I'll admit I'm a little incredulous, but Media News has Sen. Abel Maldonado as the Governor's pick to replace John Garamendi as Lt. Governor.
The choices seem endless as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ponders his pick to fill the now-vacant lieutenant governor's job. But the path that many expect the governor to take invariably leads back to one person: Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria.
Several sources close to the administration said privately that Maldonado is the likely choice for two reasons: He has bailed out the governor with a number of critical votes - on budgets and taxes, for which the governor may feel some debt - and would sail through the Democratic-controlled Legislature for confirmation.
"Schwarzenegger has settled on Maldonado. I'm hearing it's him," one person close to the administration said, asking not to be identified. (CoCo Times 11/6/09)
But since that time, Maldo has done everything he can to get back in the Governor's good graces. Going so far as to basically being his bad cop on negotiations to get the Top-2 primary system that will end up being a waste of Democratic resources.
And from a standpoint of getting this through, it seems to have less enemies throwing roadblocks. In the senate you will have the 4 LG candidates opposed, but whether they can muster the votes to block confirmation is an open question. It seems the only way to get a Republican LG, and for the Dems it gives them a shot at Maldo's senate district. Can anybody say Sen. John Laird?
If Arnold is really serious about this, I think he just keeps Bob Hertzberg as Plan B or perhaps just leaves the office empty.
As John Garamendi nears his coronation hard-fought election in CA-10, the Capitol is all abuzz over who will replace him as the political powerhouse known as Lite Guv.
If Democratic Lt. Gov. John Garamendi wins a special congressional election Tuesday in the Democrat-leaning 10th Congressional District, Schwarzenegger has the power to appoint Garamendi's replacement.
The Republican governor has not tipped his hand. He has the option of choosing a caretaker who will serve out Garamendi's last year. Or he could use the appointment to reward a Republican legislator for working on his behalf in recent years. (SacBee)
Sure, Arnold could nominate Sen. Maldonado, but guess who hates that? Jeff Denham and Sam Aanestad, who have been banking on opposing Arnold at every turn in order to get the LG nod. Now, the nominee only needs majorities in each house, so Democratic support alone could be enough, and a vacant Senate seat in Maldo's coastal district could be enough to satisfy Democrats. After all, would the Dems rather have an extra seat in the Senate or the LG position? Furthermore, it's not even clear that an incumbent Maldonado wins the primary in 2010.
Of course, Arnold sees this problem too. Hee might try to float some right-wing name to toss some red meat to the base, and might even nominate some winger. However, Arnold knows there's no way a right-wing republican gets through to replace Garamendi, so the pick will ultimately be somebody like former LA Mayor Richard Riordan, or a similar type who doesn't plan on seeking reelection.
But hey, Arnold, I double dog dare you to put Maldo up. C'mon...do it.
Whatever the beef, there could be wide, unintended damage to noncombatants. The Republican weapon was blatant abuse of the two-thirds majority vote requirement for passage of many bills.
The two-thirds rule is not used merely to protect taxpayers from politicians trying to reach deeper into their pockets. It's used by special interests -- mainly big business -- to game the system; a tool handy for legislative leverage, or extortion. If you don't give us what we want, we'll withhold the votes needed for the two-thirds. (LA Times 9/17/09)
See, that's the problem when you give a wide, expansive veto power to a minority. It's fundamentally unworkable. I'll make an analogy to my patent law days here. Sometimes a patent holder owns a patent on part of a device or process. They frequently try to expand the scope and power of that patent by contract and license to block other firms from using or selling something that isn't covered by the patent.
See the thing is with patents, when you do that, it's called an anti-trust violation. It's against the law. But with the supermajority in the Legislature, it's just par for the course.
Sen. Maldonado, quite possibly the loneliest Legislator, shunned by his own party and the Democrats, makes the theoretical argument.
"I was embarrassed," says Sen. Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria, the only Republican to cross party lines and vote for the bills. "I said, 'I'm here to govern.' They wanted all three things or nothing.
"The two-thirds vote is a good tool when put in the hands of people who are reasonable, pragmatic and open-minded. But partisans use the two-thirds as a tool to hold up the Legislature.
And if wishes were unicorns, then we'd all live in Arnold's Fantasyland. But back here in the real world, this is how this is going to play out every time. A minority will wield its minority veto like a club and bash everybody over the head with it until they get their way. That's just the way it is.
In a rather convincing bi-partisan manner, the Senate budget cut measures that failed to garner 2/3 support in the Senate have now been approved by the Assembly overwhelmingly. The package is a mixture of cuts and payment deferrals that would keep delay the issuance of IOUs until at least August.
Once again, Twitter is the best source of news. From John Myers' feed:
Bill #3 appears headed to passage, which means it's now up to the Senate to possibly challenge Guv to veto the $5 bil in temporary cash.
31 minutes ago from TwitterBerry Asm GOP leader Blakeslee: "I am heartened that Repubs and Dems are working together." Calls the stopgap measures a "first step."
33 minutes ago from TwitterBerry
Assmbly has reconvened to vote on bill #3 of the "stopgap pkg" (three of the deficit relief bills that would avoid IOUs next month).
