With the LG spot vacant now, and Arnold Schwarzenegger making a trip to the Middle East, including a stop to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg is acting Governor. So, I'd thought I would go ahead and list a few ideas that he might want to try on for size. So, here we go:
Officially rename the Horseshoe the Hall of Muscles.
The top of Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg's website proudly proclaims "Representing the Capital Region." However, it is clear from the massive opposition to his water legislation package from a growing chorus of Sacramento regional governments and a grassroots uprising by his constituents that Steinberg in no way "represents" the Capital Region, but is instead beholden by outside corporate interests that care nothing about the Sacramento Delta, its fish and its people.
Last night, the Senate passed Steinberg's SB 7X 1 and the corresponding water package bond to clear the path for building the peripheral canal and creating a Delta Stewardship Council that will extend the hand of Governor Schwarzenegger over California's water policy for years to come. The Governor appears to be obsessed with building the peripheral canal as a lasting monument to his "manhood" and monstrous ego - and Steinberg is the Democratic point man that Schwarzenegger is using to achieve his goal.
Today the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) slammed Steinberg for sponsoring a water legislation package that promotes the construction of a peripheral canal and fails to protect Sacramento area residents and business.
"Despite repeated promises made in private meetings, email correspondence and public statements, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg failed to protect the 1.3 million residents and businesses sewer customers served by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) in his water legislation package," according to a news release from SRCSD.
"The District's ask was simple: ensure that any changes required of SRCSD's wastewater treatment operation as a result of the construction and operation of the peripheral canal be paid for by those who benefit from the canal," SRCSD stated. "Without express protection from the impacts of the proposed peripheral canal, SRCSD's ratepayers will likely see their monthly sewer bills double or even triple. For residential customers that may be an extra $1,000 per year, for our largest industrial customers it will total millions."
The Pro Tem's office promoted the fact that he had agreed to ensure such protection was in the legislation, as reported by the Sacramento Bee on October 10 and October 30. Not until Sunday evening, November 1, did that language appear in print in one of the water bills, according to SRCSD. The very next day a different version of the bill - one that did not include the protection language - was pushed forward and approved by the Senate.
"We feel like we were simply being strung along," said Mary Snyder, SRCSD District Engineer. "We held off on our opposition and advocacy efforts because we trusted Senator Steinberg and believed he would uphold his promise. We were wrong."
"SRCSD now joins the very large chorus of Sacramento regional interests who oppose this water package," SRCSD stated. "The region's opposition has been unfairly and inaccurately characterized as 'north vs. south' mentality. Our goal is not to stop a water deal - it is to make sure the deal is not crafted at this region's expense."
SRCSD criticized Steinberg's legislation for backing the peripheral canal and threatening local water rights and land use authority.
"The reality is that this water package - the proposed peripheral canal, the threat to our water rights and supplies, and the loss of local land use authority - will irreparably impact and damage the Sacramento region," SRCSD said. "As it now stands, the Sacramento region not only will end up paying its share of the 'statewide' solution, but will be forced to pick up the tab for the additional impacts to this region that those who benefit from the peripheral canal or other 'fix' are not forced to pay for. There is a reason that not one Sacramento regional entity supports this water package: it does nothing to ensure that we will not be saddled with unmitigated impacts and a disproportionate burden."
The water package is opposed by a diverse and growing coalition of organizations including the Sierra Club California, Planning and Conservation League, Friends of the River, Butte Environmental Council, Restore the Delta, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), California Striped Bass Association, Clean Water Action, the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Center for Biological Diversity, Northern California River Watch, the Public Trust Alliance and the Environmental Protection Information Center. The package is also opposed by major labor unions including the California Teachers Association and SEIU.
Unfortunately, corporate environmental organizations including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and Nature Conservancy are supporting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Darrell Steinberg's plans to build a peripheral canal, an enormously expensive government boondoggle that would likely result in the extinction of collapsing Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations.
It is clear that Darrell Steinberg cares nothing about the needs of his constituents. He is a corporate Democrat who is now serving as the shameless "water boy" for the Metropolitan Water District, Westlands Water District and other corporate interests.
The top of Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg's website proudly proclaims "Representing the Capital Region." However, it is clear from the massive opposition to his water legislation package from a growing chorus of Sacramento regional governments and a grassroots uprising by his constituents that Steinberg in no way "represents" the Capital Region, but is instead beholden by outside corporate interests that care nothing about the Sacramento Delta, its fish and its people.
Last night, the Senate passed Steinberg's SB 7X 1 and the corresponding water package bond to clear the path for building the peripheral canal and creating a Delta Stewardship Council that will extend the hand of Governor Schwarzenegger over California's water policy for years to come. The Governor appears to be obsessed with building the peripheral canal as a lasting monument to his "manhood" and monstrous ego - and Steinberg is the Democratic point man that Schwarzenegger is using to achieve his goal.
