With all of the cuts that Governor Brown has been making, at least he found one that isn't totally objectionable. He just announced that he'll be (insert bad pun here...killing, pulling the plug, ...) the new death row facility that Arnold had wanted to build:
Gov. Jerry Brown pulled the plug today on plans to construct a new housing facility for condemned inmates at San Quentin.
Brown said in a statement that he believes it would "be unconscionable to earmark $356 million for a new and improved death row while making severe cuts to education and programs that serve the most vulnerable among us." (SacBee)
Given our lack of actually putting anybody to death since the beginning of Gray Davis' administration, this probably makes a fair bit of fiscal sense. Of course, so would just ending the charade of a death penalty entirely, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards for now.
But with these targeted cuts, is Jerry Brown doing what Bill Lockyer has been suggesting by targetting projects and regions favored by Republican legislators? Earlier in the week he suggested doing just that:
State lawmakers who want an all-cuts budget because less government is better should get their wish starting with their own districts, state Treasurer Bill Lockyer said this morning.
Lockyer, visiting the Bay Area News Group-East Bay's editorial board, said that when these lawmakers - many of whom already serve the state's most recession-stricken areas - start hearing from their constituents about even deeper cutbacks in police and fire services, public schools and universities, social services and the like, they'll soon think the better of stonewalling a public vote on Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to extend current tax rates for five more years. (BayAreaNewsGroup)
Indeed, Senator Steinberg has echoed the sentiment. Of course, the question of cutting specific regions gets kind of tricky, and very dicey politically. I'm not saying it can't be done, but for now this is really all gamesmanship. Gamesmanship that probably should have started a few months ago, but that's neither here nor there.
Of course, on the flip side, Republican Senate Leader Dutton says that it is all the Democrats fault because they won't agree to the Republican plan. Oh right, I remember that night in November when hell froze over and the Republicans took a majority. The fact is that the Republicans are overplaying their hand, and eventually it has to have some ramifications for them.
Cutting into the budget for the death penalty is a good start, but it isn't going to really get to the heart of the matter. Unless we get some movement from the Republican legislators, the cuts are going to be coming directly from classrooms.
AKA California's Good Senator. Boxer is a reliable liberal in a senate full of utterly useless corporate centrists, and quite unafraid to make waves in the service of doing the right thing. In a career that has mostly been dominated by Republican control of the senate, Boxer has distinguished herself by pushing back against a decade of wingnuttery. By contrast, I knew about Fiorina's awful reputation in silicon valley a decade before she decided to make a vanity run for senate, just from techies I knew heaping scorn upon the CEO who drove HP into the ground and then walked away with millions. Thank goodness Boxer's a formidable campaigner, and Fiorina appears to be headed for the dusty place where all the gazillionaire right wing vanity candidates go after they lose, right next to Michael Huffington.
House of Representatives
CA-01 - Mike Thompson
Mike's generally a pretty good guy, and there have been no groaners like the credit card/bankruptcy bill. this time around. Mike's candidate-for-life in that district, but he does a good job representing his people, and I respect that.
CA-02 - Jim Reed
This district is so gerrymandered for Republicans it isn't funny, but I have to applaud Reed for making a serious hard run at the execrable Wally Herger, who isn't even bothering to campaign this time around, much less debate Reed.
CA-03 - Ami Bera
I am thrilled to see Democrats finally start to compete east of the Carquinez, and Bera is certainly giving Lungren a run for his money. As a once and possibly future denizen of the 3rd CD, I really hope Bera knocks off that right wing SoCal carpetbagger. The 80 corridor has changed, and deserves a good congressman.
Mimi Walters has something of a vanity campaign for treasurer up and rolling. She's not up for re-election to the senate this year, so why not take a free shot at the Treasurer's spot. It's a massive uphill climb against Bill Lockyer and the $10 million warchest that has been scaring everybody else away from ever challenging the guy. So why not?