37 minutes ago from TwitterBerry
To add some more context, the Governor has been saying that he would veto any measure that bought additional time. However, it appears that the Assembly GOP, with the approval of these three measures to avoid July IOUs, has decided that they don't feel the same way. If the Senate GOP gets on board with the Assembly GOP, we might see a showdown between the branches of government and the possibility of the first legislative override in over 25 years.
However, it is far from clear that the Senate GOP will get on board with Sam Blakeslee's delaying tactic. In the last round, they rejected cuts as insufficient to address the entirety of the problem. However, with their Assembly colleagues on board, will they change their stance? Well, there will be one voice in the room to block the IOUs, Abel Maldonado. From the Great Maldo's twitter feed:
IOUs to the people of california are not an option
about 4 hours ago from TwitterBerry Caucus just ended, I still believe we are close to a whole solution.. More to come.
about 4 hours ago from TwitterBerry Need more than just cuts. People demand refrom. Solution should be combo: north of $13 billion cuts and real reform.
12:33 PM Jun 24th from TwitterBerry
Honestly, I have no idea of what kind of game Maldonado is running at this point. Is he in the Senate GOP Caucus advocating for outright tax increases? Doubtful. But, according to a tweet from Myers yesterday, Maldo is thinking of offering his own solution. What "real reform" means? Again, this is Maldo speaking, so it's anybody's guess.
We should hear something about the Senate votes today.
Because the Citizen's Commission process that actually determines legislator salaries is clearly hopelessly br-
Declaring that elected officials must share the pain of California's fiscal crisis, an independent commission voted today to impose an 18 percent pay cut for statewide elected officials and all members of the Legislature.
The California Citizens Compensation Committee, which sets salaries for state officers, earlier voted in favor of a more modest 10 percent pay cuts in an April 29 meeting in Sacramento. But the action couldn't stand because the seven-member board lacked the required four votes.
But today the commission voted 5-1 to make a deeper reduction in elected officials' salaries because of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's announced plans to lay off 5,000 state workers.
The only reason this didn't pass before is that the Governor didn't do his job to keep the required amount of appointees on the committee. Of course, by his logic, aren't these state workers? Shouldn't they all be fired so we can "live within out means?"
Now that the already-in-place process did what it was supposed to do, clearly we can all agree that Abel Maldonado is the kewlest man evah. Two snaps up with a circle, Abel. Two snaps.
At the April meeting of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, we considered the propositions on the upcoming May 19 ballot. We urge you to READ all of them http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/ as well as the analysis pieces. These were put onto the ballot at the end of the budget session in February when Republican Abel Maldonado, Santa Maria, cut a deal to end the budget stalemate with Senate Pro Tem Darryl Steinberg. See this article for background: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02... In addition to these lovely initiatives, Maldonado got the Democrats to agree to put the question of an OPEN PRIMARY to the voters. This one is NOT on this May ballot, however.
Assemblyman Mike Feuer spoke for the "PRO" side of the initiatives, and Calitics writer David Dayen spoke for the "NO" side.
Within the discussion, comments included: most citizens are really sick of our legislature taking the easy way out and NOT dealing with the real elephant in the room--CORPORATE CONTROL of our government. No one agreed with the usual targets for budget cutting--mental health, schools, childhood programs (all funding previously VOTED FOR via the initiative process). And there was a strong reaction against the fear-mongering talking points that have been sent along for these initiatives. Questions on why there were more corporate tax breaks added during the budget session and why so little was done about the burgeoning prison-industrial complex budget which wasn't cut.
There are many reasons for the state being in this condition today. One is the application of Proposition 13 to commercial properties from 1978 onward. My recollection, having lived through that as the political deputy to City Controller Ira Reiner (who supported 13 and helped give it credibility), is that 13 was meant to apply to single family residences. Because this was another of the many poorly worded initiatives voters have passed in frustration over the inaction of our state legislature, the so-called clarification AFTER it passed added in the commercial properties. Commercial real estate does not change ownership nearly as frequently as residential properties, and they use loopholes to avoid revaluation. They have enjoyed the lowest real estate taxes in the country ever since, as our education spending plummeted, in tandem, to become one of the lowest in the country also.
Another reason is the continual kow-towing to corporate interests and their lobbyists. Corporate tax breaks abound, and California remains one of the few states WITHOUT an oil severance tax. Hard choices for our legislators who continue to raise campaign funds from these same corporations and try to tell us that these contributions don't influence their votes. Yea, sure. Possibly Clean Money could make a difference if we were to believe that there will be a quantum shift in ethics once it's put into place. This was what was SUPPOSED to have happened a few decades ago when the legislature was made full time and given full time salaries (now at $130,000). See Bill Boyarsky's recent book for a backgrounder on the state legislature: http://www.amazon.com/Big-Dadd...
Many expressed outrage over the speaker's revenge on those voting against this "deal with the devil" (as one person described it). Three assemblymembers lost their committee chairmanships as well as their previously assigned offices when they voted against these intiatives: http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...
Another suggested that Democrats who go along with this Republican outrage are victims of the Stockholm Syndrome (WIKI: a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed).
Much is being made about the need to either get a 2/3 majority in both houses of the state legislature OR to pass a simple majority rule. Either of these could work to marginalize the minority party except for the fact that Arnold and his Republican minions got Democrats to join them and pass Proposition 11 last fall (it gives them equal redistricting power regardless of their dwindling numbers). And, if they had DONE anything about either of these options earlier, we wouldn't be hamstrung now (Feuer noted that he is new in the legislature and acknowledged the failures of the past as a cause for the present).