Today the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) slammed Steinberg for sponsoring a water legislation package that promotes the construction of a peripheral canal and fails to protect Sacramento area residents and business.
"Despite repeated promises made in private meetings, email correspondence and public statements, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg failed to protect the 1.3 million residents and businesses sewer customers served by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) in his water legislation package," according to a news release from SRCSD.
"The District's ask was simple: ensure that any changes required of SRCSD's wastewater treatment operation as a result of the construction and operation of the peripheral canal be paid for by those who benefit from the canal," SRCSD stated. "Without express protection from the impacts of the proposed peripheral canal, SRCSD's ratepayers will likely see their monthly sewer bills double or even triple. For residential customers that may be an extra $1,000 per year, for our largest industrial customers it will total millions."
The Pro Tem's office promoted the fact that he had agreed to ensure such protection was in the legislation, as reported by the Sacramento Bee on October 10 and October 30. Not until Sunday evening, November 1, did that language appear in print in one of the water bills, according to SRCSD. The very next day a different version of the bill - one that did not include the protection language - was pushed forward and approved by the Senate.
"We feel like we were simply being strung along," said Mary Snyder, SRCSD District Engineer. "We held off on our opposition and advocacy efforts because we trusted Senator Steinberg and believed he would uphold his promise. We were wrong."
"SRCSD now joins the very large chorus of Sacramento regional interests who oppose this water package," SRCSD stated. "The region's opposition has been unfairly and inaccurately characterized as 'north vs. south' mentality. Our goal is not to stop a water deal - it is to make sure the deal is not crafted at this region's expense."
SRCSD criticized Steinberg's legislation for backing the peripheral canal and threatening local water rights and land use authority.
"The reality is that this water package - the proposed peripheral canal, the threat to our water rights and supplies, and the loss of local land use authority - will irreparably impact and damage the Sacramento region," SRCSD said. "As it now stands, the Sacramento region not only will end up paying its share of the 'statewide' solution, but will be forced to pick up the tab for the additional impacts to this region that those who benefit from the peripheral canal or other 'fix' are not forced to pay for. There is a reason that not one Sacramento regional entity supports this water package: it does nothing to ensure that we will not be saddled with unmitigated impacts and a disproportionate burden."
The water package is opposed by a diverse and growing coalition of organizations including the Sierra Club California, Planning and Conservation League, Friends of the River, Butte Environmental Council, Restore the Delta, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), California Striped Bass Association, Clean Water Action, the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Center for Biological Diversity, Northern California River Watch, the Public Trust Alliance and the Environmental Protection Information Center. The package is also opposed by major labor unions including the California Teachers Association and SEIU.
Unfortunately, corporate environmental organizations including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and Nature Conservancy are supporting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Darrell Steinberg's plans to build a peripheral canal, an enormously expensive government boondoggle that would likely result in the extinction of collapsing Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations.
It is clear that Darrell Steinberg cares nothing about the needs of his constituents. He is a corporate Democrat who is now serving as the shameless "water boy" for the Metropolitan Water District, Westlands Water District and other corporate interests.
If you want to know more about what we should really be doing regarding water in California, you need to read Mato Ska here, here, here<>/a>, or here. I want to talk about the politics. That is beginning to splinter over more than North / South, Valley / Coast or even the widening gap between Democrats and Republicans.
In a letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 23, Congressman Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton) criticized plans to build a peripheral canal and the exclusion of input from Delta residents in the current Delta/water bill package now being considered by the California legislature.
The letter reiterates the Congressman's plan to "closely monitor' initiatives that require federal participation and his concern about any proposals that lay groundwork for a peripheral canal.
"I am deeply concerned by initiatives that may be intended to lay the groundwork for a canal that diverts additional fresh water from the San Joaquin Delta," said Jerry McNerney. "Such a canal would further erode water quality for several million people. A canal and related proposals are expected to threaten jobs by turning family farms into uninhabitable salty marshlands and could raise water rates by decreasing the supply of clean water for families and businesses in the San Joaquin Delta area."
He emphasized, "Public health and economic opportunity in Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, and other San Joaquin Delta communities should not be sacrificed in pursuit of expensive and counterproductive water projects. I will oppose federal support for water proposals that threaten the millions of people that call the San Joaquin Delta home."
The letter urges the Governor to take into account input from the families, farmers and businesses that live in the communities surrounding the San Joaquin Delta as these changes as considered. A broad coalition of Delta counties and cities, farmers, fishermen, Indian Tribes, conservationists and environmental justice have repeatedly criticized the Governor and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg for crafting the legislative water package in back door negotiations without in put from Delta communities.
