federations of School Administrators Local 61

• Connecticut State Police Union

• CSEA SEIU Local 2001

• International Brotherhood of Police Officers/SEIU Local 731

• New England Healthcare Employees Union, District 1199/SEIU

• Protective Services Employees Coalition/IAFF-IUPA

Exactly 39 years ago today, a young man dressed in a black velvet jacket, adorned in gold chains and an oversized gold belt buckle presented himself at the northwest gate of the White House.

Elvis Presley, the most popular singer of his time, handed the White House security agents a handwritten letter addressed to the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, requesting a meeting with him. His five-page letter, written on American Airlines stationery, also indicated his desire to become a federal agent in the war on drugs and said, “P.S. . . I have a personal gift for you which I would like to present to you and I hope that you can accept it. . . ”

The gift was a World War II-era Colt 45 pistol.

The letter set of a chain of events that eventually led to a meeting — within hours — between the “king of rock ‘n’ roll” and the “leader of the free world.” Security prevented Presley from presenting the President with the gun, but Nixon’s aides accepted it on his behalf, complete with some bullets.

Nixon’s presidency didn’t end well (August 1974):

Neither did Elvis 3 years later (August 1977):

At least among 400 Republicans:

Linda McMahon now leads Rob Simmons in a head-to-head matchup, 37%-35%, and she holds at least 20-point leads in each of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Congressional Districts, according to her own pollster.

The survey, which was conducted by Linda McMahon for Senate 2010 pollster Hans Kaiser of Moore Information, was conducted December 15-16, 2009 among 400 likely Republican voters in Connecticut. Moore Information is a nationally recognized, highly respected firm whose broad client list includes government, corporate and political campaigns. Moore Information’s political client list includes, among many others, U.S. Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as well as the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

Read Hans Kaiser’s polling memo.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) released his long awaited “manager’s amendment” with new language dealing with the abortion issue. The language was needed to satisfy BenNelson and secure the 60th vote.

But anti-abortion groups aren’t happy with the new language:

The new language is being trumpeted as including an opt-out provision that actually makes the opt-out provision in the original bill worse by requiring the state to either cover all abortions or opt out of all abortions. This will make it difficult for states that currently include exceptions for life, rape, and incest. This so-called “compromise” language makes it more likely that these states will cover all abortions. Moreover, there is no individual opt-out ensuring that everyone in the plans would pay for other people’s abortions. In contrast to the Nelson-Hatch-Casey Amendment, this new language undermines the principles of the Hyde Amendment.

Sounds good to me.