Hello, I'm Assemblymember Ted Lieu, and I look forward to this town hall.

Hi Ted (0.00 / 0)

We'll start with a question from Curtis L. Walker: "What progress has been made concerning the 105% maximum to qualify for the housing/foreclosure relief that is crippled for CALIFORNIA due to the large percentage of current value vs money owed on home. Most or many, not sure, are not helped for the National Obama Homeowner Relief Plan. Can you bring us up to date?

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:35:40 PM CDT

Great Question (5.00 / 1)

Speaker Bass, Assemblymember Nava, and I are sending a letter directly to President Obama this week asking him to increase the 105% restriction to at least 150% or even eliminate the restriction entirely.  I believe the focus should be on whether or not the homeowner can pay the new refinanced payments, so the key is the creditworthiness of the homeowner, not some artificial 105% barrier.

I will also continue to follow up with the folks I lobbied two weeks ago in Washington, DC including Chairman Ben Bernanke, FDIC Chair Sheila Bair, and Fannie Mae CEO Herb Allison, Jr.

---

by: tedlieu @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:39:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mr. Lieu (0.00 / 0)

DO you think California's budget crisis is primarily a cause of reckless spending or insufficient taxes?

If the former, what spending should be cut?

If the latter, who should have to pay more taxes, and how uch?

---

by: thejayhawker @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:39:32 PM CDT

We have a revenue problem (5.00 / 1)

Last year we balanced the budget for this year.  In less than five months, we were short over $40 billion.  This is not because the state government all of a sudden overspent by $40 billion.  It is because we lost a massive amount of revenue due to the declining economy.  Keep in mind that our nation's GDP shrank by 6%, an amazing figure.

California's budget also has about 80% of the revenues locked in by ballot propositions, which makes it hard to govern.  In addition we are a donor state to DC.  For every tax dollar we send to DC, we get 79 cents back in services.  South Dakota gets $1.25.  This is a $50 billion dollar problem.  If we didn't have this donor issue, we could have issued tax refunds to you this year.

---

by: tedlieu @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:42:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Follow up (0.00 / 0)

It is because we lost a massive amount of revenue due to the declining economy.  Keep in mind that our nation's GDP shrank by 6%, an amazing figure.

Isn't it true that in 2003-2004 when Governor Davis submitted his last budget the total revenues and spending for the state was 100 billion dollars.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2003/bud...

 In 2007-2008, the state had a 145 billion dollar budget. Is that an acceptable increase in state spending?

This is a $50 billion dollar problem.  If we didn't have this donor issue, we could have issued tax refunds to you this year.

Isn't it true that a lot of the federal money that is given back to the state is based on formulas based on poverty and income security. Since California is a wealthier state doesn't that explain our donor status? How would you address that?

---

by: thejayhawker @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:49:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good questions (0.00 / 0)

State spending, after equalizing for population growth and inflation, has basically remained flat for the last 10 years.  Education spending has actually decreased on a per pupil basis.

Federal programs that fund based on a median income number would help California.  Programs based on average income number hurt California.  

When President Bush vetoed SCHIP, it left California and its children in a major jam.  President Obama's signature on the SCHIP legislation underscores that the right leadership in Washington can help California.  

---

by: tedlieu @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:10:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you (5.00 / 1)

for your impressive answers.

They show a command of the facts.

Thank you and I look forward to your canidacy.

---

by: thejayhawker @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:16:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is from (0.00 / 0)

Jackfolsum: I used to live in your district and I recall getting mail from you regarding your efforts to advance the concept of building "green.". I haven't kept up with this and wanted to know what is happening on that front and what else you are working on to promote energy efficiency.

Thanks!

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:41:14 PM CDT

Governor not very green (8.00 / 2)

I authored AB 888 two years ago, which mandated that new commercial buildings over 50,000s square feet had to meet the LEEDs Gold standard.  The Governor unfortunately vetoed the bill due to special interest pressure.

I am carrying another bill this year, AB 828, that will involve the various environmental stakeholders, such as the EPA, into the green building process.

---

by: tedlieu @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:45:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is about time (0.00 / 0)

someone says this, so thank you.  The Governor has been greenwashing himself for years, but the truth is the Chamber of Commerce says jump and he says how high.  His efforts to delay environmental rules, particularly for AB32, have been appalling.