The primary was a walk for Walters, so that didn't cost much, if anything. She's not really campaigning for the gig, and it seems the total of her campaign is a little bit of fundraising and a website. I recently got one of her google ads shown below:
Pretty standard stuff really. But, I'm interested to see what she has going on, so I click on over to her site. It's all really standard stuff. A little letter saying why she's running, Sacramento's broken, out of ideas, and all that. Not for nothing, but she's been in Sacramento for 8 years now.
Anyway, the part that really got me interested is this little nugget in the title bar of the website:
It seems Ms. Walters has her eyes set higher than just the Treasurer's chair. She's ready to take on Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman. Now, Walters has always been seen as something of a "rising-star" of the OC GOP world. She is fanatically conservative. Never met a tax cut she didn't love, or a social program she didn't think was either rife with "waste, fraud and abuse" or flat out wanted to see it eliminated and/or chopped to the bone.
Walters is charismatic enough, and if given the right set of circumstances could be an interesting statewide candidate. I thought she was looking at the treasurer's spot, but now we see she's got bigger eyes than that. Keep your eyes on MimiWalters.com, she's got some big plans for that space.
One of the great things about being a state senator with elections that come up during the presidential years is that you can have a few free bites of the apple at statewide office. Today, Mimi Walters announced that she will be taking advantage of that fact and running for state Treasurer against incumbent Bill Lockyer.
Now, I'm not saying that Mimi Walters doesn't think she can win, but I'm just saying that Mimi Walters can't win barring a Bill Lockyer implosion. At any rate, this is a very clever tactical move from Walters. She gets some statewide attention, and doesn't really have to raise all that much money. Let's face it, nobody is really going to give her any money to go up against Lockyer's $10 million warchest, but on the other side, she just might be able to coast off of Whitman's scraps to get some decent statewide attention.
I'm sure Walters has dropped some sort of preliminary poll, but my guess is that this is about building name ID. And, to be honest, as a fan of small d democracy, it's always good to see some sort of challenge for every statewide seat. And hey, maybe Lockyer will spend some of that warchest this year.
Treasurer Bill Lockyer has been going all around the nation to sell California debt. And suffice it to say he was not one bit pleased with the so-called prediction of debt default.
The state Treasurer's Office came down hard this afternoon on a prediction from California Lutheran University economists that the state could default on some of its debt, calling the warning "balderdash" that is "nothing more than irresponsible fear-mongering with no basis in reality, only roots in ignorance." (SacBee)
While some on Wall Street would prefer that the IOUs keep coming, it looks like they will end sooner rather than later. JP Morgan Chase, one of our "too big to fail" banks, has decided to step in to the fray and loan the state some cash to cover expenses for the next month.
Treasurer Bill Lockyer says JPMorgan Chase & Co. has agreed to lend California $1.5 billion as part of Controller John Chiang's plan to begin redeeming IOUs on Sept. 4.
The IOUs, which the cash-strapped state began issuing July 2 to pay many of its business vendors and other creditors, were supposed to mature Oct. 2. But Chiang said last week that the budget passed by the Legislature produced enough savings to allow for earlier redemption of the scrip -- provided the state could get a $1.5-billion short-term loan by Aug. 28. (LA Times 8/19/09)
The risk here for Chase is almost zero, so what ever interest they get should be set at some sort of reasonable cost. The state should begin issuing revenue anticipation notes soon, and Chase will then get its cash back. I suppose it must be nice to have a billion or two to loan out when the mood strikes you.
At any rate, the ending of the IOUs was getting critical for small business that contract with the state. They've been essentially financing the state during this round of the budget debacle, and these aren't really people that can afford to do that.
Treasurer Bill Lockeyer issued a written statement today, and you can practically hear the tone in his voice: (h/t John Myers)
"With every passing day, the State's credit rating moves closer and closer to the junk pile. If the Governor and Legislature dump us on that pile, they will end indefinitely the State's financial ability to build schools, highways, levees -- all the critical public works we need to rebuild California. If our credit rating sinks to junk status, the State will find the door to the infrastructure bond market locked shut.
"If we're denied the ability to sell bonds, financing for infrastructure projects will cease. It won't slow. It will stop. Many thousands of California workers will lose their jobs. Thousands of businesses will lose billions of dollars in revenue. At the precise moment our best economic recovery effort is most needed, we will fail.
