Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) was talking to colleagues about extending the same proposal to other job-producing projects, possibly including sports facility projects in Sacramento, Santa Clara and San Diego, as well as renewable energy developments.
Anschutz Entertainment Group sought the special treatment after a competing stadium proposal in the City of Industry won an environmental waiver from the Legislature in 2009. Its backers argue that it deserves special treatment because it would create tens of thousands of jobs.
I've see articles (obviously from the right) claiming that Calirfornia is dominated by "Green Jihadis" and its destroying the economy. Usually these articles call for the reform (mostly removal) of California's environmental laws and link the 12% unemployment as justification. But based on what's happening above are the Democrats coming around to that line? Do they see a link between enivornment and unemployment here? Or are they desperate enough for votes in 2012 since California's economy has barely nudged and the Democrats have a full sweep of state government?
The Chamber of Commerce is pretty cool with a dysfunctional government. They don't want laws to pass, and lord knows they don't want to have to pay for a damn thing, even when they are responsible for those costs. Take Prop 26, it would require that fees that are related to the industries on which they are imposed be passed by a 2/3 majority. And, as we know, it's not like any Republicans are going to vote for anything that brings in revenue to the state, no matter how reasonable or tied to the industry.
So these numbers shouldn't surprise anybody. Who is fighting these measures, members of industries that push their costs off on to the state. Chevron? Yeah, they're staying out of Prop 23, but they are up to their necks in this one. And look at that, the adult beverage industry seems to be very excited about this measure. Why's that, do you think? Oh, could it be that the costs associated with drunk driving are also pushed off onto the state?
Prop 26 would be a disaster for the state, but wonderful for these companies bottom lines. We better hope that the voters see through this naked power grab.
UPDATE: I should point out that the Yes on 26 campaign shares an account with No on 25. So, this money is also going to defeat majority vote on budget.
A post was made on Calitics on February 28th concerning Lt. Governor Candidate Janice Hanh's proposal to "lay off private contractors rather than lay off city workers." A case was made then that it was a mistake to throw private contractors under the bus without regard to the fiscal impact to the City of Los Angeles. Now the CEO of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, in an article published recently in CityWatch with the heading Being Attacked Under Another Name, roundly criticizes Candidate Hahn and attempts to teach her a thing or two about the impact of her suggestion.
From the article...
In Los Angeles, some members of the L.A. City Council are also taking advantage of the "name" ruse. During last month's debate over the city's unsustainable budget, Councilmember Janice Hahn told a packed room that "It's time for us to lay off private contractors and keep our city workers!" Councilmember Paul Koretz also wants the city's independent contractors to take a 10 percent across-the-board cut before any layoffs of city workers.
If you go to the website for the US Chamber of Commerce (USCOC), America's "voice of business" that claims to represent the interests of over 3 million businesses, it feels like you've found the site for a right wing advocacy group. There are clips from FOX News (that aren't making fun of them), attacks on healthcare and financial regulatory reform, and links to Wall Street Journal op-eds claiming that America has more to fear from the political influence of labor unions than from corporations with annual profits in the billions. The implication is clear -- American businesses have right wing values.
However, this assertion was challenged in 2009 when USCOC announced its opposition to attempts by the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. USCOC said that doing so would "strangle the economy", called for a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" as if human-caused climate change was yet to be proven, and threatened to sue the EPA if it decided to act without holding the trial. In response, Nike resigned from USCOC's board of directors, and major companies like Apple, Pacific Gas and Electric, PNM Resources and Exelon left USCOC completely.
It turns out that when it comes to climate change, US businesses aren't so conservative after all. That's why a group like American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) is so important. And if you own a business and believe the US should be doing more to fight climate change and help support the clean energy economy (which is creating jobs at 2.5 times the rate as the rest of the economy), you should seriously consider joining ABCE.
ABCE represents over 2,500 businesses of all shapes and sizes, including big companies like Gap Inc. and Warner Music Group as well as small local businesses from Al's Painting in Ann Arbor, MI to Zoey's Pizza in Manchester, NH. You don't need to be a business that focuses on green products or services to join -- all are welcome. There are no fees or dues to pay, no meetings to attend, no further obligations, and ABCE will not engage in any lobbying on your behalf. You don't need to resign from any other business coalitions. All you have to do to join is visit ABCE's website and enter some basic information about your business.