"Drought conditions are a serious concern in California, and federal, state, and local partners should work together to provide relief," said McNerney. "Efforts to improve water supplies in drought-affected areas, however, must also protect clean water availability for the four million people living in the counties that are most directly dependent on the San Joaquin Delta. I am honored to represent hardworking families in Contra Costa County and San Joaquin County - two of the five "Delta Counties" - and we are committed to working with you to advance effective water solutions. However, the voices of families, farmers, and businesses in San Joaquin Delta communities must be heard as federal and state collaborative processes advance."
Delta representatives were barred from preview of the water package last week by Senate President Pro tem Darrell Steinberg and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"With the aid of his sidekick, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, Governor Schwarzenegger's Chief of Staff Susan Kennedy has brought in one-by-one individual water agencies and other organizations, all from outside of the Delta, to negotiate what each individual groups wants to see in the water package," said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta. "And by bringing in corporate environmental organizations into the negotiations process, such the Nature Conservancy, NRDC, and the Environmental Defense Fund, which all stand to benefit financially either from the bond package itself or from continued funding from pro-peripheral canal foundations or corporations like Bechtel, the Governor and Senate President have given themselves green cover for policies that will turn the Delta into a stagnant saltwater marsh."
The current water policy and bond package before the Legislature doesn't specifically authorize the construction of a peripheral canal, but provides a road map for its construction. The legislation authorizes the creation of a Delta Stewardship Council composed of four of the Governor's appointees, two legislative appointees, and one representative from the Delta. The Governor supports the construction of a canal and more dams, so his appointees would be expected to do so also.
For example, Steinberg's SB1 (7th Extraordinary Session) - Public Resources Bill does not expressly authorize a Peripheral Canal or new surface storage. However, it does have specific provisions that facilitate construction of new conveyance and storage, including 85304: "The Delta Plan shall promote options for new and improved infrastructure relating to the water conveyance in the Delta, storage systems, and for the operation of both to achieve the coequal goals."
This letter to the Governor comes on the heels of Congressman McNerney calling on Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to "actively solicit input" from the residents who live in the San Joaquin Delta area and ensure their seat at the table as any federal proposals on the Delta are considered.
The text of the letter to Governor Schwarzenegger is below:
October 23, 2009
The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
As California legislators and agencies evaluate significant changes to water policy in our state, I am writing to bring your attention to matters of federal concern. Initiatives to improve water quality and availability in California are dependent upon coordination by federal, state, and local agencies. I will closely monitor any actions, particularly those that require federal participation, and will continue to insist that water proposals provide benefit to families, farmers, and businesses in the counties encompassing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Drought conditions are a serious concern in California, and federal, state, and local partners should work together to provide relief. Efforts to improve water supplies in drought-affected areas, however, must also protect clean water availability for the four million people living in the counties that are most directly dependent on the San Joaquin Delta. I am honored to represent hardworking families in Contra Costa County and San Joaquin County - two of the five "Delta Counties" - and we are committed to working with you to advance effective water solutions. However, the voices of families, farmers, and businesses in San Joaquin Delta communities must be heard as federal and state collaborative processes advance.
I am deeply concerned by initiatives that may be intended to lay the groundwork for a canal that diverts additional fresh water from the San Joaquin Delta. Such a canal would further erode water quality for several million people. A canal and related proposals are expected to threaten jobs by turning family farms into uninhabitable salty marshlands and could raise water rates by decreasing the supply of clean water for families and businesses in the San Joaquin Delta area. Public health and economic opportunity in Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, and other San Joaquin Delta communities should not be sacrificed in pursuit of expensive and counterproductive water projects. I will oppose federal support for water proposals that threaten the millions of people that call the San Joaquin Delta home.
As you know, a Memorandum of Understanding for San Joaquin Delta projects was recently signed by the Department of the Interior and several other federal agencies. The memorandum pledges to develop a coordinated work plan for the San Joaquin Delta in consultation with state and local partners. I have requested that the Department of the Interior take into account feedback from residents of the San Joaquin Delta Counties, and I urge you to do the same. Together, I believe we can advance helpful solutions that benefit every region of California.
Thank you for your attention to this letter, and I look forward to your reply.
In the aftermath of the May 19 special election Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg claimed a mandate from voters to make cuts - and as he said, "cut we will."
As we've seen, that hasn't worked out so well for California. Our economy has worsened as government has contracted, leading to increased unemployment along with the financial and even physical distress that comes with reduced availability of health care services.
Perhaps Steinberg has learned from these mistakes, because in an article in today's Sac Bee, he says "I'm done cutting":
Steinberg said he's not at all happy he had to cast votes for cuts - and he added, "I'm done cutting."
"I feel very strongly," he said, "that we've gone beyond what is reasonable when it comes to cuts."
But he is, as [Marty] Omoto suggested, proud that he pushed for "surgical" cuts and that California government remains standing despite all the talk about the state being ungovernable.