Now, you would think this is an equal castigation of all parties. And I think that is the spirit in which it was intended. However, Lockyer did dip into Arnold's bag of tricks on the question of dealing with non-budgeting issues.
I ask them to stop devoting energy to any issue that does not directly relate to closing this year's budget gap without adding to out-year liabilities. Give Californians and the world a pleasant surprise, for once: Balance the budget now, and get back to the work of getting our state back to work.
Note to Lockyer: there are 120 legislators. About 10-20% of those legislators are tied up full-time with budget stuff. There are other serious issues that need to be dealt with, ignoring them doesn't make them any less real.
I've been wondering what the federal government plans to do if California really cannot pay our bills any more? Will they allow us to descend into further cuts to already bottom dwelling public services? Will we be forced into it by the Republican minority in the state Legislature? And more importantly, if we cannot come to an agreement, and we actually see the Republicans pull the trigger on the gun they have had to pointing at California for years, what will the feds do? Will there be a bailout? Must our state leaders crawl on glass or something to prove our desperate we really are?
Well, perhaps there is an indication in the situation with our revenue anticipation notes (RANs). There is indication that the feds might help out.
"We're going to need cash-flow borrowing the likes of which California has never seen, at a time when market and economic forces are stacked against us," said Tom Dresslar, spokesman for state Treasurer Bill Lockyer. "That's a recipe for calamity."
* * *
A spokesman for the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., confirmed that Lockyer had met with Frank in late March, and that Frank was in the process of drafting legislation designed to aid states and local governments with problems similar to California's.
"There is something in the works," said spokesman Steve Adamske, "and that should be drafted by the end of this month ... there are several ideas being considered."(SacBee 4/15/09)
RANs are the state's version of commercial paper. The money that the state needs to operate comes in unevenly throughout the year, so we have to sell bonds based upon our expected revenues. Usually it works quite smoothly, but because of the credit squeeze and our poor credit rating, things aren't expected to be as easy this summer.
So, we go a-calling on the feds to guarantee our loans or something else to get our credit moving. Perhaps this is revealing as to what will happen the next time we come a-calling. If the feds don't back us now, well, our day of reckoning will come sooner rather than later. If they do help us out, perhaps the pattern, co-dependent as it may be, will continue.
Either way, it is important that we get this loans, but the tea leaves aren't quite clear as to the future.
Now that you're truly titillated, allow me to explain. Today, Director of Finance Mike Genest and Treasurer Bill Lockyer meet to discuss the amount of money California can expect to receive from the federal stimulus package. The meeting is public and will begin at 10am. Some of our Twittering favorites like Anthony Wright and John Myers will be on hand.
Why is this important? Well, if you've been following things, at issue is the budget "trigger" that would be reached if the state meets a threshold of $10 billion dollars collected from the federal government that can offset General Fund spending. That trigger would reduce tax increases and eliminate some of the worst cuts from the budget deal in February. While there lurks the spectre of a continuing deficit for FY 2010, meaning that any cuts and taxes saved by the trigger would just increase that deficit, the consequences of particularly these cuts are very real as well. They are almost all focused on health care for the very neediest members of society. The aforementioned Anthony Wright explains:
As the chart shows, the list of Medi-Cal benefits to cut share one striking characteristic: elimination of these benefits is not cost-effective and instead is likely to cost the state more to provide care to the same population. For example, the elimination of optometry services means that Medi-Cal beneficiaries will go to ophthalmologists.
The elimination of podiatry means more expensive and less expert care from physicians. The elimination of incontinence creams and washes will lead to Stage 3 and 4 bedsores---bedsores that would be reportable as adverse events or "never events" if they occurred in a hospital. But because they will happen to persons with disabilities trying to live in the community, they will result in the institutionalization of those who could otherwise have remained in the community. Penny-wise and pound-foolish does not begin to describe these cuts.
Those cuts could be entirely offset by the massive corporate tax cut which could go as high as $1.5 billion dollars a year, so I suggest the legislature look elsewhere for their pound of flesh. Not to mention that a failure to get the most out of the stimulus funds would do a disservice to the state. It is unacceptable at this critical time that any money gets left back in Washington. And the tools are in place to cross the $10 billion dollar trigger point, as The California Budget Project has ably shown.
