26 phlove casino login
26 phlove casino login
TikTok is inching closer to a potential ban in the US. So what's next?Shohei Ohtani and wife expecting first childPig manure fertilizer could boost corn yield
BERKELEY, Calif. , Dec. 6, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Bamboo Technology , a mental health technology innovation company, is announcing its participation in Batch 19 of the prestigious UC Berkeley Skydeck IPP Program for startup acceleration. The company's HereHear AI therapist solution will be the key focus of the program, driven by the vision of revolutionizing mental health with AI-powered virtual solutions. To learn more about HereHear, please visit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngU32WgiWf4 "HereHear is here in the US, and I am truly grateful to the Berkeley Skydeck IPP Program for recognizing its potential," noted Lynia Huang , Bamboo Technology's CEO. "As important as mental health has become in recent years, there is a shortage of mental health providers and access to support is low — and HereHear is paving the way for AI to bridge that gap as a first line of defense." A growing case for incorporating AI into mental healthcare With data showing that the US is in a mental health crisis, the CDC recently noted a dire need for public health initiatives that create environments centered around mental health. Specific to the workplace, the Society for Human Resource Management's Employee Mental Health in 2024 Research Series found that 44% of US employees feel burned out at work. The combination of a shortage of mental health providers in the US with the flourishing capabilities of AI builds a strong case for the technology to be deployed in the form of human-guided mental health solutions. HereHear's YangYang: A personalized 3D virtual therapist As organizations seek out ways to empower team members to take better care of their mental health, AI is increasingly emerging as a solution for on-demand, personalized support. Offering a more engaging interaction than chatbots, HereHear's 3D virtual therapist YangYang was launched in January 2024 and offers: YangYang has already been implemented in several therapy clinics and has helped 70% of users improve stress and depression levels by 25% within 3 months. Taking the form of a sheep further distinguishes her — this functions both to provide a 'cute' aspect lending to the warm, healing emotional support she provides, while also helping users who are struggling emotionally to keep in perspective that their interactions are ultimately not with a human. Bringing success in Taiwan to the US market Bamboo Technology's acceptance into the Berkeley Skydeck IPP Program is a major accomplishment as the platform seeks to enter the US market. Batch 19 has only 117 startups out of around 2300 applications, and the program will support HereHear to develop, pilot and launch, as well as to pitch for funding. The company aims to target the app in the human resources space—as a tool for companies to offer staff for on-demand, privacy-first mental health support. Back in Taiwan , the app already has hospitals, mental health clinics, universities, publicly listed companies, and government agencies that use it, similarly spurred by a shortage of mental health workers. About Bamboo Technology Established in November 2018 , the Taipei -based Bamboo Technology is a mental health technology innovation company that focuses on improving public mental health with voice emotion analysis technology. It embraces a belief that a universal, objective, and scientific mental health system can effectively solve the problem of deteriorating mental health in today's society — a core tenet upheld by its many psychologists; social workers; and information management, AI and big data experts. View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bamboo-technologys-herehear-virtual-ai-therapist-joins-berkeley-skydeck-ipp-program-302325187.html SOURCE BAMBOO TECHNOLOGY LTD.Meta Stock Hovers Near All-Time High. Why Facebook Parent Is A Cyber Monday Winner.UConn announced a two-year contract extension for head football coach Jim Mora on Saturday, just before the team took the field for the Fenway Bowl against North Carolina. Mora’s contract extension will run through 2028 and will pay him $10 million through the remaining four years, with the opportunity to earn more in incentives. The 63-year-old coach is set to make $1.7 million next season, $1.9 million in 2026 and $2.3 and $2.4 million in 2027 and 2028, respectively. UConn then went out and thrashed North Carolina, 27-14, in a game that wasn’t as close as the score indicated. “I am forever grateful. I’m grateful to (athletic director) David (Benedict) and (school president) Radenka (Maric) and the Board of Trustees, but this is about what the (UConn players) did today,” Mora said when asked about the extension in the postgame press conference. In a statement released by UConn ahead of the game, Mora said: “I’d like to thank David Benedict, Radenka Maric and the University of Connecticut leadership for their trust in me and their commitment to