California's government is like a punch-drunk boxer. Sure, it's standing, but not for much longer. The cuts Steinberg agreed to have weakened the state immensely, leaving us not only deeper in recession but making it unlikely we will see economic recovery anytime soon. Most employers and economists I've spoken to are convinced California will be among the last states in the country to recover from this recession.
That will exacerbate the looming budget crisis in 2011, when the combination of the expiration of the temporary tax increases approved in February and the borrowing gimmicks done in the last three budget deals come together to produce a budget deficit that could be as high as $20 billion - assuming the economy doesn't get any worse between now and then.
I'm glad to see Steinberg realizes we can't make any more cuts. It's time to embrace sensible, populist revenue solutions and become aggressive - even fearless - about selling them to the people of California.
Gov. Schwarzenegger's previous career had him as a man of action, who blew stuff up first and asked questions later. He didn't frequently negotiate detantes, save for settling a dispute or two in Kindergarten Cop. It's Not a Tumor!
So, perhaps that's why he isn't really that good at actually doing the job of being the Governor. On occasion it is important that you actually have the ability to talk the parties back off the ledge. But as the Governor is usually the one playing the brinksman's games, you can understand that negotiation isn't a skill he's refined too well.
And apparently Arnold was once again not up to the task yesterday as the Big 5 Meeting blew up when Sen. Hollingsworth brought out his ransom note.
A private meeting of legislative leaders and Gov. Schwarzenegger ended abruptly Tuesday amid bad blood between Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and his GOP counterpart, Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth of Murrieta.
*** *** ***
Earlier, Hollingsworth said he would not put up votes for the bills until Democrats agreed to a list of demands that were laid out by Russell Lowery, Hollingsworth's chief of staff, in an e-mail to senior Democratic staff on the morning of Sept. 11, the last day of the legislative session.
"Senator Hollingsworth and others were party to conversations where it was agreed that Ready Return and the homeowner's tax credit issues would be completed before the end of session," Lowery wrote in an e-mail to Steinberg's senior staff on the morning of the final day of the legislative year. "It is my hope that we might get some movement early on these issues in order to avoid a train wreck on some important two-thirds legislation at the end of session." Lowery also mentioned pending legislation providing home buyers with a tax credit.(CapWeekly 10/06/09)
Maybe he was just yelling at everybody to shut up, but he really should have learned his lesson on that particular method from the movies.
By the way, the words "Ready Return would be completed" doesn't mean that this solid program would be permanently funded or otherwise enacted into law, nope, this meant that Ready Return would be killed so that Intuit could make a few more bucks off of poor people. Intuit's role is California politics in the last few years has quite frankly, been disgusting. They have spread cash over politicians like Southern Pacific in the Hiram Johnson days, and held up the budget all to kill ReadyReturn, a program that would simplify tax returns for lower to middle class Californians with simple taxes. Of course, the hypocrisy of this coming from the Republicans, who claim to support tax simplification, would be funny had it not endangered the lives of many Californians. But I guess campaign cash is a more important value to these Republicans.
And Hollingsworth claimed to have had some agreement with Steinberg that these issues would be handled, a deal that Steinberg said never happen. Some would call that illegal vote trading. And, according to the article, apparently Speaker Bass suggested that his ransom note actually had nothing to do with the bills at issue.
Meanwhile, Arnold is still being Arnold, demanding a water deal by Friday or he'll veto all the bills. The deadline for his veto is Sunday, or the bills will automatically become law.
Just caught this press release by State Senator Lois Wolk, and my jaw dropped:
SACRAMENTO-Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) has withdrawn her authorship of Senate Bill 458 that would establish a Delta Conservancy. The action came in response to being notified by Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) that her legislation would be amended in a Conference Committee with provisions Senator Wolk and the five Delta counties opposed. Wolk has been replaced with Senators Steinberg and Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) as the authors of SB 458.
"When I learned that the Conference Committee intended to alter key provisions of the bill, as well as other pieces of the water package, it was clear I could no longer carry this legislation," said Senator Wolk. "What began as a sincere effort to create a state and local partnership to restore the Delta and sustain the Delta communities and economy is becoming, day by day, amendment by amendment, a tool to assist water exporters who are primarily responsible for the Delta's decline. It is regrettable. Without the Delta communities as working partners in this effort it is unlikely to succeed."