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:47:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Amen (0.00 / 0)

---

by: tedlieu @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:49:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Green Building Standards will result in little progress (0.00 / 0)

Building standards establish the "floor" whereby the lousiest possible building can get a permit. It's OK to do that if you want to force laggards to come along kicking and screaming into the world of solutions long since proven to be no-brainers by innovators and early adopters. But that does not amount to much in the way of forward progress.

USGBC LEED ratings deserve praise for the buzz they have created in the construction and real estate worlds, but when it comes to actual energy efficiency, the reality is much less than breathtaking. Green building performance was evaluated last year by the New Buildings Institute for USGBC. Not pretty.

Assemblyman Lieu, I think you mean well and I support what you are trying to accomplish with AB828, but the bill's language at present looks to me like a toothless tiger. Energy Efficiency is supposed to be "first in the loading order" in California. I suggest you look at the California Lighting Technology Center and Western Cooling Efficiency Center at UC Davis if you want to see where the real innovation for energy-efficient building solutions is coming from in California.

BTW, I totally agree with you that our esteemed Governor is not very green. I think if passed AB828 (as currently drafted) will just help him maintain his phony green magazine cover image.

---

by: spencerdog @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 18:03:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

From the other diary (0.00 / 0)

From OC Progressive:

Assemblyman Lieu,

Thanks for coming by.

From the Irvine Housing Blog, via Orange County Progressive.

All of these overextended homedebtors must be flushed from the system. Based on available data, (1) we know that refinancing is not going to be possible, (2) we know these people cannot afford the payments, and (3) we know that their are not enough buyers who really do make that much money to take over these people's debts and bail them out. There are no other viable alternatives

Fundamentally, we're in a market process where housing prices are reverting to the mean, which takes them back to 2002/3 prices, roughly 50% below a peak based on cheap money, corrupt lending standards, and outright fraud.

Will your efforts mitigate the problems or just postpone the suffering?

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:41:41 PM CDT

This question (0.00 / 0)

has been repeated by a couple others in that thread, and is crucially important, so I look forward to the answer.

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:44:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not everyone can be helped (0.00 / 0)

Many homeowners simply will not qualify for any program and will be unable to keep paying their mortgage due to events such as losing their job for an extended period of time.  The goal is to help those folks that, if given some assistance now, can stay in their homes for the long term.

A foreclosure is one of the most inefficient market mechanism ever designed by humankind.  The lender loses half or more of the loan value, the family gets thrown out on the street, all sorts of fees are paid, empty homes then flood the market and destabilize it, and the vacant homes become blight and a public safety problem.  It is a lose/lose/lose/lose proposition all the way around.  If we can mitigate some of these foreclosures, then we are all better off.

---

by: tedlieu @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:48:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bingo (0.00 / 0)

What's shocking is that more banks aren't pressing to avoid these foreclosures.  The only real winners are all the middlemen who do this foreclosure work and take huge cuts of those massive fees.  A single foreclosure can easily cost $50,000, even for a moderate home. And with many of these homes sitting on the market for so long, the costs just increase.

It's great that we have been taking at least these modest actions to forestall foreclosures, but it would be great if we could also figure out some way to decrease incentives for dealers in foreclosures. I'm not sure if that makes all that much sense though.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:52:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some of the banks (0.00 / 0)

Are actually walking away from the foreclosure process at the last minute, because they don't want to pay the upkeep. Many more have stopped putting in money to clean up trashouts, do mold abatement, and do the other necessary things to maintain a foreclosed home.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:57:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

from (0.00 / 0)

Robert in Monterey: I'm curious whether you support a repeal of the 2/3 rule for both budgets and taxes, lowering it to a simple majority standard and eliminating the undemocratic conservative veto?

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:51:32 PM CDT

Two-thirds needs to go (0.00 / 0)

In politics a two-thirds threshold is unbelievably high.  At the federal level, a 60% vote lets you override a filibuster.  A 67% vote lets you override the President of the United States.

Here in California we are only one of three states that have the two-thirds vote to pass a budget.  The other two states, Rhode Island and Arkansas, have very different political situations.  The California experience, which we have seen repeat over and over again, is that the two-thirds requirement gives a very small handful of legislators immense power to block the budget for 38 million people and to extract obscene demands.

