The movement to save higher education is building momentum on the streets and on the Internet.
Californians understand the stakes. Over the past ten years, fee increases and painful budget cuts have undermined a system of higher education that was once the envy of the nation. These cuts in college programs and increases in fees are creating an ever-higher barrier to a quality education at exactly the moment when we should be investing in this proven economic engine.
The numbers speak for themselves. For every dollar invested in higher education, California nets $3 in return. Investing in higher education is the smartest choice California can, and should, make right now to jumpstart our economy.
For months, students – as well as faculty and community leaders – have been marching and holding rallies to make their voices heard. On March 22, nearly 5,000 students from San Diego to Sonoma marched to the Capitol steps in Sacramento, demanding solutions to save higher education.
For the first time in California's history, our state government spent more money on prisons than higher education.
It's a shocking figure - but not a surprising one when you consider that it now costs more to send a criminal to prison than a student to Harvard. Because we are now spending so much on failed prisons, we can't invest sufficient funds to create affordable colleges and universities.
Tuition at our public universities has skyrocketed as much as 30% nationwide - just as students are forced to endure budget cuts, slashed enrollment, impossible waitlists and reduced course offerings.
My own parents worked as janitors their whole lives so that I could be the first in my family to go to college. I know firsthand that the true spirit of California opportunity and optimism is nurtured in great schools, not failed prisons.
That is why I am fighting to fund California colleges and universities by requiring Big Oil to pay their fair share for the oil they pump out of our state's land and water. California can no longer afford to be the only major oil-producing state that doesn't levy such a fee. Texas, for instance, generates $400 million for higher education through a similar fee.
My bill, AB 656, would raise up to $2 billion a year for the UC, CSU and community colleges with a 12.5 percent tax on oil extracted within California. That's considerably less than the 25-percent tax levied in Sarah Palin's Alaska.
The oil companies will tell you that they already pay enough taxes and that this bill will result in jobs lost. Yet oil companies have been experiencing record breaking profits for the past several years. Exxon Mobile, for instance, raked in a $45.2 billion profit in 2008, the most ever by a publicly-traded U.S. company.
More money for higher education means more classes and more financial aid for more students.
Making sure students receive a quality education is the key to our future and to public safety. A quality education grants people invaluable tools to succeed. With 60% of inmates functionally illiterate, education is the best strategy to rehabilitate criminals and to empower people with the tools to succeed.
The fight to save higher education won't be easy. And AB 656 is a simple and fair solution to funding our universities and colleges in California. Please join me and thousands of other concerned Californians in fighting for higher education at www.facebook.com/FairTuition, and sign the petition here: www.AlbertoTorrico.com/Fair-Share-for-Fair-Tuition.
Back in 2007, former Assembly member Sally Lieber (D-Mountain View) wrote a Sentencing Commission bill, AB 160. You can read an analysis of that bill here. Like the current proposal, it had teeth. It didn't give the Legislature ratification authority. It had wide support of progressives, but not much support from either the Governor or from the Senate. In fact, on the Senate, it got only 10 votes, mostly from progressives like Carole Migden and Shiela Kuehl, but, somewhat suprisingly, also from moderates like Sen. Ron Calderon. Good on you Sen. Calderon.
On the Assembly side, it got 43 votes, including many members who are now protesting the inclusion of a Sentencing Commission today. For example, Asms. Huffman, Ma, Nava, Torrico all voted for the bill. For his part, the other AG candidate, Asm. Ted Lieu apparently was against solid prison reform back in 2007 too.
Now, turn the calendar a few years forward, to about last week. Basically many in the current Assembly Democratic caucus are walking away from a bill they ALREADY supported.
I'm not sure how at least two of these folks square their past votes with their public positions today. Take Asm. Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara), who voted for AB 160 in 2007:
"You essentially would be contracting out your duties as a legislator,"Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, said of the Senate-passed plan. (SacBee 8/25/09)
Or from Asm. Torrico (D-Newark), who also voted for AB 160:
"The notion that the Legislature would not be required to vote on a sentencing commission proposal, I just think it's real problematic," Torrico said. (LA Times)
I don't want to give Asm. Lieu a pass here, as he is also stonewalling good policy here. Yet, how is that removing sentencing from the Legislature was good in 2007 but not today when the crisis is far more acute?
Could it be that this time it actually has a chance of succeeding? Back in 2007, Asm. Lieber's bill didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting through the Senate, let alone to be signed by Governor Toughie McActionStar. It is only today, with the very real possibility of this actually going into law that these legislators are balking at voting for real prison reform.