It sets up to be an interesting meeting, as the Treasurer has not made many public comments about the trigger, while Finance Director Genest's reports show the state falling short by $2 billion dollars. Thanks to the poor drafting of this provision, there's no telling the outcome if Lockyer and Genest disagree. Don't expect a resolution today - the participants have two weeks before a final solution.
Yesterday, the California Assembly and Senate held a rare joint legislative session to hear from California's economic experts on the state of California's economy. Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Controller John Chiang, Department of Finance Director Mike Genest, and Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor gave a remarkably uniform presentation that urged immediate action and politically tough compromise.
"If you act now, the cash situation is manageable, unless it gets worse, and I've already said it will," Genest explained with a slight slip of the tongue that was perhaps even more accurate than intended.
"The faster you act the easier it will be for you to fix your problem," Taylor added.
Over the next two years, current estimates project that California faces a $28 billion budget hole, and all sides are willing to acknowledge that's likely an underestimate. Moreover, the Legislative Analyst's Office anticipates huge operating deficits above $20 billion per year through 2014. Lobbying in Washington, D.C. will hopefully reduce our federal tax dollar imbalance, but the complete solution requires bold action in Sacramento as well.
Shane Goldmacher of the SacBee got a sniff of a letter between Assemblyman, Senator, Attorney General Treasurer Bill Lockyer and Governor Schwarzenegger. Apparently Lockyer is really steamed over Arnold's veto of SB 1293 and SB 1221. While 1221 did have some Republican opposition, not a single Legislator opposed SB 1293, and there was no major organization opposed. SB 1221 dealt with financing for health facilities, and SB 1293 dealt with the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985. Thrilling to be sure, but both were reasonable measures that should have been signed.
So why the veto? Lockyer apparently thinks Arnold didn't actually look at the bill because of the self-imposed time crunch. You know, the time crunch that Arnold manufactured to get a budget, only to back down b/c he wanted a revised HSR prop.
But guess what? I looked this up, and apparently the Legislature can override a veto from the governor. Dave pointed this out a few days ago, but I've now confirmed it. It's true, it even says so on the Legislature's website. It takes a 2/3 vote. Since SB 1293 had unanimous support, let's get in there and do it.
And while we're paying a few extra bucks for per diems and the like, how about we override a few more head-scratchers from the Governor. The list is abundant. If you have one, post it in the comments.
This is the idea that Sen. Dean Florez included in a letter sent to Treasurer Bill Lockyer. The two now plan on bringing the idea to the two largest pension funds in the country: CalPERS and CalSTRS. From the Bee:
Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, has proposed that the California Public Employees' Retirement System purchase the state's looming debt. The money would keep California operating - including paying state employee payroll and funding schools - into next year.
Florez outlined the plan in a letter to state Treasurer Bill Lockyer on Friday. Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar on Monday said his boss will also float the idea to the California State Teachers' Retirement System. Lockyer sits on the boards of both funds.(SacBee 10/7/08)
With the market still in the tank and below 10,000, and the credit markets still extremely tight, our long budget feud didn't make things easy. We need to sell these revenue anticipation notes (RANs) or we won't be able to pay our bills. It is that simple. Having CalPERS and CalSTRS do that seems a reasonable idea, save one minor catch.
Both pension plans have a fiduciary duty first to their clients, that is those whose money they hold. Both have lost substantial sums of money over the last 3-4 months, and so both are probably very nervous about their investments. Now, the legislature and governor could get some legislation requiring the purchase of the RANs, but barring that, CalPERS must do what is in the best interest of their shareholders. Or, as the Bee gets an investment guy to tell them:
It's possible that the funds will take a pass, said Keith Brainard, research director for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.
"If the state can't borrow money from the credit markets, why would CalPERS be interested?" Brainard said.