our football program. When I first got here, I talked about where we wanted this program to go and we have shown great progress but we still have plenty of work to do. The commitment and dedication from the university and the athletic department has me excited about the future for our football team.” “Three years ago, I tasked Jim Mora with the challenge of leading our football team back to success and through his experience, energy and leadership he has done just that,” UConn athletic director David Benedict said in a statement. “He has taken our program to post season bowl games twice and just guided our team to one of the best seasons in UConn football history, building a momentum to keep this program moving forward. I look forward to his leadership of our football team in the years ahead.” Mora is coming off one of the most successful seasons in UConn football history, having led the team to an 8-4 record and an appearance in the Fenway Bowl. It’s the Huskies’ second bowl appearance in three years. UConn’s eight wins is the most for the program since 2010, and the Huskies had their first winning season since that year, too. A win Saturday would give UConn nine wins for just the third time in program history, with the last two such seasons coming in 2003 and 2007. UConn quarterbacks coach Brad Robbins is heading to Tulsa as an offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach, according to a report from CBS Sports. Robbins was part of a coaching staff that helped the offense produce its most prolific attack since the 2009 season and fifth-most in program history (32.3 points per game). Robbins worked at FCS Tennessee Tech and Division II North Greenville before joining Jim Mora’s staff in spring 2023. Respond: Write a letter to the editor | Write a guest opinion Subscribe to stay connected to Tucson. A subscription helps you access more of the local stories that keep you connected to the community. Be the first to know Get local news delivered to your inbox!Gaetz withdraws from attorney general consideration
arely a day passes without colleges scolded in the headlines over or and or and . Schools have become scapegoats for both good and bad reasons. Prominent commentators and populist political leaders from both the far left and far right now target higher education as a common enemy. In fact the current fight over the vs charges of elitism which would not characterize other fields such as sports or entertainment have torn open a seam on the right between Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk in favor of selectivity and merit on one side and Laura Loomer and Matt Goetz on the other. Ramaswamy declared that American culture has “venerated mediocrity over excellence" launching what is termed a within the MAGA movement. Both extremes have arrived on shared areas of concern that include admissions criteria; tolerance of thought on campus; institutional voice; faculty bias in research and education; personal safety; academic integrity; donor influence; curriculum focus; government funding; financial viability, and administrative efficiency. Increasingly, universities, especially selective universities, have been labelled as elitist, self-interested, out-of-touch with societal needs, and lacking accountability. What is new is the convergence of a of elements of the MAGA movement on the right and todays’ self-styled progressives on the left. Together, they find common cause in the skepticism of societal pillars from Wall Street financiers to college educators and politicians. These critiques have corroded public opinion on the value of U.S. higher education, just as the rest of the world treasures the real contributions to the economy, quality of life, scientific knowledge, and cultural enrichment provided by American colleges. The shows a steady decline of confidence in all pillars of society from public officials and the media to clergy and colleges. At the , fully 97% of the college presidents expressed concern over the loss to public confidence in higher education. This summer, the Pew Foundation researchers found roughly half the American public surveyed believe it’s to have a four-year college degree today to obtain a well-paying job than it was 20 years ago even as facts show the opposite is true: a significant wage gap still favors those with . Similarly, a Gallup survey this summer showed a large drop in overall US confidence in higher education from almost 60% in 2015 to almost half that. Now Americans are roughly among those who have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence (36%), some confidence (32%), or little or no confidence (32%) in higher education. In taking a closer look at the Gallup survey, three issues have risen to the top in the public mind: the political climate on our campuses, questions about whether a traditional liberal arts education best prepares our graduates for success in this tech-fueled world and the cost of higher education as represented by a sticker price that is rapidly approaching $100K per year. Increasingly, people across the political spectrum question whether a traditional liberal arts education, as delivered to most undergraduates by the Ivy and other leading institutions, is the best training for leadership in today’s workplace. Indeed, the elite schools do not have a stranglehold on certain sectors. In a study of 628 U.S.