Sorry, but that smacks of the cynicism that has plagued Sacramento for so long. It is this cynicism that is why our prisons are under a slew of federal court orders and we can't manage our house. Blame it on fear of the prison guard's union (CCPOA) or the "law and order" vote or what you will, but the fact is that we need real reform that will allow our prisons to get back to the business for which they were intended: keeping California safe.
If it plays in Kansas, it can play here. It just requires leaders who are willing to stand up for their own values and for the voters who put them there. This should be past the point of politics now. I know, it's probably not possible for the Republicans, but I expect more from our Democratic Legislators. Do the right thing for our state and your political fortunes will follow.
Today, Chief Privacy Officer at Facebook Chris Kelly announced an exploratory committee for the race for California Attorney General. He joins a field that includes Assemblymembers Ted Lieu, Pedro Nava and Alberto Torrico; San Francisco DA Kamala Harris, and Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. In his statement, which you can find at his website, Kelly talked about efficienct and effective government, Internet safety, proper training and equipment for law enforcement, and stopping trafficking. The words "prisons," "jails," "corrections" or "parole" was not mentioned.
Our prison system is a mess. We have the highest recidivism rate in the country, mostly because 2/3 of our prisoners returning to jail go there because of technical violations of their parole. This turns jails into giant holding pens instead of areas for rehabilitation and treatment, as well as colleges for nonviolent offenders on how to get involved in violent crime. The overstuffed prisons cost more money to staff and service as they become more dangerous, leading to the state spending more on incarceration than higher education. Despite all this spending, conditions in the prisons are medieval, with the ACLU proposing the closure of the LA County Men's Central Jail. Prison officials are discussing release of 8,000 nonviolent and terminally ill offenders, but that's a drop in the bucket. We also have denied prisoners their Constitutional right to health care, and have a federal receiver now remedying that situation, taking it out of the hands of the legislature. The "tough on crime" mantra that has ruled the thinking of both parties on this issue has utterly and completely failed.
And yet, our Attorney General candidates and our gubernatorial candidates view this absolute crisis as just another check on their list, instead of the serious problem it is. Gavin Newsom didn't bring it up in his speech, though I did ask him about it in the blogger meeting afterwards. He talked about how we need a re-entry strategy better than the failed parole system, and cited some re-entry reforms in San Francisco that have helped matters. And he stated that having the courts step in to fix the problem presents an opportunity for real reform. With respect to the drug war, which lies at the heart of this, he expressed his support for drug courts and mental health courts and the kind of options that wouldn't consign nonviolent offenders to the rigors of overcrowded prison life when they need medical treatment. And he vowed to have more detailed programs available soon. But when it counted, on stage, he said nothing. Jerry Brown did tackle the issue, but his non-stop fight against the prison health care receiver and sensible steps like Prop. 5 destroy any credibility he may have had on the issue.
I have appreciated Greg Lucas' interviews with some of the candidates in the Attorney General's race, and I have paid particular attention to their views on the prison crisis. (over)
For some reason, Attorney General has become the most coveted job in California. I'm counting EIGHT Democratic candidates either announcing or strongly hinting toward announcing for the primary. There's Kamala Harris and Ted Lieu and Alberto Torrico and Pedro Nava and Joe Canciamilla and Rocky Delgadillo among the announced. There's Chris Kelly, the chief privacy officer for Facebook (the website that keeps trying to invade your privacy), hinting at an announcement. And now my city councilman Bobby Shriver is talking about getting in.
Bobby Shriver, the nephew of President John F. Kennedy and the brother of California first lady Maria Shriver, is mulling a run for state attorney general next year, according to his political adviser [...]
"There's been a wide variety of people who have come to him and who he has used as a sounding board to talk about the job of attorney general and the role it takes, the profile it has in terms of moving California forward," said Harvey Englander, a Democratic political strategist who managed both of Shriver's successful runs for Santa Monica City Council.
Englander, who described himself as "very close" to Shriver, called the role of California's top cop "a very powerful position" and one that is "closest to fitting his profile."
I should say that Shriver is not seen as a progressive ally on the city council. The Santa Monica Democratic Club did not endorse him in his run for re-election, and nor did Santa Monica for Renter's Rights. I wouldn't say he's been terrible on the council, but he doesn't have a grassroots base. He has been quite good throughout his career on environmental issues, and his vote to reject the proposed Toll Road through the Trestles while on the state parks board earned him removal from his brother-in-law, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In such a crowded field, his name may help with low-information voters. It will not help, according to other campaigns in the race with winning the overall primary:
As for Shriver, with whom (Torrico campaign consultant Phil) Giarrizzo said he has worked on environmental issues, "he's a talented, bright, articulate person, but we've seen many times, in the sense that 'he's a Kennedy,' that people look to accomplishment, they look to a record," Giarrizzo said. Primary voters tend to be very discerning, he noted, and "it doesn't work that you can just pass along a family name; he will have to run on his own merits ... a level of experience he'll have to communicate. I don't think we look at him as 'a Kennedy' - I think we look at him as Bobby Shriver, an activist and city councilman."