Yup, that's where it is folks. Welcome to the Aftereffects of the Bush Legacy, where even California pensions don't want our debt. You'll be seeing these effects for a while. If this ploy doesn't work, it looks like Schwarzenegger will have to go to DC, hat in hand, for $7 Billion. Oh, and the Feds are going to get back to us any day on that. Just keep holding your breath, Governor.
I've been attending the convention (my first state convention, actually), and the one thing that really struck me is how much more excitement is being paid to the Carole Migden-Mark Leno race than to the presidential election, likely a reflection of the audience. The convention naturally attracts activists, who know about the intricacies of that senate race and Migden's $9 million fine, especially because the convention is in San Jose, very close to Senate District 3. Others have focused on the dynamics of the race and the hijacks at the convention, but the sheer resources that are being expended at the convention, both by Migden and Leno, and by other potential candidates for office, and I have to wonder--why bother?
(brilliant ideas - promoted by Robert in Monterey)
In a recent report in the Bee, CA State Treasurer Bill Lockyer brainstorms ways to balance the state budget, including a suggestion that that we consider cutting the UC system off of all public funds, and having "public" universities raise their own funds by - you guessed it - raising student fees. As if the state hasn't already kicked students in the gut repeatedly by jacking up tuition and fees, turning our public universities into de facto private institutions.
This from the same "Democrat" who proudly said he voted for Schwarzeneggar for the recall in 2003. And a graduate of UC Berkeley in 1965, back when tuition was so low as to be nearly free. But I guess those were different times, eh Bill?
But in a sense, Lockyer is right despite himself. The state infrastructure is woefully underfunded and underbuilt, given our growing population. We've got a 25 million person infrastructure in a 37 million person state, and we're headed towards 50 million in the decades to come. Yet his proposals largely suck. So what else could we do, since we're in modest proposal mode?
A few stories of interest that I wanted to pass along:
Chris Lehane and the Fair Election Reform Group are calling for an investigation into the funding of the Dirty Tricks Initiative. Lehane and others allege possible violations of federal election law.
The Humane Society is gathering signatures for an initiative to regulate factory farming practices. "The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act provides basic protections requiring that animals be able to turn around and extend their limbs. It will prevent the use of inhumane factory farming practices such as keeping animals confined in small crates or cages—specifically, veal crates for calves, battery cages for egg-laying hens, and gestation crates for breeding pigs."
State Treasurer Bill Lockyer has some ideas for balancing the budget. According to Bill, they are just ideas and he doesn't necessarily endorse them. Good thing, too, because one of his "ideas" is totally cutting off the UC system from state money. Brilliant idea, there. You know what else we could do? Charge the kiddos for public school, that would free up billions!
LA might need to pass a replacement phone utility tax if the current law is struck down in court.Villaraigosa is trying to get the measure declared an "emergency" to allow passage with a simpple majority.
LGBT organizations across the country are decrying Speaker Pelosi's decision to exclude the transgendered from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I've heard that the Speaker, and her staff, have been getting in earful here in the district as well. Almost all organizations are standing together saying that they will not leave part of the community behind, except, that is, the Human Rights Campaign. I guess they need some achievements to justify that building they own by Capitol Hill. Too bad any passage of ENDA without the entire community would be a complete sell-out of those who they were supposed to represent.
Of the things you fight, you'd assume that money for children in foster care would be pretty low on your battle list. But, the Assembly Senate Republicans fight to make sure not one more dime goes to those damn kids. I mean, they've got enough already, those dern foster care rich kids
Their uneasy coexistence with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger now at the lowest point in his tenure, Republican state lawmakers are rebelling in increasingly public ways over administration efforts both big and small.
GOP state senators refused Thursday to sign off on the administration's request to pay for cost overruns in the state's foster care system. Republican objections to Schwarzenegger's proposed budget for the coming fiscal year all but guarantee that the state will miss its Saturday deadline for putting a new spending plan in place.[(LA Times 6/29/07) ]
Oh, you mean foster kids aren't rich? Oh...right. So, the GOP finally realizes that Arnold has sold them out, or well, at least he wasn't who they expected him to be. Welcome to the club Mr. Villines Ackerman, I think Bill Lockyer is waiting for you at Table 2.