No one really knows what will be done if the initiatives do not pass. And legislators don't seem to think that far ahead. http://www.calitics.com/diary/... Robert Cruickshank has his opinion on May 20th on this posting, and I started a list of "things to do" for our state legislators to get them focused on what real people are more interested in having them do.
Obviously, solving the healthcare crisis with immediate passage of SB810 would be a real step forward IF Democrats Susan Kennedy and Maria Shriver would push Arnold to sign it. Maybe he could leave office without having horns drawn on every picture, if he actually came through on this ONE thing.
Here's a little reminder of the origins of our present Initiative 1A. Remember when all of the unions mobilized back in '05 and we all shouted out a big NO to Arnold's propositions? I do, because I walked the hills and long stairways of my Woodland Hills precinct. Let's take a look back to 2005's Proposition 76 http://www.politicalgateway.co... No on Proposition 76 - This proposition allows the governor to declare a fiscal emergency and cut any program by any amount he chooses. The issue is whether this power is properly vested in the governor.
If the initiative passes, the governor could undo decisions made by voters previously. School funding, health, police and emergency rooms, among other expenditures, would be at risk.
If the initiative fails, the governor would have less power to act in years when the budget is in a crisis.
Our state government is like the federal government in that power is shared by the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Giving the power to the governor to overturn prior decisions made by voters upsets this balance too much.
Here's your reading set for the day: http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2... The state pays for a Legislative Analyst to go over ALL of these initiatives and explain them in relatively clear language. On page 5: "If Proposition 1A passes, the Governor would be given new authority to reduce certain types of spending during a fiscal year without additional legislative approval." La De Da. Just what he wanted and was denied by the massive outpouring of unions that crushed Prop 76 three years ago. What happened? This time around we see a splitting of the unions. I'll always recall CTA endorsing Republican Bruce McPherson over Debra Bowen, so they'll NEVER have any credibility in my book. CTA-yes, CFT-no. http://www.cft.org/ Getting a late start on this, SEIU has joined the NO side: http://www.sacbee.com/capitola...
More on that same important page 5: "The fiscal effects of Proposition 1A are particularly difficult to assess. This is because the measure's effects would depend on a variety of factors that will change over time and cannot be accurately predicted." And THIS is the initiative that our legislature is trying to tell us we MUST PASS???
And last point, many felt that pushing off these decisions onto the electorate by the initiative process is just another way for the legislators to abdicate their responsibility. Whatever happens in this election, they can just point to the voters and blame them (us)...either way. Catch 22 all over again.
So, PDLA joins Calitics and says "Just Say NO" to all of these initiatives.
The establishment in both parties continue to close ranks around the May 19 special election, even as the grassroots continues to reject it. Today Antonio Villaraigosa endorsed all six ballot measures, asserting that they will "bring stability back to California's budget system," like any artificial spending cap that forces spending $16-$20 billion dollars below initial baseline estimates during an economic crisis where state spending is needed urgently tends to do. Without question, Villaraigosa, a potential candidate for Governor, sees that giant pot of CTA money being tossed around in support of the measures and figures one of the candidates could draft off of that nicely in the primaries.
At the local level, more and more Democratic clubs are opposing the ballot measures, because unlike the establishment, they have read them and calculated that they would put the state in an objectively worse situation, and they are unmoved by the idle threats of Armageddon casually tossed out by the Governor and his minions. The dichotomy is both interesting and revealing.
Meanwhile, in maybe the lamest online initiative effort since the invention of Compuserve, Abel Maldonado's tears have created "Reform For Change," a site dedicated to the petty, self-righteous, useless Prop. 1F measure that would eliminate raises for lawmakers and staff during an economic downturn. In the silly video accompanying the site, Maldonado's tears tell us that "we can fundamentally reform California and change it forever," through apparently passing a .0001% change in funding for state lawmakers that is dealt with through an independent commission and not "the legislators themselves" (one of many lies on this site).
Sigh.
UPDATE: Apparently Antonio said this today - "If we don't pass these initiatives CA will go into bankruptcy." That's just ignorant fearmongering. These people should be ashamed of themselves.
It's all out war between Abel Maldonado and his (?) Republican Party. In an interview with the Santa Barbara Independent, he accuses the GOP of wanting the state to collapse. (h/t CalBuzz):
"It was 'Abel - let it go into bankruptcy, let it go off a cliff, we need to prove a point, that it's the majority's fault,'" he said in an interview, to be published Thursday in the Santa Barbara Independent.
This is nothing we haven't heard before. We've known that the GOP saw possibilities in a collapse of the state government. A chance to break labor once and for all, a chance to freeze government in its tracks, a boon for conservative backwardness.
Yet with Abel, you never know what he's playing at. He's always looking at what's next, using the situation to get what's best for him. And I'm skeptical that his statements are anything but self-serving. Especially his remarks on the no-tax pledge:
He said his vote on the budget allowed him to wrangle reforms that do not carry personal benefit for him but "are about California." He also expressed regret that in the past he signed a "no new taxes" pledge, saying that Republican orthodoxy on the issue "is an irrational position."
"I regret signing" the pledge, he said. "I regret not having a couple of words added - 'unless there's an emergency.' We have a fiscal emergency in our state. People want ideas and solutions, not political positions."