I would look to leadership in assessing these candidates. You have Ted Lieu traveling to Washington to meet with Administration officials and get them to raise the threshold on homeowners underwater in their homes eligible for help from the Obama housing plan. You have Alberto Torrico trying to get oil companies to actually pay for the natural resources they take out of our ground. And of course, there are the key issues that will face the next Attorney General, particularly in ending the prison crisis through responsible leadership instead of insane "tough on crime" policies that fail our state. I don't much care for names and profiles as much as I do leadership.
It was hard to follow what was in and out of the budget in those final hours, but as it turned out, the oil severance tax, which at some point was part of the negotiations, ended up out of it. So we remain the only oil-producing state in the country to not charge corporations for taking our natural resources out of the ground. Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico is trying to change that by introducing a bill that would tax oil companies and use the proceeds to fund higher education. This was first reported on John Myers' Twitter feed, but now California Chronicle has a full report.
With California spending almost as much incarcerating inmates in prisons as it does educating students in higher education, Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico introduced legislation today to expand funding for community colleges, the California State University and University of California.
"California is on the wrong track heading in the wrong direction," Majority Leader Torrico said. "Our prisons are overflowing and yet we are turning away students at our universities. The Master Plan for Higher Education is becoming a distant memory. This is not a sustainable path for California. We must invest more in higher education. It is a solid down payment on our economic future."
The recently passed state budget contained a 10 percent across the board cut for the UC and CSU systems and reductions for community colleges.
The increased funding from the bill, AB 656, would be derived from a severance tax on oil extracted within California. California, the third-largest oil producing state in the country, is the only state where oil is extracted without a tax.
"My bill will bring California in line with more than 20 other oil-extracting states," Torrico said. "When other states are charging over 12 percent from multi-billion dollar oil companies, we should be doing more to receive funds for our natural resources."
While I'd rather put the money into the General Fund rather than a specific sector, I can't imagine a more rational and simple idea. Nevertheless, I'm sure the Yacht Party will try to block it, as they did successfully last year. That can be a useful vote for the future ("Which side are you on, students or the oil companies"), but it does nothing to move us forward. Only by ending the conservative veto can common-sense solutions like this help California progress.
So the Governor kicks sand in the face of the entire state Legislature, vetoing 130-odd bills with the same generic "Sorry, I couldn't persuade any Republicans on the budget so now you will pay" message, including some which were passed out unanimously, and the leadership's response is not "Time to override" but... "Oh yeah, well just try that again!"
Of course, the governor has always made it clear he prefers campaigning to governing. That has to change if we have any hope of solving California's challenges. The people of California deserve better than constant campaign mode. The people of California deserve better than staged fights for the cameras.
I'm willing to look past all this and hope we can see a new start. Part of that should involve the new bipartisan blue-ribbon commission I've been pursuing to look at tax modernization and two year budgeting and other potential solutions to California's chronic fiscal crises. The governor has been supportive of that effort, and it's a good place for us to move forward from.
I will also be asking Assembly members to reintroduce all the blanket-veto bills and will expedite their passage so the governor can have a second chance to act responsibly on them.
That is weak from Karen Bass. There is absolutely no reason not to go back into a lame-duck session in November after the elections and get this done. Otherwise you are enabling a bully. At least some lawmakers get this:
Assembly Majority Floor Leader Alberto Torrico vowed today to push for a bipartisan legislative backlash against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger by overturning many of his recent vetoes.
"We're all very frustrated, both Democrats and Republicans," the Fremont Democrat said at a news conference this morning. "I don't think there's going to be any problem attaining the votes for an override." [...]
Torrico said that when the Legislature reconvenes in January, he will push for overriding vetoes of both Democratic and Republican bills that received two-thirds support in the Legislature. Dozens of bills could qualify, he said.
Torrico said that he had not yet discussed the idea at length with legislative leadership, but "I think that's going to be the first order of business upon our return."
Sadly, Torrico doesn't know what he's talking about. The bills expire at the end of the legislative session and cannot be taken up in January.
Just leaves you brimming with confidence, doesn't it?
Instead of just stamping your feet and talking tough, this is a perfect opportunity for action. Go back to work before November 30 and override these vetoes.