So, let me start this out with a caveat, I've been, well, less than a Bill Lockyer fan after he said he voted for Arnold in the recall. Either he believed the hype, disliked Bustamante (well, he's not alone there), or a combination of both. And what's with announcing that you voted for a Republican?
That being said, BuyCaliforniaBonds.com is a genuinely cool idea. It's scheduled for wider release when bonds go up for sale in about a week, but here's what they have up there now:
California voters have approved more than $60 billion of bonds to construct schools, roads, housing, parks, flood protection and other crucial infrastructure projects. Over the next few years, the state will be selling these voter-authorized bonds to investors to raise the money to build these projects. The state pays the principal and interest on the bonds, known as general obligation (GO) bonds, from the state's general fund.
State GO bonds historically have been purchased by both individual investors and sophisticated "institutional investors" such as insurance companies and mutual funds. Individual investors, however, often have found it difficult to buy the bonds and to purchase them on the same terms as large institutional investors. State Treasurer Bill Lockyer wants to make it easier for individual Californians to invest in their own future by buying the state's bonds. Buy California Bonds will be the site to visit to learn about California bonds and how to acquire them. Our next general obligation bond sale is scheduled for late June. Come back to this site on June 11 to learn more.
Hey, that's today, so we might learn more soon, but as I understand it, this site is just an advertising component and they won't be actually selling the bonds there. But, I think that they will be making the bonds available to individuals before institutional investors, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the traditional arrangement. Now, these bonds aren't exactly an IPO and won't make anybody rich, but this is a cool move by Senator, Atty General Treasurer Bill Lockyer.
You see, this is one thing that governments back in the day knew. If you are going to float debt, better to a) float it at home and b) get the citizens involved in their government. So, like say the old Liberty Bonds in the WWII days. They got people to understand the shared sense of sacrifice. This is a good idea to be brought back, so that people understand the issues of debt financing. It's clear that Californians aren't really comfortable with the workings of the government, so why not reach out in tangible ways, like this bond issue, to help reconnect government to its citizens. Good work, Treasurer Lockyer.
I figured this might be a nice thing to share, since a lot of people don't know some of the downticket races and props so much... again these are my views, and not that of Calitics.
Hi everybody, so I filled out my absentee ballot and already sent it in, it's the only way to fly in Oakland since our know nothing Elections Supervisor bought a bunch of Sequoia systems fraud machines despite popular outcry... anyway here's how I voted:
Partisan Offices - statewide
---- Governor - Phil Angelides Lt. Governor - John Garamendi Secretary of State - Debra Bowen State Controller - John Chiang State Treasurer - Bill Lockyer Attorney General - Jerry Brown Insurance Commisioner - Cruz Bustamente (with waffling) United States Senate - (blank) or Diane Feinstein (see below) United States Representative - Barbara Lee State Assembley - Sandre Swanson Judges - re-elect
Statewide propositions. Proposition 1A-NO! Propositions 1B-1E Yes. Proposition 83 - NO!! Proposition 84 - Yes Proposition 85 - FUCK NO!!! Proposition 86 - Yes Proposition 87 - HELL YES! Proposition 88 - No Proposition 89 - YES YES YES! HELL YES!! Proposition 90 - NO!
---
City of Oakland
--- Measure M - yes Measure N - YES! Measure O - YES YES YES!
I see this as pretty good news. In most of the races there is a strong don't know category. Most of the state's independent voters will typically break for the Democrat. So, a tied poll is probably a good thing for the Democrat. McClintock, who has a one point lead, is ahead based on name recognition from the Recall. I'm guessing 42% is pretty much his ceiling. He's pretty darn conservative, too conservative for this state.
Now, I'm not totally in love with the LA Times polls, they seem to poll to the right. For example, the 13 point lead for Westly in the primary was an LA Times poll. Their track record ain't so hot.
One other point, the Times also came out with their governor's poll. It has a 17-point lead for Arnold at 50-33. As I said, this polls to the Right. But quite frankly 33% is a wildly low number for a Democrat in this state, even an unpopular Dem. However, if Angelides doesn't pick up some steam soon, there is a bit of a danger of turnout hurting Dem candidates.