These statements make him seem eminently reasonable. Not exactly sounding out a fair and reasonable tax policy, but somebody who you think you could work with. Yet, somehow, he only came to understand the depth of the emergency after extracting what he wanted out of the situation? He could only get himself to throw the state a lifeline when he could get his ridiculous open primary initiative? His statements are extremely disingenuous at best.
Yet, despite all that, it's hard to see how Maldonado proceeds in his political career. Perhaps he could have switched parties earlier in the session. I assure you, Democrats will not have him now, and as he points out, the Republicans hate him. He was thrashed at the state convention, people directly yelled to his face. Even if his open primary measure passes, he has no base, and winning without party support would still be hard, if not impossible.
But I'm not sure if his fate in the Republican Party would be any better even had he stuck with the caucus. The party is so out of touch with the majority of the state, and the riff with Maldo clearly shows that. I say this not as a partisan Democrat, but as a political observer, the statewide Republican Party is risking traveling the path of irrelevance already walked by the Massachusetts Republican Party. I suppose I should suppress that smile, huh?
While I was at Camp Courage in Fresno all weekend (much more on that transformative event later today) I missed out on some of the stories happening in state politics, including this gem from Willie Brown's Sunday column in the San Francisco Chronicle where he explains one reason for Maldonado's pursuit of an open primary:
State Sen. Abel Maldonado, the deciding vote in the big state budget morass, came to see me last week with a very interesting story about his fellow Republicans.
I was telling him what a good name he has, because no one can figure out if it is Spanish, Italian or Portuguese.
He proceeded to tell me that when he was running for state controller in 2006, he commissioned a poll to gauge the feelings of Republican voters in Orange County.
The poll came back showing him losing to the Democrat by almost 2-1.
"This is impossible," Maldonado said. "Orange County is loaded with Republicans."
They did the poll again and the results were the same - the Democrat won.
So Maldonado ran a little test. He had the pollster go back and give voters the same information as before - his age, that he's a rancher and the like - but this time, he said, tell them the candidate's name is Smith.
The result: Smith came out ahead.
So he ran another poll, a Republican named Garcia vs. a Democrat named Smith.
Smith won again, even among Republicans.
At that point, Maldonado said, "We're not spending another nickel - there ain't no way that anyone with a Spanish name is going to win anything in a Republican primary in this state."
He was right, in his case at least - he lost the primary to Tony Strickland.
I wish I could say I'm surprised by this, but of course I'm not. As someone with deep familiarity with Orange County Republicans this story rings all too true to my experiences. They just don't like Latinos. For many OC Republicans, their anti-immigrant sentiment is thinly veiled racism. In public it may be about "the law" but at block parties or conversations with neighbors at the mailbox or even the dinner table, it's really about fear of a brown planet.
"Did you hear that some Mexicans bought a place on the next street over?" "Yeah, there go our property values." [I've heard variations on this conversation several times in the last 20 years in Tustin.] "Do you remember when Santa Ana was full of English speakers?" "Yeah, now it's full of Spanish billboards. It's like Tijuana!" [Another frequently overheard conversation, one that neatly ignores the continuous presence of Spanish-speakers in that city dating to at least the 1860s.]
Racism against Spanish speakers and those with Spanish-sounding surnames in Orange County remains endemic. And so it's quite understandable that Maldonado would discover these kind of poll results.
Of course it's worth noting that "Orange County" is a diverse place and that there are large swaths of the county where this hasn't been a problem, as Loretta Sanchez can attest (though her 1996 and 1998 campaigns against Bob Dornan unfortunately brought out a lot of racism and attacks on her Mexican last name, with the irony here being that Dornan told me at the time she merely used her maiden name "Sanchez" instead of "Brixey", her then-married name, to win votes!).
Still, this is indicative of the problems that Maldonado has as a slightly less conservative Latino Republican in a state where conditions of membership in the Zombie Death Cult appear to still include not having Latino heritage.
Not to mention the obvious point that this is further evidence that Maldonado was merely seeking personal gain through the budget standoff and is further evidence of why the 2/3rds rule must go...
I'm reading the accounts of delusional maniacs from across the state with not a little bit of bemusement. The lack of economic thought is matched only by the lack of recognition that Republicans got far more out of this budget than they deserved to get, thanks to the anti-democratic 2/3 requirement. Here's a sample of this Algonquin Roundtable:
"The Republicans should have stood their ground," fumed 70-year-old Tony Dragonetti. "Abel Maldonado is sick, and so are the other Republicans who voted for this. They give the you-owe-me crowd everything they need, but the poor slob who is working day after day paying taxes gets nothing." [...]
"I think they could have held out. There are a lot more cuts they could have made," said Steve Pyle, 61, who said he was so unhappy with the country's direction that he seriously was considering moving to Australia. "They could start by getting rid of all the illegal immigrants and the teachers unions." [...]
"I don't believe everything would have stopped if this budget wasn't passed," Sanders said. "I support what the Republicans did."
Local GOP activist Adele Harrison predicted new taxes would push the state and country into a depression [...]
Terry Carter, 65, just smiled behind the counter and kept pouring coffee. The boisterous regulars have helped keep him in business for 22 years. As for his own opinions, he keeps those to himself.
"Sometimes the smartest thing you can do is listen," he said.