That's it. You're done. But you will have done something incredibly important.
I mentioned this yesterday, but California lawmakers gave final approval to a bill that would ban the practice of rescission, where insurance companies drop coverage for policyholders after they try to use it based on alleged technical inaccuracies in their application form. Here's what AB2 would do:
AB 2 would require:
• Individual health care service plans to be subject to an independent external review before denying or rescinding coverage.
• The state to establish standard information and health-history questions to be used on policy applications.
• That intentional misrepresentation be shown before an individual health care service plan can be rescinded.
This language basically complies with what would appear in federal legislation before Congress banning rescission.
Now Arnold Schwarzenegger has a choice to make. Does he side with people who are denied coverage after paying premiums for years? Or does he side with his usual pals in the Chamber of Commerce who will push for anything, no matter how immoral, to maximize profits?
Everyone should know that Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill to this last year. He's always been a Chamber of Commerce sock-puppet and I don't expect him to change now. However, Schwarzenegger has been an alleged proponent of health care reform at the national level, and in a recent letter endorsed the concept of guaranteed issue of insurance, which obviously conflicts with allowing insurers to rescind policies. He also supports continued state regulation of the insurance industry.
Well, here's his chance. The Legislature has acted to ban what I call insurer-assisted suicide, and Arnold can make his decision by either signing the bill or vetoing it.
The California Chamber of Commerce and 33 other business groups have basically stuck a knife in the Parsky Commission with a coalition letter opposing most of the tax reforms proposed. I'm sure they'd still love to see a flat income tax and the elimination of corporate taxes, but since they have basically refused all revenue-raisers in this document, that won't happen.
The coalition doesn't like removing Proposition 13's property tax limits from business property and a proposed new "carbon tax," both of which have been promoted by the tax commission's liberal bloc. But it also is warning about the potentially negative effects of a "net business receipts tax," similar to a European-style value-added tax, that commission chairman Gerald Parsky champions [...]
"The California business community has consistently stated that the solution to California's revenue problems will only come from robust economic growth and job creation," said today's letter to Parsky. "We believe the proposed split roll property tax and the energy tax would be extremely detrimental to California's economy. As for the business net receipts tax, we believe it is risky and inappropriate to move forward with dramatic changes to the tax structure without first fully vetting their impact on California jobs and the economy."
The only way for the Parsky Commission to get an up-or-down vote for its recommendations is by making the package revenue-neutral. The CalChamber document opposes all of the tax hikes while saying nothing about the reductions. California Democrats can be squishy, but not squishy enough to eliminate corporate taxes in exchange for nothing. Sen. Steinberg never agreed to bring the commission recommendations to a vote in the first place. And without an offset, they will never see the light of day.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chamber of Commerce. Even in the unlikely even that the legislature ignores this letter and passes some plan including split-roll or a carbon tax or a business net receipts tax, there's no way the Governor signs it. The Parsky Commission is dead.
And I'm not really shedding a tear for it. Forcing a revenue-neutral standard on how to fix the tax structure inevitably was going to shift the tax burden from the rich, who have the clout to shield themselves from the predations of lawmakers, to the middle and lower classes, who don't. The very structure was flawed, and the reforms sought of a lesser order than being able to properly fund government according to the wishes of the majority.
So we can move on to the next challenge. Calbuzz has a good scene-setter on that, referring to something that Jean Ross mentioned in our Netroots Nation panel last week. California Forward's reform package may include, as a condition of repealing the 2/3 rule for passing a budget (and only the budget), a raising of the threshold to 2/3 for mitigation fees on businesses, which may extend to fees on alcohol, oil production and "anything else that carries a nexus to a public problem." In other words, while the budget would require a majority vote, revenue (which is 1/2 of a budget) would be subject to an even higher standard than it is now, and the legislature would be constrained in their ability to respond to the impact of corporate actions that harm the public good. Actually it could go even further than that:
But Chairman Bob (Hertzberg) insists it would be a mistake to focus only on Sinclair as the key to business support for CF reforms. The only way some of the conservatives and business people on CF would "even consider" allowing 50% to pass the budget is if there's a whole panoply of budget reforms - pay-as-you-go provisions, controls on one-time expenditures, two-year budgeting, performance reviews, sunset provisions AND limits on what can pass with 50% as a "fee," he said.