For example, in this last budget, we basically wrote four special bills for Senator Maldanado on the last day in order for him to give the last vote.  It felt offensive.

So yes, I support eliminating the two-thirds requirement for everything related to the budget.

---

by: tedlieu @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:56:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you support or oppose (0.00 / 0)

the death penalty?

The Supreme Court recently overruled a La. Law that left the option of the death penalty for child rapists. Do you support or oppose that?

---

by: thejayhawker @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:52:47 PM CDT

I support the death penalty (0.00 / 0)

---

by: tedlieu @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:58:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Would you support the death penalty (0.00 / 0)

for child rapists?

Currently, prisoners are on death row for many years. Few are actually executed. How would you address that?

---

by: thejayhawker @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:01:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, it's now pretty much irrelevant (0.00 / 0)

Now that the Supreme Court has said that the death penalty is not an option for rapists.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:03:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It can be overturned (0.00 / 0)

And then that would give the option of states to enact it.

The Supreme Court reversed itself on the death penalty in a matter of just a few years.

---

by: thejayhawker @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:04:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

also (0.00 / 0)

from Robert in Monterey: Will you fight to restore the destructive and economy-wrecking elimination of state funding for local transit agencies? Will you fight to ensure that none of the 26,000 teachers who received pink slips will actually be laid off?

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:56:54 PM CDT

Absolutely (0.00 / 0)

I will absolutely fight to restore funding to local transit agencies and to keep teachers from being laid off.  The problem is that in a two-thirds environment, majority values are diminished.  It is the Republican minority party which holds an unbelievable amount of power when it comes to the budget.  Every single Democrat can vote to restore transit funding and keep teachers from being laid off, and the budget will not pass because our Democratic votes alone can't pass it.

For example, last year 60% of the California State Senate passed a budget that funded education at much higher amounts.  60% of the Assembly passed the same budget.  We couldn't get it done because we needed 67% and no Republicans went up on that budget.

---

by: tedlieu @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:01:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Housing and Banking Crisis' Questions (0.00 / 0)

While the media and much public attention has been focusing on the foreclosure and banking crisis' - not enough attention has been given to it's repercussions in first, the rental markets and second, the low-income housing tax credits markets.
First, given that many of the families impacted by foresclosures will inevitably become renters - this will only add additional pressure on the rental market driving housing costs up. What remedies do you forsee can help ease the higher costs in rental housing?

Secondly, given that banks - usually one of the biggest purchasers of low-income housing tax credits - cannot maintain their historical role given their current struggles; how can the State Legislature help to insure a healthy market for the credits. Tax credits are one of the largest sources of financing for affordable home builders to construct homes - a weak market inevitably hurts affordable home construction hurting low-to-moderate income families.

---

by: dhondrup @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 13:58:10 PM CDT

You are correct (0.00 / 0)

I forgot to mention that there are even more secondary effects to foreclosures, which as you pointed out is the rental market problem.  One issue I am looking into, and the feds are looking into it as well, is the issue of loan to rent.  So for a family facing foreclosure, a possible option is to let the family stay in the home, but turn the transaction into a rental.  So the family will lose title to the house (which they would have lost anyway through a foreclosure), but they can stay in the home as renters.  This also takes care of the problem where a departing homeowner trashes the house and it also reduces blight as well as public safety issues related to lots of vacant houses.

I would love to give out lots of tax credits.  The problem is that in a time of declining revenues, it is hard for state government to do it.  Unlike the Federal government, we can't print money.

---

by: tedlieu @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:18:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

AB 1061 (0.00 / 0)

Assemblyman,

I participated in the state task force that AB1061 addresses.

Our original task force recommendation included California native plants and also attempted to prevent local governments from using code enforcement from preventing well-maintained native or drought-tolerant landscapes.

Now, we would probably be adding food production to any legislation, with the idea that our precious California soil should not be used solely for lawn-farming, a process where we water, irrigate, fertilize, and add pest and weed killer to a crop of lawn grass that we harvest every week - only to throw away.

Would you be willing to expand this legislation, or carry additional legislation which would ensure that we use water wisely, either for food or habitat, rather than to perpetuate some esthetic standard totally inappropriate for our climate?

No Real Housewives, but plenty of action at Orange County Progressive.

Come for the politics. Stay for dessert.