-born tech founders from 287 different universities, did not come from Ivy-plus schools. What mattered most in explaining the success of founders was that they graduated from a college. The success of dropouts like Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Apple’s Steve Jobs, and Facebook/Alphabet’s Marc Zuckerberg were exceptions to such findings. Paradoxically, the drop in American public confidence in the liberal arts comes just as the prestige of US universities around the world is at an all-time high and the number of international students studying in the US has climbed to a a year. And innovation for the public good is alive and well at America’s at the leading institutions. Over a third of US research universities have spinning out anywhere from 30 to 80 new business a year employing millions of US workers and serving as a source of economic development to communities around the nation. Higher education is the most globally competitive of all US sectors. The US is home to the by far (36). Research by the National Bureau of Economic Research has shown from Ivy League schools in particular. While less than half of one percent of Americans attend the eight Ivy League colleges, Chicago, Duke, MIT, and Stanford (known as Ivy Plus schools), these universities contributed more than 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs, a quarter of U.S. Senators, half of all Rhodes scholars, and three-fourths of Supreme Court justices appointed in the last half century. Roughly 22% of all , selected by judges from around the world, were affiliated with Ivy Leagues schools. This scholarship has contributed mightily to the advance of science and industry. The renowned corporate research labs of General Electric (Menlo Park), AT&T (Bell Labs), Xerox (Palo Alto Research Center) have largely disappeared with diminished research even at major chemical and pharmaceutical companies. Most of the great advances in material sciences, agricultural science, drug development, public health, environmental safety, and computer science and the internet originate in the university world. It must be noted, however, that the value of higher education should be appreciated for more than winning awards and creating wealth but also for quality of life. A decade ago, former Duke President Richard Brodhead co-chaired the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences for the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. In summarizing their findings, stated, that value of higher education is not to be measured merely by income earned by colleges graduates. “Its value is that it supplies enrichment to personal lives, equips students to be thoughtful and constructive social contributors, and prepares them to participate fully and creatively in the dynamic, ever-changing world that awaits them after college. It's easy to see why people might get anxious about something so difficult to calculate, and might want a straighter line to the payoff. But the fruits of such education can only be reckoned over long time-horizons, as they enable people to rise to challenges and seize opportunities they could not foresee at first. The lives of successful people almost never involve continuing to do what they prepared for. As their lives unfold, they find that by drawing on their preparation in unexpected ways, they're able to do things they hadn't intended or imagined.” Probably no issue about American higher education has received as much attention over a sustained period of time than its cost. And while some of the increase in the sticker price of leading universities can be explained by investments in need-based financial aid even the costs net of financial aid have risen between 1 and 2 percent above any reasonable measure of inflation for decades. Studies show levels of student debt rising at alarming rates. And while much of the focus has been on undergraduates, levels of student loan debt among those receiving master’s degrees is a more severe issue. Concerns about student loan debt are exacerbated by the fact that six-year graduation rates for undergraduates across all of higher education are less than 60%. So, too many students find themselves in the worst possible situation – a boatload of debt and no degree to show for it. In speaking about cost, the political right characterizes elite higher ed institutions as inefficient organizations choking on administrative bloat. The political left laments their high cost saying that the sticker price alone turns off prospective students from low socio-economic backgrounds. Both sides note the explosive growth in endowment values and want endowments to be tapped to reduce costs. The Ivy Plus institutions counter by noting their impressive investments in financial aid, the fact that they have six-year graduation rates in excess of 95% and the inherently high