But will liberals - on CF and in the Legislature - agree to circumscribe their current authority to impost fees with a majority vote? Will they agree that there has to be a "clear nexus" between charges allocated to a polluter or manufacturer of polluty stuff?
As Jean Ross puts it, ever so succinctly, "California Forward?" I concur.
So while we appear to have sidestepped the Parsky Commission (for now), California Backward's set of "reforms" still lurk in the distance.
Last week, Robert Cruickshank offered the special election advocates some pretty good advice - focus on Prop. 1C, which covers 83% of the short-term budget hole that can be gained from the passage of the ballot measures, because the state party approved it, because it's the only measure that matters in the near term, and because they need to focus their energies, since very little good is likely to come of the election at this point. Of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger controls the Budget Reform Now Campaign. And he has shown himself to be completely indifferent to the short-term needs of the state in favor of writing a long-term, right-wing spending cap into the state Constitution. Because instead of abandoning all the other measures in favor of 1C, Budget Reform Now has jettisoned everything in favor of 1A & 1B. I saw this ad a couple days ago, out of nowhere, and Budget Reform Now dropped it without a press release. The ad tries to use the 2005 special election imagery which killed Arnold's Prop. 76 (substantially the same proposal) in favor of this spending cap, with the firefighter warning of "$16 billion in cuts" without bothering to mention that those "cuts," really lost revenues, would be two years off. And the new "Yes on 1A and 1B" logo makes an appearance.
I think we can finally figure out what Arnold Schwarzenegger wants from this election. He could care less about the $6 billion in short-term budget solutions - but his corporate partners want that spending cap, and his new pals in the CTA want their out-of-court settlement locked in (it would've cost them less just to take the Governor to court for falsely calculating Prop. 98 revenues, with more of a chance of winning). So all this talk about how we have to vote Yes or the budget hole will grow deeper was a ruse. The Governor clearly supports the deeper budget deficit, or at least he could give a crap with coming up with a solution. He and his Chamber of Commerce puppet masters want that cap. They have wanted it for four years. Anyone lining up with these interests should understand what they really support. Good job, Democratic leadership.
The Governor is "restarting" budget talks today. Of course, "restarting" should read "using the same failed process that cannot possibly be successful." The Governor vetoed the only game in town because he's controlled by strings held by the Chamber of Commerce, who suddenly looked favorably on the virtues of bankrupting the state, and Arnold had to follow. The SacBee ed board puts it more judiciously.
Democrats agreed to a 2 percent cut in welfare grants, and some, but not all, of the environmental exemptions. They also have insisted that the governor first negotiate with unions before attempting to furlough state employees and eliminate some paid holidays.
In an interview and op-ed in The Bee Tuesday, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg suggested the deal blew up not because of policy differences, but because of political pressure placed on Schwarzenegger. Steinberg says the governor got "cold feet" over the Democrats' plan to raise taxes and fees through a majority vote.
There may be some truth to this. On Tuesday, the California Chamber of Commerce issued a statement urging the governor to veto the Democrats' plan, saying it included "unconstitutional and discriminatory tax increases." Since the chamber is one of the governor's few political allies, their stern opposition to increasing taxes by a simple majority vote may well have led Schwarzenegger to backpedal.
The ed board goes on to criticize Democratic leaders for not wanting to cut enough. You know, I thought a mid-year budget deal was designed to fix the budget for the current fiscal year. If we have two-year budget cycles now, it's news to me. I understand the logic of a two-year cycle, but the desire to fill an 18-month gap in January puzzles me and seems designed to further more draconian cuts.
And the continued ignoring of the elephant in the room and casting this as a failure of both sides to compromise is truly absurd. There has been nothing but compromise coming from the Democrats, not just now but for years. "Bipartisanship" has always meant "do whatever Republicans want" to the Very Serious Media. George Skelton today is lamenting the loss of Leon Panetta, as if a guy telling lawmakers they should have more drinks together is the answer to every problem the state faces.