Despite the assumed end to the prison crisis, there's still no bill to clarify the $1.2 billion dollars in savings assumed from cuts in the July budget. The Assembly passed a bill that fell $200 million dollars short and had almost no prison reform in it (some parole reform, but no prison reform), and the Senate has yet to take that bill up. After word yesterday that the Senate would do so, Darrell Steinberg backed away from it, seeking to give more time to the Assembly to add more reform and more cuts into the bill. Because the bill only requires a majority vote, it takes effect 90 days after passage. Which means that every day with no bill costs the state $3.3 million dollars. This is the consequence of so-called fiscal conservatives in the Yacht Party, as well as their higher-office-seeking bretheren in the Assembly Democratic caucus, wanting to look tough on crime. As the State Worker notes, this delay is taking a daily hit on the savings gained from furloughs:
Here's one way that furloughed state workers could look at this: The CDCR budget impasse is whittling away at savings from furloughs. If you take that $3.3 million and multiply it by the 70 days from July 1 through today, you realize the state has burned through $231 million.
A single furlough day cuts about $61 million from the state's payroll, although not all of that savings is in the general fund. (The rounded math: $2.2 billion divided by 36 furlough days in the fiscal year.) If you narrow it down to just salaries that the administration defines as being in the general fund, one furlough day equals about $35 million. (Double check our rounded numbers: $1.3 billion divided by the 36 furlough days.)
In other words, this budget-stalemate-in-miniature has squandered the equivalent of about four furlough days for everyone or nearly seven furlough days if you look only at general fund employees.
Other states have used smart on crime policies to reduce spending without any loss in public safety. They are taking new looks at non-violent offenders, relaxing draconian sentencing policies, targeting parole resources to those who need supervision and concurrently lowering recidivism rates through rehabilitation. Right now, California has the exact wrong set of policies on prisons.
In fact, California is nationally known "for having the most dysfunctional sentencing and parole system" in the country, according to Stanford University professor Joan Petersilia, a criminologist who has spent years working with state officials trying to implement reforms.
"We're too harsh and too lenient. Simultaneously," Petersilia said.
Our mix of tough laws and fixed terms doesn't give prison officials the flexibility to push low-risk offenders toward rehabilitation and keep dangerous criminals behind bars.
But reform efforts haven't gained public traction because we're too busy trying to keep people behind bars -- with Jessica's Law, Megan's Law, the three-strikes law -- to take a hard look at whether locking up more people actually makes us safer.
"The public doesn't understand how illogical the whole system has become," Petersilia said. "We think that somehow we've created something that is able to call out the most dangerous people, send them to prison and keep them in for a very long time.
"And the public is willing to pay whatever it takes to get that type of crime policy."
I disagree with the last sentence. The public is willing to be frightened into initiatives that do nothing for public safety and just spend money needlessly, because they've seen no leadership on the other side for an alternative conception of how to protect the public sensibly and best manage our cirminal justice system. Nobody has argued in public for a more intelligent system for so long, that the public willingness to believe in its possibility has atrophied. We can keep the lock-em-up policies or we can look to a better future. Either way, we're blowing $3 million a day while some Assembly Democrats go on a desperate search for their spines.
The Assembly's passage of a prison "reform" bill is not the end of the line for the legislation, as the Senate simply won't accept it in this form.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the reaction in the Senate to the Assembly's low calorie prison bill was muted. Senate Democrats certainly wouldn't have come out and said the plan stinks. But there's no official timetable on a reconciliation vote in the upper house, either.
The official response from Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg came in a written statement: "The Assembly took a good first step today but it's not a complete package. In the coming weeks, I look forward to working with (Assembly) Speaker Karen Bass and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on further reforms that will strengthen our criminal justice system."
The key phrase in that statement: "In the coming weeks." This one's not going to go away anytime soon.
The main reason is that the Assembly bill costs $233 million more to the overall budget than the Senate's, and that money simply does not exist. It'll eventually come out of the hides of other programs if allowed to let stand. And the Assembly Republicans and Democrats who help up the bill can then explain why it was necessary to keep terminally ill blind people in jail at the expense of children's health care or some other social program.
Steinberg expanded on his dissent from the Assembly bill today, calling the legislature's inability to pass the reforms based on cuts they already passed in July an example of the legislature's "culture of failure". I've been saying that for weeks.
Meanwhile, I'm hearing a lot of reactionaries taking the example of Phillip Garrido, the kidnapper of Jaycee Lee Dugard, and the fact that he only served 10 1/2 years of a 50-year kidnapping sentence in the 1970s, to argue for more stringent parole and prison laws in California. This is the typical Willie Horton-ing of any sane discourse on prison policy. Garrido was convicted of a FEDERAL crime, not a state crime. And that federal parole policy was abolished by 1987. It bears no application to this debate whatsoever, particularly since, under this policy, violent criminals would not be subject to release and would face more stringent parole supervision, as resources would be allocated to those who require it. The failure of parole officers to discover Garrido's deviance demands EXACTLY the kind of parole reform in both the Assembly and Senate bill, so officers have smaller caseloads and can focus on the most dangerous cases instead of returning nonviolent offenders to prison for technical violations.