Well, that depends on who you're listening to. For example, listening to talk radio is most definitely NOT the smartest thing you can do. I've been tuning in to a lot of this down in Southern California, and the ignorance abounds. A typical commenter is a well-off suburbanite bitching about $700 bucks in new taxes for their $126,000 salary (that was an actual conversation). Roger Niello, one of the Yacht Party's own who voted for the budget, got hammered on a Sacramento station.
John in Sacramento warned, "You're going to bankrupt the state with taxes."
And Dave in Cameron Park told Niello he was "outraged that you, as a Republican, caved in and voted with Democrats." [...]
"You should have let (California) fall off a cliff," John from Sacramento told him. "Then, we pick up the pieces and put this state together, the way it used to be." (emphasis mine)
But I'm not sure it's such a force anymore. The John and Ken show ended Thursday with the two musing that "somebody should do something about this" and asking listeners to find each other to fight against the turncoats. In other words, they're not going to lead it. Ultimately, these are lazy people shouting at the end of the bar. Independents have turned dramatically against them, and the leader of the party won't show up at their convention. I don't know that they're entirely coordinated, after years of mismanagement and an almost broke state party apparatus, to even pull off the enforcer role. If someone like Anthony Adams survives a primary challenge, that would be a powerful signal that the Yacht Party is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
"We are at the incredible gut check point for what happens next in American civilization," Sanford said in the introductory address for the state party's three-day Sacramento convention [...]
"Would you be willing to lose? Would you be willing to support folks who may likely lose," Sanford told the gathering at the Capitol Hyatt. He went on to say that it was paramount for party members to support the GOP "at a time when it may look like a losing cause" because their efforts will be "pushing the ball forward in the larger conservative movement."
I find myself debating this quite often in the aftermath of the budget. At first, I really thought Abel took this one hands down. After all, he held this thing up for days upon end just to get himself a few perks. But I've decided to make a case by using one example for each of them, as I seek to answer this eternal question.
The Case for Maldo:
But there is no better example of the case for Abel winning this particular award than the $1 million for the controller's office that Robert just described.
Not only does it not save us all that much money, but actually ends up costing us over $5mill over the next 6 years. It seems that the move itself was a cost-cutting measure. The Controller's current space is in some pricey real estate area, and they will now be forced to stay there. The million bucks was simply intended to provide furniture for the new, cheaper office space. Now the state will be stuck paying for both offices as there is no where for the controller's employees to sit at the new place.
Let's be clear here, Maldo didn't object to the other $128 million in annual state spending for furniture. No, he objected to this money because it was politically advantageous. How cute.
The case for Arnold:
Oh, the case for Arnold, there are simply such a selection of events to choose. But, let's go with today's press conference. I can forgive the fact that he stood up there and essentially just read this memo, numbering included. The memo also include a stupid slideshow of a four legged stool to illustrate his point that the plan needed all four legs of the stool to stand. If I send him a picture of a three legged stool that stands perfectly well, do we get to pull one of these "legs" off of this stupid plan? If so, it would be a tough call between 3 of the four legs, "economic stimulus" aka attacking workers' rights, "government effeciency" aka attacking environmental protections, or spending reductions. Tough call. Governor, I await your response on that.
And then Arnold flat-out ignores a question about 2/3 to instead answer a question about open primaries. It was clear that the open primary was Arnold's plan all along. His response to one question about how he chose to work with Abel went something like this:
He came to me and he was very passionate open primaries and that's something I support, so I thought we could work together.
Ummm, right, with the way he talked about open primaries, it was clear that this is what they were focusing on all along. This was no last minute surprise in the Horseshoe, it was his favorite dream come true.
I think what we have to do is create open primaries, you saw what happened on the floor. You have to bring people to the center. We have legislators so far out to the left and to the right. It's very hard to get them together. You need redistricting reform that has passed, and you need to have open primaries. We need to change the system itself that creates this kind of situation where people get tied down and draw a line in the sand. All of these things are not good for people of CA, we want to create a system where the legislator work together to solve the problems.
Not only is there no evidence that open primaries empower moderates, see Vitter, David, but it also saps resources that could go to competitive races. For example in the 2008 cycle there would have been 9 additional competitive races if the open primary were in place. And guess what, they were all between two Democrats. Would a second race between Loni Hancock and Wilma Chan really have created more moderate legislators? It's doubtful at best.
Yet he ignores the one (and only) reform that would have completely prevented this bullshit: ending the 2/3 supermajority requirements for taxes and budgets.
So, who is the winner? Tough call, but I go with Arnold for now.
Abel Maldonado and his toady Brandon Gesicki have been all over the news pushing the frame that Controller John Chiang is wasting a million dollars on office furniture:
The same day the governor vetoed the Democrats' budget proposal, the Controller's office requested $924,500,000 worth of new office furniture from this fiscal year! How is that acceptable? Here is an elected official who is in the press every day talking about cutting services, stopping checks to welfare recipients and issuing IOUs to hardworking Californians. But at the exact same time, he is requesting new office furniture. This disgusting and disingenuous behavior has to end.
This is, quite frankly, bullshit. The money was approved by then-Controller Steve Westly, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the State Legislature in December 2006 not for "furniture" but to bring the C Street office complex up to code. From a presentation the Controller's office sent out today:
• The current workstations were out of compliance with ADA, OSHA and SAM requirements.