This isn't rocket science. Lawmakers aren't allowed to do their jobs. We elect a representative government along majority votes, and them load them down with rules that prevent majority rule. It doesn't take a genius - or even Leon Panetta! - to fix that. Just an acknowledgement of the problem.
(Incidentally, a judge threw out the lawsuit from the Howard Jarvis crowd attempting to rule the work-around budget unconstitutional, since it was vetoed and therefore not germane. If it comes to such a work-around again, however, expect more lawsuits.)
I'm down at San Francisco City Hall for a special meeting of the Rules Committee to consider putting the San Francisco Clean Energy Act on the Novermber 2008 ballot. The act would:
Establish San Francisco as a green leader in the movement from fossil fuels with a mandate for 100% clean, renewable energy by 2040
Make a smart investment in Green Collar workforce development
Tim Redmond goes more in-depth at the SFBG. Clearly, relying on PG&E guarantees that they will focusing on greenwashing instead of renewables, profits over safety, and we'll continue to have their lack of investment in infrastructure result in explosions and flying manhole covers while their fossil fuel reliance contributes to climate change.
Last summer, the northwest passage opened up. This summer the North Pole may not even be covered in ice. The time for bold action is now, yet the Chamber of Commerce and PG&E are already trying to scare people with made-up numbers to protect their profits.
As I wrote the other day, the California Chamber of Commerce has come out with their annual list of "job-killer" bills. The list only targets bills by Democrats, and the bills are all acts that would help the people of California by improving the environment, worker wage and safety, public health, etc.
The California Chamber of commerce is a lobbying association. They represent their members: businesses, many of which are large corporations. This is about private greed vs. the public good. The Chamber's job is to convince the legislature to pass laws that enrich the owners of the corporations that fund them. Nothing more, nothing less.
If that involves convincing the public of something, then they do that. Hence the label "job killer."
(Congratulations to Asm. Dave Jones for winning the annual "Job Killer" Sweepstakes. Jones leads the pack with 4 bills on the list of bills that protect workers and Californians. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The California Chamber of Commerce has released its annual list of what it calls "job-killer bills."
Why is it that the Chamber's job-killer bills hit-list seems to only target Democrats? Not a single targeted bill belongs to a Republican. "Bad bills", like those designed to protect public health, climate concerns or consumer rights legislation, are all authored by Democrats. The chamber has always been a lobbying organization, but it has gotten so bad that the Chamber seems to have devolved into little more than just one more fear-mongering Republican Party front group.
I'll let folks draw their own conclusions and pick their own fights for the most part, but I thought this poll (link changed to pdf of Field Poll) was pretty interesting (favorable/unfavorable/net):
California Nurses Association/Nurses: 53/15/+35
California Hospital Assn./Hospitals: 33/30/+3
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: 40/40/0
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez: 20/29/-8
Chamber of Commerce/Business Groups: 25/36/-11
News Media: 28/46/-18%
Republican State Legislative Leaders: 22/48/-26
Health Insurance Companies: 16/55/-39
I will throw a few rather obvious ones out along with one that may be less so. One- people don't care much for politicians. Two- they care even less for the media, which is interesting as the media keeps cutting back on news coverage. Three- they HATE insurance companies, which makes me wonder why anyone keeps trying to keep them in the equation.
Also, CNA's numbers are pretty darn impressive. Some of that is that people just like nurses I would imagine. But average Californian on the street, if they have an actual opinion of CNA proper, it's likely to be an opinion on single-payer. Which makes me think that, given the opportunity, people might be pretty supportive of single-payer.
It may be hard to remember, but last fall the state had not one but two special sessions. The first, on health care, ended with the rejection of the flawed mandate proposal ABX1 1. The second, on water, appeared to have also ended in acrimony, as Republicans insisted on $3 billion for new dams that Democrats were unwilling to support.
PCL has recently gotten an Insider scoop that the California Chamber of Commerce is pressuring both U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to endorse its environmentally-devastating $11.69 billion water bond initiative.
The bond, which the Chamber hopes to place on the November 2008 ballot, is strongly opposed by environmental groups throughout California for its potential effects on the state's natural resources. The bond would:
--Include $3.5 billion explicitly for dam construction, plus billions more that could be used for dams on California rivers.