---

by: OC Progressive @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:03:17 PM CDT

Water Conservation Is Absolutely Necessary (0.00 / 0)

While Global Warming is the most dangerous long term threat to our state (and the world's) security, I believe the water crisis is the most pressing short term threat.  We are in the midst of a multi-year drought.  Numerous cities have already instituted water rationing measures.  

I would be happy to look at various ideas to help conserve water or use it more wisely.  Please feel free to contact my legislative director, Cliff Costa, at 916-319-2053 and share with him any ideas you may have.

---

by: tedlieu @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:22:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Endorsement? (0.00 / 0)

The South Bay has produced two of our best constitutional officers, John Chiang and Deborah Bowen, both of whom really felt a mission for their respective positions.

How do they see your candidacy?

No Real Housewives, but plenty of action at Orange County Progressive.

Come for the politics. Stay for dessert.

---

by: OC Progressive @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:08:09 PM CDT

John Chiang has endorsed Ted (0.00 / 0)

I don't think Bowen endorses these days, in her role as an elections monitor.

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:10:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, of course (0.00 / 0)

That reminds me of a conversation I had with Secretary Bowen, where she demurred an endorsement, but promised that every vote in the election would be counted accurately.

Could there be a better answer?

No Real Housewives, but plenty of action at Orange County Progressive.

Come for the politics. Stay for dessert.

---

by: OC Progressive @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:15:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Endorsements (0.00 / 0)

I am honored to be the only Attorney General candidate endorsed by a statewide elected official, our State Controller John Chiang.  Secretary Bowen does not endorse due to her position as Secretary of State.

For more information, please visit www.TedLieu.com.  You can also find me on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and of course Calitics.

---

by: tedlieu @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:24:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There a problems more serious than foreclosure! (0.00 / 0)

Ted Lieu:

those facing foreclosure are still better off than us who never dare to dream a house. For at least they had been capable to buy a house.

But for us, whose salary is no more than $2000 a month, we even dare not to have a dream of buying a house all our lives. So where is our American Dream?

And how you can help us to be able to buy a house before we end our lives? forget about those who already have a house facing forclosure for the timebeing. they are still far better off than us.

You know the proverb:"the camel died of starving is still bigger than a horse"?

Similar to the camel proverb, there still:

A dying GM is still rich enough to take airplane to washington to beg money...

A closing AIG is still well enough to share annual bonus with the money begged from Obama.

---

by: latakai @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:24:02 PM CDT

Same-Sex Marriage (0.00 / 0)

Assemblyman Lieu,

What are your thoughts on the Attorney General's office's position on same-sex marriage.  As you know, the AG's office opposed The City and County of San Francisco when it issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004.  The office ultimately lost this battle when the Supreme Court sided with San Francisco and held that California's constitution mandated that same-sex couples be allowed to marry.

Following Proposition 8 AG Brown initially sided with the proponents of Prop 8 and said that he would defend the new law.  Later, of course, he flipped and argued to the Supreme Court that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and should be overturned.

First, where do you stand on these issues.  Second, what are your thoughts of the seemingly opposing positions that the AG's office has taken over the last five years?

Thanks for making yourself available to questions in this forum!

---

by: Be_Devine @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:29:02 PM CDT

Ted is on the floor now (0.00 / 0)

But he did make an great argument on the floor of the Assembly a few weeks back expressing full support of marriage equality.  He's moved in a more progressive direction on this.

http://www.apaforprogress.org/...

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:34:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Should people (0.00 / 0)

in custody suspected of committing a felony have their immigration status checked while in state or local prisons?

---

by: thejayhawker @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:40:15 PM CDT

Concurrent Enrollment and Acceleration (0.00 / 0)

Assemblyman Portantino has introduced AB 78, which would ease restrictions against middle- and high-school students who wish to get ahead by taking classes at their local community college.

This is essentially the same as AB 1409, which he introduced in the last session.  AB 1409 was amended six times to the point where it would have basically established a trial period for expanded concurrent enrollment opportunities before dying in a Senate committee.

Where do you stand on AB 78 and concurrent enrollment for middle- and high-school students in both community colleges and the UC and CSU systems?  More generally, where do you stand on encouraging single-subject or even whole-grade acceleration?

---

by: mediaptera @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 14:58:08 PM CDT