Meanwhile, the Governor, even while promoting a real reform plan, wants to get a stay from federal judges on implementing the required reduction of 44,000 to the prison population, which even the Senate bill doesn't do. He plans to file an appeal with the US Supreme Court as well, and if the three-judge panel doesn't grant the stay, he'll ask the Supremes to do so.
Sacramento politicians are still in between the "denial" and "bargaining" stage in reacting to their immoral and unconstitutional handling of the prison crisis.
(Sen. Steinberg managed to push the prison package through, but we're waiting for some movement in the Assembly. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Four days after the passage of the historic prison reform package in the State Senate, it appears likely that the package must be amended if it has any chance of survival in the State Assembly.
Make no mistake about it - this is one of the toughest votes any lawmaker will have to make in his or her career. My boss, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, talks a little about that to the right.
Everyone agrees that the current system is unsustainable. Prison costs have spiraled out of control because of inmate overcrowding and growing medical costs. In Chino alone - where inmates rioted two weeks ago - there are 6,000 prisoners in a facility designed to accommodate 3,000. And a federal judge is threatening to release over 40,000 prisoners if we don't enact common sense corrections reform soon.
What's more, the Legislature must make some adjustments to prison policy to implement the $1.2 billion in corrections cuts in the July revision. The reform package will result in savings of about $600 million; the other half can be implemented by the Governor on his own.
There really is no choice but to act. Last week 21 Democratic Senators did exactly that.
(I've been meaning to promote this for a couple of days. Confirmations don't always get the level of attention they should. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Low-income telephone customers won a brief reprieve last month, after the California Public Utilities Commission temporarily shelved a dangerous plan to gut the Universal Lifeline program. But the battle is far from over. While the AT&T backed plan is being "re-written" at the CPUC, the measure's sponsor - Commissioner Rachelle Chong - is up for a confirmation vote by the State Senate to a full six-year term. Yesterday, a diverse coalition of advocates went to Sacramento to lobby against Chong's re-appointment. Two residential hotel tenants from the Central City SRO Collaborative who were selected by their peers to go joined senior advocates, consumer groups, Latino leaders and faith based groups - to express strong opposition to a Commissioner who has disregarded the CPUC's mandate to protect consumers. After a grueling day at the State Capitol, we met with four of the five members of the Senate Rules Committee - and all four of San Francisco's delegation in the legislature. "I'm impressed," said State Senator Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), after we told him who else we had met with that day. "I can't even get a meeting with four of my colleagues in one day."
The short-term fights are starting to be VERY short-term. Following up on an earlier item, Democrats in the legislature plan to hold a vote on prison reform as early as Thursday, that would clarify $1.2 billion dollars in cuts. And they don't need any Republican votes to do it.
Over objections from Republican lawmakers, the Legislature plans to take up a majority-vote prison package Thursday that is designed to reduce the state's inmate population by 27,300 and is backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The overall package would save $1.2 billion in part by reducing certain property crimes to misdemeanors, placing low-level parolees on global positioning system monitoring and sending older, infirm prisoners to house arrest or medical facilities to serve the final 12 months of their sentences.
The initial plan included an independent sentencing commission that could report back on changes to the runaway sentencing laws at the heart of the prison crisis. I don't see that mentioned in this article, or anywhere else. Hopefully that remains part of the solution. And like the rest, lawmakers can enact it on a majority-vote basis (which means that the solutions wouldn't take effect for 90 days). Darrell Steinberg reiterated his support today.
"I'm confident we'll have the votes," said Steinberg, who will caucus with Democrats tomorrow
Steinberg said the Senate would vote on the governor's plan, but with slight modifications to clarify which elderly and infirm inmates could be eligible for alternative custody and release.
"The intent has never been to carte blanche release any inmates, elderly, infirm inmates," he said. "It never has been, but there has been some concern expressed, so we want to make sure that there are very tight criteria that would even allow for the possibility of allowing elderly and infirm inmates to be released."
I prefer the People's Budget Fix, which would stop putting nonviolent drug offenders in overcrowded prisons, focus on reducing recidivism through rehabilitation and treatment, institute risk-based parole supervision rather than blanket supervision that inevitably raises the rates of recidivism (often on technical violations of parole), and address the most ineffective areas of the criminal justice system - the burdensome, brutal three strikes law, and the death penalty. The People's Budget Fix coalition held a rally today. You can hear Leland Yee speaking about it here and here.
And I hope they keep fighting. I hope we have a sane criminal justice policy caucus in the legislature as a counterweight to the tough on crime troglodytes. But while the Democratic/Schwarzenegger package isn't perfect, but it's the first step in the right direction in 30 years. Particularly if the sentencing commission is included in the package, it will be historic and very important. We will finally end the long march of building more prisons and warehousing inmates without giving them the tools to actually rehabilitate themselves and become productive members of society, and toward a future where we spend less, create more productive citizens and actually make our state safer.