--Establish a dangerous new "water commission" empowered to fund and build a peripheral canal and divert massive amounts of water from the Sacramento River around the imperiled California Bay-Delta Estuary for large-scale corporate agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley and sprawl development in Southern California. (Over-pumping of water from the Delta during the past eight years has already contributed to the collapse of the Delta ecosystem, including plummeting salmon and other fish populations.)
--Eliminate public and legislative oversight and leave the fate of the Delta and Northern California rivers in the hands of politically appointed bureaucrats likely to have strong ties to special interests in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.
The Chamber's push is seen by many as an end-run around the Governor's own Delta Vision process, which has brought together stakeholders from the environmental, business, water, agricultural, and Delta communities.
That plan, which would eliminate badly needed oversight protections and saddle the state with $760 million a year in bond service costs, is bad enough. But over the weekend the PCL reported at the California Progress Report that bond supporters are now trying to do an end run around voters, as the state Department of Water Resources is now arguing that it is not bound by the 1982 rejection of the Peripheral Canal by voters:
According to a recent budget change proposal submitted to the state Legislature, DWR intends to start preparing to build a new "Alternative Delta Conveyance" facility, which would divert water directly from the Sacramento River before it enters the Delta, sending it directly to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California....
Under its proposal, DWR would revive studies and update construction plans that it abandoned in 1982 after voters overwhelmingly rejected its "Peripheral Canal" proposal in a statewide referendum due to fears that such a facility would result in more Northern California water exported to the ever-growing south state, and that the Delta would be left as a saltwater lake rather than a true estuary.
The budget request from DWR follows a recent letter sent to Assemblywoman Wolk (D-Davis) by DWR Director Lester Snow, stating that according to DWR's analysis, DWR has the authority to build a peripheral canal without legislative or voter approval.
It's not often that I get to praise any Chamber of Commerce. Sure, occasionally the LA and SF locals do something right, but it's not an everday occurence. I mean, usually I'm blasting them for their ridiculous "Job Killer List." But, as I'm a believer in reinforcing positive action, I'll point out the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce's good deed. Yesterday, they signed on to Levi Strauss' amicus brief in favor of marriage equality for the pending CA Supreme Court case:
Support of marriage rights for gays and lesbians is "consistent with our organization's advocacy of policies that are inclusive and contribute to business' ability to attract and retain a diverse, talented workforce," Steve Falk, the chamber's chief executive, said in a statement this week. (SF Chron 11.24.2007)
There always has been a strong case for marriage equality from both the left and the right. Andrew Sullivan has made a pretty nice living, in fact, selling the conservative argument for marriage. Of course, the SF Chamber has always been something of an outlier on social issues, and it's not clear that this really has anything to do with the "conservative argument" for marriage. But, props to the SF Chamber and Levi Strauss for saying what needs to be said.
All written arguments have now been filed in the case, but a hearing date has not been scheduled.
To the tune of 12 for 12. 12 Vetoes for 12 Good Bills. That kind of record would make even the Colorado Rockies smile. And it's sure making the Cal Chamber of Commerce smile.
In recent years, the chamber has focused much of its lobbying firepower on an annual list of "job killer" bills. This year, Schwarzenegger complied with 12 out of 12 chamber requests for vetoes on those bills. In 2006, he vetoed nine of 11 bills that the chamber listed as job killers.
"The chamber has had more success than most in getting vetoes," said Steve Blackledge, legislative director for the California Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocate. "They draw a bright line in the sand and say, 'These bills have to be stopped.' They've got the governor as their backstop."(LAT 10/16/07)
During Schwarzenegger's special election, the California Nurses Association received a great deal of attention for aggressive politics after Ahnold talked of "kicking their butts." This year is no different with the nurses taking aggressive tactics to the battle for Proposition 89 - The Clean Money and Fair Elections act.
How aggressive? Well how many initiative campaigns get reviewed by the industry website All Hip Hop?
Now CNA is (literally) rolling out six mobile phone bank buses, with 24 lines a piece and wrapped in signage. This will allow the ability to drive to hospitals for shift changes and let nurses easily phone bank before or after shifts.