cost of the bundle of educational experiences that today’s students and their families expect. At these schools with strong endowments, roughly has their tuition bill covered by financial aid. Indeed, the more selective schools not only offer a challenging curriculum delivered through small classes with abundant academic support, but also house and feed students, offer them primary health care, undergraduate research and entrepreneurial activities, intramural and varsity athletics, artistic and performance opportunities, study abroad and much more. The cost of delivering all this is in excess of $100K per student per year at many institutions. These expenditures not only enrich the student experience but also enhance their local economies. American universities employ over adding $ annually to the GDP and their technology transfers have contributed over to the nation’s GOP in the last twenty years. Still, criticisms of the cost of American higher education have merit. Indeed, too many institutions have lost sight of the fact that their core missions are teaching, learning and discovery and those elements of their core mission should be prioritized in their budget decisions. have been shown to have soared disproportionately, in fact geometrically, compared to faculty staffing costs which only increased arithmetically, alongside only modest student enrollment increases. Academic leaders must also demand that administrative and support functions operate as efficiently as possible with new programs funded through internal reallocation. Many of these critiques are based in legitimate concerns and point to areas where the leading institutions of higher education can do better. However, they often overstate their case and present outlier examples. For example, published a countering the suggestion that liberal bias plays a meaningful role in tenure decisions. Indeed, their study concluded that professors were more likely to be dismissed for liberal thought. And it is incorrect to still label higher education a self-perpetuating caste system. Looking at roughly a century of data, as an example of elite universities, its student profile has shifted from 100% males to roughly 50/50; 27% of Mayflower/Social Register “Colonial” lineage to less than 6%; less than 2% underrepresented minorities to over 10% ; 0.4% Asian to 19%; 24% from elite prep schools to 4%. Plus, the report card on the impact of upward wealth mobility of these prestigious schools is much more encouraging that the critics from the left and the right acknowledge. Researchers from the National Bureau of Economic Research studied at each college in the United States using data for over 30 million college students from 1999-2013 and found the students from low-income families and high-income families, had comparable incomes, when matched by the school they attended. Thus, the school had an uplifting impact on the wealth of low-income students. Furthermore, this research found, “The colleges that channel the most children from low- or middle-income families to the top 1% are almost exclusively highly selective institutions, such as UC–Berkeley and the Ivy Plus colleges. No college offers an upper-tail (top 1%) success rate comparable to elite private universities – at which 13% of students from the bottom quintile reach the top 1% – while also offering high levels of access to low-income students.” Interestingly, the critics of elite schools, indirectly but selectively cite from this research cherry picking around the upward mobility case for elite educational institutions. Similarly looking at Yale’s current first year class, benefit from some form of financial aid, thanks to the healthy endowments, 88% with zero debt and the who do have debt, owe less than $15,000, hardly a crushing burden. Thanks to a half billion dollars raised from alumni during their recent capital campaign, leaders were able to declare that "The Class of 2028 is the most socioeconomically diverse class in Dartmouth's history," with roughly 20% students from low income families receiving Pell Grants, over half of the class receiving financial aid, and no parental financial contributions for families earning less than $125,000 a year roughly 22% of the class. Despite such facts, Columnist David Brooks wrote in The Atlantic a piece entitled “How The Ivy League Broke America” where he echoes himself in a series of similar pieces he wrote in the New York Times such as one titled and , both which said elites were leaving others behind. His newest piece in this month’s concluded strangely that “a large mass of voters has shoved a big middle finger in the elites’ faces by voting for Donald Trump.” Of course, Brooks misses the irony that if this anti-Ivy League resentment drove voters, then is drove them to vote for the GOP ticket of two Ivy Leaguer grads, Donald Trump from Penn and J.D. Vance from Yale, and not the Democratic ticket of state school grads. Brooks joins a chorus of others who say that the meritocracy overrated. He cites Yale Law professor Daniel Markovits, the author of charging that applicants whose families come from the