• Current stations were 10-20 years old (80% were 20+ years old and replacement parts are no longer
manufactured).
• DGS confirms that there was not (and is not) enough used modular furniture available.
•In 2005, wires melted and smoked in one bank of cubicles, causing evacuation of the building, raising health and safety concerns.
So the office remodel isn't being done for vanity, but to reduce a hazard AND the risk that the state of California will face lawsuits that will rack up legal bills. And the whole plan actually saves Californians money:
Bottom Line: $3,982,000 savings from purchasing efficiencies
$1,500,000 savings from less expensive rent, in future years
How did Maldonado vote when this funding came up in summer 2007?
August 21, 2007, Senate approves C Street BCP contained in SB 77 (Budget Act for FY 07/08) [vote was] 27-12, Maldonado votes "aye"
Abel Maldonado is a dishonest and self-interested politician who only wants to cut budget deals that advance his career - even when they cost the state $5.5 million.
Well, the deal is done, Abel (and Arnold) gets his open primary measure. But, honestly, it's hard to remember a speech so rife with hypocrisy as Maldo's final speech on the floor this morning, even from a body that is itself riddled with hypocrisy. Some thoughts and a recap of the speech over the flip.
Programming note: Robert will be on KRXA 540 AM at 8 to discuss this deal
AB 3xxx, the tax package, has now passed the Senate with 27 votes. The final votes are now going through. The deal is now done. On a related note, Maldo is the biggest hypocrite since, well, ever. Some notes from his speech on the floor in a few minutes. See also ccleague's twitter feed, as Scott Lay and co. are tweeting like crazy to join John Myers excellent tweets.
The final tax package is different from what it was a few days ago. It changes the income tax surcharge on upper incomes and cuts the gas tax. Sigh, i really thought we had a chance to get a twofer that would increase revenues but also help the environment.
The big drama of the night, unsurprisingly, surrounded the first measure of the night, the open primaries amendment. Dems resisted this, with the bill initially failing by receiving only 24 votes. Steinberg was able to cajole Sens. Hancock, Romero, and Corbett back into the fold for this POS. Sen. Padilla also stood up and said that he was supporting this only so far as putting it on the ballot. Folks there will be much work to do between now and May 19. Defeating the spending cap should be the progressive's first priority, but this ridiculous measure needs to be defeated. Not only for the policy, but also to shove Maldo's face in the piece of crap he let loose on the Senate floor.
I'll get some video of Maldo's speech as soon as possible, but oh it is rich. Rich I tell you.
The rest of this will be a stream of thought blog, my apologies if it gets a bit random.
* Maldo gets his attack on John Chiang's furniture budget, in SB 20. What a joke this man is. He manages to get 27 votes for this measure, with a combination of Dems and Reps.
* Ashburn gets his sweeteners, money for the state fairs across the state. Ashburn calls them "economic generators." Anything that increases jobs we ought to do, he says? Oh, really? Then why is the state slashing jobs? I'm just sayin'. I think some of these folks are getting a little sleeplessness-drunk. In an exchange, Sen. Padilla says that only somebody of "Ashburn's stature" could carry the bill in response to Ashburn's "jockeying" of the bill.
* Bill to set up the election for May 19 passes.
* Sen. Benoit stands up to talk about AB 5, a measure to "increase flexibility on the work week." AKA, cut into worker's rights.
* AB 7, a 90 day foreclosure moratorium, passes with a simple majority.
* AB 8, to gut CEQA for 11 projects and for state property, and to lift restrictions for offroad diesel operations that were regulated by CARB. Passes with a simple majority. Sad stuff.
* Sen Steinberg talks of the 45.5 hour session, longest in the history of the Senate. He talks of difficult decisions, but "great relief". He takes "real pride in our imperfect institution" because apparently they can solve anything if they can tackle a $40 billion deficit. Thank you to the membership for thriving under pressure, to Speaker Bass for doing her part, to Dave Cogdill for "becoming friends". Aww, it's a Big 5 lovefest. More props to Sen. Ducheny and the budget staff, the other Senate staff, Leg Counsel, and his own staff.
* Hey, look at that, the Senate gets Thurs and Friday off.
* Sen Steinberg moves to adjourn.
* Sen. Padilla thanks Sen. Steinberg for moving people a lot further than they thought they would come.
* Over on the Assembly side, they are wrapping up the last of the bills to make this happen. The necessary measures pass quickly, and they adjourn for the weekend.
Because he knows he can get it, Abel Maldonado is offering his list of demands in exchange for being the 27th vote on the budget. I guess Darrell Steinberg's "1 Republican Vote" sign got to him.
In what could be a break in state budget talks, legislative Democrats are contemplating a firm offer - approval of three constitutional amendments - from Republican Sen. Abel Maldonado as a means to closing the state's $40 billion budget shortfall.
Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, could provide the crucial 27th vote necessary to pass a budget package that has been stalled since Saturday. In a lunch meeting at Spataro with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maldonado asked for ballot measures to create an open primary system, prohibit legislative pay raises in deficit years and stop legislators from receiving salaries if they do not pass a budget on time.
Maldonado said in a brief interview Wednesday that there was "a good chance" for a budget vote tonight and that he wants all three of the reforms he has put forth to secure his budget vote.