Yesterday, I asked who would step up and sue the Governor? Well today, CapAlert has a juicy little nugget in the issue of whether the line item vetoes were legal: Sen. Darrell Steinberg is planning on suing the Governor.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg is expected to announce at 1 p.m. today that he is suing the governor over his line-item veto cuts to the budget revision package. Though the news is still (officially) unconfirmed, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's spokesman Aaron McLear has already put out a response, saying the governor's constitutional authority to veto appropriations is "unquestioned and will be upheld by the courts."
For a lot of reasons, this makes sense. Beyond the painful cuts that these "blue pencil" marks made on the state, there is a question of checks and balances at issue here. If the legislature simply accepts these cuts, they are basically accepting this as a precedent. By challenging the vetoes, the Legislature puts their foot down and says that they believe these cuts were not valid under the Constitution.
The LA Times has more from Steinberg's press conference today:
Steinberg said he will file the lawsuit as an individual in San Francisco County Superior Court early next week and will tap political funds to pay for the legal challenge.
"We elected a governor, not an emperor," Steinberg said at a Capitol news conference. "In making these line-item vetoes the governor forced punishing cuts on children, the disabled and patients that he couldn't win fairly at the bargaining table. And in doing so, he overstepped his constitutional authority."
There's been quite a bit of confusion about whether or not the Governor was able to make line-item cuts in this budget. After all, it was a revision, not a budget agreement where spending appropriations are made. In those cases the Governor can make cuts, but this was a revision consisting of a series of cuts and fund shifts, and it's unclear whether the Governor can make additional cuts on top of cuts in a budget revision.
Craig Cornett, the Budget Director in the office of Darrell Steinberg, has sent out a letter to interested parties, which I've reproduced below. Cornett reiterates the argument that the revision do not constitute appropriations, and should not be subject to the line-item veto. This is particularly true with any appropriation reductions that passed with a simply majority vote, since a budget vote must have a 2/3 majority. Cornett offers the remedy here, but he confines it to the courts.
Should the Controller implement these vetoes, we suspect that some party that will be injured by the vetoes will file a lawsuit. Given the sweep of the reductions, this could come from any of a number of potential plaintiffs, such as children who will no longer have health insurance because of the reductions to Healthy Families Programs, battered women's shelters that will be threatened with closure because of elimination of funding for the Domestic Violence Program, AIDS prevention and treatment programs that will no longer receive state support because of the elimination of Office of AIDS funding, or counties that will see cuts to their Child Welfare Services or Medi-Cal administration funding.
What Cornett leaves out of this analysis is the ability for the Legislature to override the Governor's blue pencil edits. Obviously that is off the menu, as far as we know.
I don't think it would surprise anyone to see Schwarzenegger break the law to balance the budget - so many provisions in this budget violate the law that it can be seen as a stimulus package for the legal system.
You may have heard this by now, but we have a deal. The #cabudget hashtag should get you your fix. The topline stats:
$15 billion in cuts, no new taxes, $11 billion in gimmicks and borrowing
$4-5 billion in local government raids
only an $800 million reserve (initially the talks were for a $4 billion one)
$6 billion in reductions to public schools, but an $11 billion dollar payment somewhere down the road though not in writing
yes, there's new offshore drilling in this deal, going around the Lands Commission, and without an oil severance tax for the producers
$1 billion assumed for the sale of the State Compensation Insurance Fund, which is not only unlikely but would really crush small businesses if sold
no suspension of Prop. 98
basically a reinvention of state government, more austere, and precisely when folks need the opposite.
...three furlough days a month for some state employees still in place for the rest of the year
$500 million in cuts to Cal Works
smiles all around from Dem leg. leaders as they cheer that "we did not eliminate the safety net for California." Poking a big hole in it, apparently, qualifies as A-OK.
...we're also cutting $1.2 billion to corrections without releasing any prisoners, as per the actual politics as usual. The only way you can do that is by cutting every treatment or rehabilitation program in the prisons, or eliminating overtime for corrections officers. In other words, we're turning prisons into Public Storage units.
UPDATE by Robert: The main takeaways here:
• Arnold and the Republicans got everything they wanted - a cuts-only budget that protects their wealthy allies and the big corporations from having to pay their share and that makes everyone else suffer.
• California's government is functioning as intended - producing right-wing outcomes despite large Democratic majorities. I will continue to blame specific legislators for agreeing to this shit, but lasting change will only happen when we press the reset button on state government.
UPDATE by Dave: Just to state the obvious, only the Republican leaders have agreed to this. We still aren't through the process where individual Yacht Party members have to be bribed for their votes.
Of course, we aren't through the process where progressives just say "no we're not voting for that, try again," but I've never seen that process come into play.