top 1 percent of wage earners were 77 times more likely to attend an Ivy League-level school than students from families making below $30,000 a year. Brooks adds that elite schools generally admit more students from the top 1 percent than the bottom 60. Then he joins Markovits in pronouncing the academic gap between the rich and the poor larger than the academic gap between white and Black students in the final days of Jim Crow. Brooks’s remedies include circumvention of new court barriers to affirmative action diversity goals, reducing the reliance upon standardized testing, emphasizing more humanistic qualities, substituting AI for analytic rigor, improving the colleges’ marketing of their own value, and that “we should aim to shrink the cultural significance of school in American society.” Missing from this list is any concern for the spreading caution of overexercising voice under the cloak of “institutional neutrality.” These practices the actual selective practices of the University of Chicago and similar schools which purported to limit presidents from showing the same periodic moral responsibility, patriotic duties, and institutional voice of other pillars of American society. Should Ivy Plus leaders even care about public support? After all, they are highly successful, highly selective institutions that are the envy of the world. Our answer is that these leaders should care about the erosion of public trust – a lot. To ignore this growing public distrust is to not only invite more public shaming by government officials as we saw in the House hearings this past year but potentially court more governmental actions such as endowment taxes, bans on DEI programs at public universities and similar interventions. Although the Ivy Plus institutions seem secure at the moment, one already sees the impacts of the loss of public trust across much of American higher education, significant reductions over the last 25 years in per-capita, inflation-adjusted state appropriations, the expansion of students wanting three-year, no-frills, degrees, employers seeking micro-credentialling rather than a bachelor’s degree, on-line course sharing among institutions to lower costs and ultimately lower enrollments. Certainly, higher education must address the ideological orthodoxy of political correctness which has diverted tolerance for original thought. Towards that end, we see newly emerging efforts to promote dialogue around difficult societal issues on a number of campuses. Similarly, universities do not do a great job with administrative efficiency with mushrooming overhead along with programs and departments that live on in perpetuity. Higher education has long been the target of satire from the Marx Brothers to Rodney Dangerfield’s “Back to School.” All institutions need constructive feedback to respond to changing societal needs, but the ideologically driven attacks on schools have lost their grounding, not to mention their humor, and risk promoting an age of ignorance. at .
WASHINGTON — A top White House official said Wednesday at least eight U.S. telecom firms and dozens of nations were impacted by a Chinese hacking campaign. Deputy national security adviser Anne Neuberger offered new details about the breadth of the sprawling Chinese hacking campaign that gave officials in Beijing access to private texts and phone conversations of an unknown number of Americans. Neuberger divulged the scope of the hack a day after the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued guidance intended to help root out the hackers and prevent similar cyberespionage in the future. White House officials cautioned that the number of telecommunication firms and countries impacted could grow. The U.S. believes the hackers were able to gain access to communications of senior U.S. government officials and prominent political figures through the hack, Neuberger said. “We don’t believe any classified communications has been compromised,” Neuberger added during a call with reporters. She added that Biden was briefed on the findings and the White House “made it a priority for the federal government to do everything it can to get to the bottom this.” The Chinese embassy in Washington rejected the accusations that it was responsible for the hack Tuesday after the U.S. federal authorities issued new guidance. “The U.S. needs to stop its own cyberattacks against other countries and refrain from using cyber security to smear and slander China,” embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu said. The embassy did not immediately respond to messages Wednesday. White House officials believe the hacking was regionally targeted and the focus was on very senior government officials. Federal authorities confirmed in October that hackers linked to China targeted the phones of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, along with people associated with Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris. The number of countries impacted by the hack is currently believed to be in the “low, couple dozen,” according to a senior administration official. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under rules set by the White House, said they believed the hacks started at least a year or two ago. The suggestions for telecom companies released Tuesday are largely technical in nature, urging encryption, centralization and consistent monitoring to deter cyber intrusions. If implemented, the security precautions could help disrupt the operation, dubbed Salt Typhoon, and make it harder for China or any other nation to mount a similar attack in the future, experts say. Neuberger pointed to efforts made to beef up cybersecurity in the rail, aviation, energy and other sectors following the May 2021 ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline . “So, to prevent ongoing Salt Typhoon type intrusions by China, we believe we need to apply a similar minimum cybersecurity practice,” Neuberger said. The cyberattack by a gang of criminal hackers on the critical U.S. pipeline, which delivers about 45% of the fuel used along the Eastern Seaboard, sent ripple effects across the economy, highlighting cybersecurity vulnerabilities in the nation’s aging energy infrastructure. Colonial confirmed it paid $4.4 million to the gang of hackers who broke into its computer systems as it scrambled to get the nation's fuel pipeline back online.Visa Inc. Cl A stock outperforms competitors on strong trading dayMy Date with Rural China----VOC.com.cn Unveils Season Two of I Am in Rural China
None
Stock market today: Wall Street hits more records following a just-right jobs reportGhaziabad: 2 men assaulted with sticks at Rajnagar district centre; 3 heldNone
Bilawal Bhutto urged Imran Khan to clarify his stance on statements made by the US, and asked why those who earlier expressed displeasure over Pakistan nuclear weapons, and now voicing their concern for Khan and demanding his release. Published: December 28, 2024 8:40 PM IST By : The United States is conspiring to target Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, former Pakistan foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has alleged. The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) chief made these sensational accusations after Richard Grenell, the envoy for US President-elect Donald Trump — who is set to assume office on January 20, 2024, called for the release of release of former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, and termed charges levelled against him as ‘false’. “I’d like to see Imran Khan be released from jail. He’s currently in prison, facing many of the same allegations as President Trump, where the ruling party put him in prison and created some sort of corruption and false allegations, and he’s in prison now,” Grenell was quoted as saying by news agency ANI. Responding to Grenell’s statement on Imran Khan, Bilawal Bhutto asked why those who conspired against Pakistan are now raising their voice in favor of the jailed PTI founder. “We must united and thwart the conspiracies that are being hatched against Pakistan. We have to keep politics aside and think about our country and its defense,” Bilawal said while addressing a public gathering to mark the 17th death anniversary of his mother, former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto in Garhi Khuda Bakhsh in Sindh province on Friday. Pakistan nuclear weapons ‘real target’ The PPP president said “they” are conspiring against Pakistan to target the country’s nuclear and missile program. The 36-year-old leader, who is part of the ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, expressed outrage over US interfering in Pakistan’s “internal matters”, asserting that the US’ statements are a mere excuse and the “real target” is Pakistan’s nuclear program. “‘Imran Khan is merely an excuse, their real target is Pakistan’s nuclear and missile program,” he said, while adding that the US is not really concerned about democracy in Pakistan, but is only acting out of vested interests. Bilawal Bhutto urged Imran Khan to clarify his stance on statements made by the US, and asked why those who earlier expressed displeasure over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, and now voicing their concern for the former PM and demanding his release. The Pakistani leader was referring to statements made by Donald Trump during his Presidential campaign wherein he had expressed concern over Pakistan’s growing nuclear arsenal. Bhutto claimed that there is a “lobby” who wants a malleable government at the helm in Islamabad, who “are ready to compromise on anything, including the Pakistan’s nuclear program.” Trump envoy praises Imran Khan Bilawal’s comments came after Richard Grenell, US President-elect Donald Trump-nominated US envoy for special missions, publicly backed Imran Khan’s release from prison, and claimed that the current regime has imprisoned him under false charges. Speaking to American news outlet Newsmax on Wednesday, Grenell discussed US-Pakistan relations under the previous Trump administration, showered praises on Imran Khan for improving ties between the two countries. He noted that Khan’s background as a former cricketer and outsider to traditional politics, aligned with Trump’s political outsider status, and the two had “very good relationship”. “We had a much better relationship with Pakistan during the Trump administration when a guy named Imran Khan was the leader of Pakistan. That’s because Imran Khan was an outsider. He was a former cricket player and actually the captain of the Pakistani national cricket team. He wasn’t a politician, and he spoke in very common-sense language. He and Donald Trump had a very good relationship,” he said. Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, and the founder and chief of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) — the country’s main opposition party — is currently in prison after being convicted of corruption in the infamous Toshakhana case. For breaking news and live news updates, like us on or follow us on and . Read more on Latest on . TopicsScience Olympiad Foundation to announce IMO 2024-25 results soon: Know how to check rankings and win prizes
White House: Chinese telecom hacks have been in motion for yearsAmong the hundreds of bills introduced in every session of the California Legislature, a few deal with what state officials term “tax expenditures,” which requires some explanation. The term refers to provisions in personal and corporate income taxes and sales taxes that exempt specific financial transactions from levies that otherwise would be applied. They have exactly the same fiscal effect as direct appropriations in the budget, which is why they are dubbed “expenditures.” While many loopholes reflect a broad public and political consensus that they serve positive purposes — such as making prescriptions drugs and most grocery store foods tax-free — others provide subsidies to special interests with political clout. My personal favorite among the latter was enacted about 35 years ago at the behest of Silicon Valley interests. It exempted custom computer programs from sales taxes, generally benefiting corporations willing to pay millions of dollars for such software, while continuing to tax off-the-shelf programs such as Quicken or TurboTax purchased by ordinary consumers. It’s certainly not California’s largest tax loophole, costing state and local governments $119 million a year in lost revenue, but it exemplifies the narrow focus of many exemptions. The software loophole estimate comes from an annual report issued by the state Department of Finance that gets scant public, media and political attention even though, as this year’s version confirms, the accumulated effect on state and local government revenues is $107 billion, counting only exemptions of $5 million or more. “The result: California’s $204 billion of estimated General Fund revenues (excluding transfers) in 2024-25 would be roughly 45% greater if there were no personal income, sales and use, or corporate income tax expenditures in state law,” Jason Sisney, a fiscal consultant for the Legislature, says in an analysis of the data. Over time, the number and size of tax expenditures has tended to increase because they often enjoy political support from their beneficiaries, while there’s little or no pressure on governors or legislators to reduce or eliminate those with little or no rational basis, such as the custom software exemption. The legislation creating it was carried by a Silicon Valley legislator, now deceased, known for his laments about the state’s parsimonious attitudes toward vital education, health and social services. What happened a couple of decades ago in the state Board of Equalization, which was then the collector of sales taxes, is another illustration. State law taxes hot prepared foods, such as those served in restaurants, or offered by delis, but exempts cold prepared foods — for reasons lost in antiquity. The owner of a theater chain asked the board to exempt popcorn from the hot food tax, arguing that while it may be warm when purchased, it’s cold by the time theater patrons return to their seats. The board granted the exemption. The new report lists the income tax exemptions for employer-provided medical care and pension contributions, totaling $29 billion in reduced revenues, as California’s two largest tax expenditures. Other personal income tax biggies are exemption of some Social Security benefits ($5.5 billion) and capital gains on inherited properties ($5 billion). The largest corporate income tax provision, valued at $3.1 billion, limits taxation on the revenues of multinational corporations, an issue that has kicked around the Capitol for at least 50 years with several iterations. Among the newer items on the list are income and sales tax credits for motion picture and video production ($213 million) and a sales tax exemption for menstrual products ($28 million) and children’s diapers ($81 million). Each year, the governor and the Legislature spend months negotiating thousands of items in the state budget. With $107 billion at stake, perhaps they should spend some of that time reviewing off-budget tax expenditures. — CalMatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters. For more stories by Dan Walters, go to Commentary .