Asked if he would settle for one or two, he said, "I'm asking for all three," before rushing into a meeting with Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines. "We're very close on the details and I just want to leave it at that."
The move here would be the one Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog came up with - to intentionally draft the law in a way that is unconstitutional. But there already is a draft of it, and it sounds similar enough to the law in Washington State that passed the Supreme Court's muster. Candidates wouldn't have to put their party on the ballot, leading to oftentimes intentional confusion. The vindictive part of me thinks I should sue to tangle this up in court until the day after the 2010 Controller's primary just to screw with St. Abel.
Oh, and Schwarzenegger has wanted this for a while. It's entirely possible that St. Abel is a sock puppet.
The three constitutional amendments, combined with the rest of the bill, would potentially put EIGHT measures on a hastily assembled ballot in May, all of which are essentially must-pass or it's back to the drawing board.
I hate this fucking broken system.
...the only saving grace is Roy Ashburn invoking Reagan raising taxes in 1967 on the Senate floor and shoving it in the rest of the Yacht Party's faces. Didn't know he had it in him.
About, oh every 14 seconds, we here at Calitics mention the fact that Abel Maldonado is taking the state hostage. In fact, the email I sent out a few days back, said exactly that:
Call Senator Abel Maldanado (R-Monterey County, 916-651-4015) and tell him to give up his list of demands and end this hostage situation.
California's budget held hostage His demands have merit, but Sen. Abel Maldonado can't put politics above what's good for California. * * *
There was a point at which Maldonado's reform demands began to look suspiciously like his next campaign for controller rather than a moral stance for centrist pragmatism. Here's one not-very-promising campaign slogan: "I demanded reform. They wouldn't give it to me, so I sent your state over the cliff." We've seen that movie too, and we don't like the way it ends.
Of course, the Times didn't tell you to keep that phone ringing, but I will. If you haven't called him, please call Maldo,916-651-4015, and tell him to end the hostage situation. If you have, call him again, or you can also call his local offices. And if you are in the district, why not call both offices and send him an email too?
Among their finds, to be formally announced today, is the nearly intact skeleton of a Columbian mammoth -- named Zed by researchers -- a prize discovery because only bits and pieces of mammoths had previously been found in the tar pits.
OK, Dennis Hollingsworth's new name is Zed.
I was just on KPFA's Morning Show with former Assemblyman John Laird, and we'll have audio of that in a bit. But as we see the Yacht Party spiral ever more into neanderthalism, I want to make a couple points. First, Zed Hollingsworth is crazy but that's a matter of degree. Dave Cogdill wasn't exactly reasonable prior to becoming Minority Leader - I don't think he had ever voted for a budget before. In the world of the Yacht Party, actually doing something to move the state forward is the highest treason.
Second, it's truly amazing to witness the utter irrelevance of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Asm. Laird had the money quote today - "I never thought I'd be wishing for Pete Wilson again, but I am." Pete Wilson was a lawmaker. He actually cultivated relationships with Republicans, and through carrots and sticks actually persuaded them. The Yacht Party has grown more entrenched over the years, but Arnold governs by magazine cover and doesn't even really know who any of them are. He's not even in the Capitol today - he went home to Brentwood last night. The failure of the chief executive to have any power within his own party is a major driver in this crisis. We don't need an action hero, just someone who knows the least bit about government.
Short-term, we're still in the same place. Darrell Steinberg is "making them filibuster," keeping the Senate in the building overnight. The perpetual answer is that something will break in the next 24 hours. It's a dispiriting choice between a bad deal and insolvency, but the latter is unthinkable. Your list of calls is short.
Senator Abel Maldanado (R-Monterey County, 916-651-4015) Senator Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks, 916-651-4001)
UPDATE by Brian: Audio of Dave's appearance with John Laird on KPFA over the flip.
President Pro Tem Steinberg has brought the Senate into session but there's no breakthrough to report. Steinberg had a conversation with Dave Cox, who is seeing lots of his constituents in Sacramento County get pink slips today, and he is encouraged that something will get done today:
"We're going to get there today," Steinberg predicted. "I can't tell you exactly who (will vote for the budget package). We all know who the candidates are. ...Today has to be the day." [...]
Steinberg did not elaborate on his meeting with Cox, who was once thought to be the deciding vote but has since said he could not in good conscience vote for the tax increases.
"Dave and I have known each other for almost 20 years, and we have always had a good relationship," Steinberg said.
On Monday, Steinberg first said he would put up the tax bill at 10 a.m. this morning and keep the roll open -- for hours, if necessary -- to pressure the final vote.
"There are caucuses and conversations that led me to hold off until noon," he said.
Anthony Wright and John Myers at Capitol Notes are still Twittering from the chamber. Myers reports on a talk with the Governor's press secretary about Abel Maldonado's ransom note wish list:
McLear: guv willing to look at ways to "augment" budget deal if it gets the 2/3 vote... But won't comment on specifically adding Sen. Maldonado's requests... Guv does support, though, both proposals: open primary, legis pay.
I'm more and more convinced that Maldonado is the Governor's sock puppet. Arnold has been talking about the same "good government" reforms for quite a while, in particular open primaries. It's not that these reforms are completely nutty - no pay for lawmakers without a budget and no legislative pay or per diem raises in bad economic times is fine, I guess - but they are pointless compared to what is needed. Clearly making Yacht Party lawmakers feel bad or hitting their salaries isn't going to upend the anti-tax jihad. And the only definitive outcome of open primaries to this point is a confusingly long ballot and decreased participation, not automatic moderate candidates. These aren't germane, and they are just a way to hold up the process to extract more concessions.
You can read the letter that 20,000 state employees got today here. These are real lives that the Yacht Party is messing with. And they're wasting taxpayer dollars by delaying the process in about 10 different ways.
Thanks to everyone around the blogosphere linking to us in the past couple days as we report this out. In addition, I'll be on the Bay Area's KPFA morning show with Aimee Allison tomorrow at 7:00am to discuss the latest.
I've been trying to get confirmation on when a special election would take place if and when this horror show of a budget was to get passed. Well, the actual language in the budget bills (via Around The Capitol) states that the five ballot measures are being scheduled for a May 19, 2009 ballot. There would be Los Angeles city general election on that date for any seat that doesn't get a 50% +1 majority in the March 3 primaries, so with that large election already scheduled it makes a bit of sense. Still, that is fairly soon, and earlier than expected.
You can read and weep at the other bills here - actually 23 of them in the Senate and 22 in the Assembly have to pass to finish this budget deal.
Meanwhile, the New York Times has taken notice of the madness, which means people in LA might actually read about it.
The state of California - its deficits ballooning, its lawmakers intransigent and its governor apparently free of allies or influence - appears headed off the fiscal rails [...]
After negotiating nonstop from Saturday afternoon until late Sunday night on a series of budget bills that would have closed a projected $41 billion deficit, state lawmakers failed to get enough votes to close the deal and adjourned. They returned to the capital late Monday morning only to adjourn until the afternoon, though it was far from clear whether they would be able to reach a deal.
California has also lost access to much of the credit markets, nearly unheard of among state municipal bond issuers. Recently, Standard & Poor's downgraded the state's bond rating to the lowest in the nation.
This is something that's not clearly understood. We can't borrow money and that market will not snap back even if we pass a budget, especially since it hinges on must-pass initiatives that won't be resolved until May. And yet $11 billion of the budget is based on, yes, BORROWING.
By the way, Abel Maldonado's effort to get an "allow Abel Maldonado to be able to win a Republican primary" rider tossed into the bill takes major chutzpah.
Democrats, who had already given into Republicans' long-held dreams of large tax cuts for small businesses and for some of the entertainment industry and a proposed $10,000 tax break for first-time home buyers, balked at Mr. Maldonado's request that the legislature tuck a bill into the package that would allow voters to cross party lines in primary elections.
Mr. Maldonado, who is also seeking a constitutional amendment to prevent lawmakers from getting paid if budgets are late, defended his request that the open primary bill be included in the budget package.
"There needs to be good government reforms in this budget, and no member should be getting pet projects," he said. "I think with an open primary, we would have good government that would do the people's work."
While he's at it, why not a law making his votes count three times as much as any primary opponent? I mean we need good government reforms like that.
...CapAlert reports that Maldonado has a "list of demands" - open primaries, no pay for lawmakers any day after a late budget, bans on legislative pay raises and per diem increases in down years, and "cutting out the pork" in the budget, which is just a revival of his nonsensical John Chiang feud. In other words, Maldonado wants some populist notches on his belt, and he wants the laws of the state tipped in the direction of his statewide electoral prospects. This part made me laugh out loud:
He wants an open primary system similar to those used by local governments in which the top two vote-getters regardless of party run in the general election. The system is said to favor moderate candidates, such as himself, rather than encourage primary hopefuls to woo voters at their party's extremes. He acknowledged he plans to run for statewide office, but sold the open primary as more of a "good government reform."
Um, yeah, Abel, if you are making up LISTS OF DEMANDS as a condition for your vote, the last thing I'd call you is "moderate".
The Senate is now scheduled for a floor session at 6pm, depending on how much tissue is needed to keep Maldonado from crying.
...John Myers has audio of Abel's demands. Amusing to hear him not deny that these demands are entirely based on his desire to run for State Controller, coincidentally against his new feuding partner John Chiang, in 2010, and act like he's some kind of good government independent voice ("What are the Republicans afraid of from an open primary?") in the process.
I just want to thank Don Perata for threatening every Democrat out of Maldonado's re-election last fall.
There hadn't been that much to actually do about the budget mess. Personally, I've seen as many cute web videos as I can take. This is from today's BearFlagBlue (thank you Sean):
Budget details are beginning to emerge and more rumors of a vote on Friday are floating around...but will it pass?
With Cogdill noncommittal, Correa a likely no, and Maldonado at least right now a definite no, there does not seem a strong change that the bill has the votes to pass the Senate.
The result of that is likely on Friday, the Governor firing 20,000 state employees. High stakes if Maldonado ends up being the deciding vote. In essence he will have put the lives of 20,000 state workers in turmoil over a petty dispute with Controller.
The GOP's latest excuse for why they just can't vote on the budget comes down to office furniture. The issue isn't taxes or spending caps at all according to them. What's important, is preventing Controller John Chiang from getting a new office chair...at all costs. 20,000 state employees be damned.
Seriously.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
And most specifically: what the hell is wrong with Abel Maldonado?
Your state Democratic party helped reelect this guy. He's being a bad, bad dog.
Ideas for better discipline for Abel Maldonado after the flip.