• Background checks for IHSS providers
• Fingerprinting of workers and clients (so if you are disabled and cared for at home, you will be treated like a common criminal merely because you need assistance)
• "Some state parks will close" even though parks generate more tax revenue than they cost
• OC Fairgrounds to be sold
• Integrated Waste Management Board to be abolished, despite the fact that its annual cost is statistically negligible
The February deal was bad, but this is far worse.
...CalPERS reports $56 billion loss. Local governments are going to have to make up part of this shortfall - but with what money? The legislature has guaranteed mass bankruptcies for local governments with their raid on local funding, which was probably the point of Arnold's insistence on such raids.
While the all-cuts deal seems destined to pass in the near-future, leaders of every stripe are spinning. But, as Progressives, we should be watching what our own leaders have to say most intently. I don't mean to pick
"The cuts to education have been devastating to my city and to other cities," said Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles. "Teachers have been laid off, class sizes have grown. What's happened to education has been terrible. The reason it's happened is because we've been in the worst recession since the Depression. We haven't exactly sealed the deal yet, but it seems as though we are reaching conclusion on how to make sure the schools are repaid." (SacBee 7/20/09, emphasis added)
Certainly the recession is a cause of the cuts to education. But THE reason? I think not. Bass knows from trying that the cuts to education were not the only option. Does anybody think that if we had a system of government that worked that we would be in this situation? If we had majority rule? If the Legislature had the authority to actually control spending priorities on the entirety of the budget? It is excruciatingly clear that our system is to blame for much of this mess.
And what if we didn't have the crazy recall system that brought us Schwarzenegger? What would the world look like right now with a Governor Phil Angelides, Westly, or umm...Bustamante? Sans Arnold and all of his flip-flopping negotiation strategies, do we build a way out of this without the IOUs? Heck, if Blakeslee can do it, it should have happened.
But, Democratic leaders cannot escape blame on their end either. Even in this broken system, they must take a share of the responsibility on their own backs. They have now agreed to what Democrats, almost universally, consider shocking, an all-cuts budget revision. They have agreed to steal $4 Billion from the local governments. Yes, they saved Cal-WORKS, of a fashion, but no Democrat should be proud of what will happen this week.
Being a Legislator these days is really crappy job. You get a series of impossible decisions and any legislation outside the budget gets ridiculed. There are some times when you just can't win, no matter how you vote. But being able to look yourself in a mirror, and still call yourself progressive after voting for this deal? Well, that will be a very tough job indeed.
Hopes for a deal on the California budget faded last night as the Big Five could not agree over the big issue of whether and how to suspend Prop. 98, the mandate for education funding.
The education money discussion is not new; much of it dates back to the February budget negotiations, which resulted in a ballot measure asking voters to offer blessings upon a supplemental payment. Voters rejected that measure, Proposition 1B.
And as with most education financing debates, this one lands squarely back at the maze of formulas and calculations that embody the 21-year old funding guarantee enshrined into the state constitution by voters, Proposition 98.
In a nutshell, the current debate focuses on whether schools are owed money in the future to make up for some of the recent spending reductions, and whether that obligation (the so-called "maintenance factor") should be codified in law as part of the current $26.3 billion deficit deal.
"The Prop 98 law is so confusing," said Senate President pro Tem Darrell Streinberg to a throng of reporters outside the governor's office, "that we want to make sure that there is clarity."
My belief is that education leaders will win this money in the courts, no matter how long Arnold and the gang put it off. The lawsuit has already been filed. The Democratic leadership want to just deal with the $11 billion dollars in essentially stolen money from schools inside the budget agreement by promising the money in the out years, while the Republicans and Arnold don't.
So if you wanted a 2010 campaign slogan, you have the source material.
It looks to me like Arnold is holding out simply so he can prove a point. His effort to insert privatizing social services eligibility at the last minute is flawed enough that even the Yacht Party might have trouble stomaching it. The proposed cuts in the deal are really intolerable but not what the Governor promised at the outset. It's unclear whether the Governor will get his anti-fraud provisions, also inserted late into the process. And it's completely unclear, given the deal likely to come out, why we had to wait two weeks for virtually the same deal.
Whatever budget deal ultimately is passed -- and in this economy it'll only be a temporary fix, at best -- virtually the same agreement could have been reached weeks ago [...]
Democrats produced a stop-gap plan supported by Assembly Republicans that would have staved off IOUs. They proposed $3.3 billion in cuts to education and other programs that would have kept the cash flowing, at least for a few weeks. It would give them time to negotiate more cuts. Schwarzenegger rejected the idea and persuaded Senate Republicans to follow.
That's where the governor began bobbling the ball, although his coaches figured he was playing to his fan base, what's left of it.
Issuing IOUs will cost the state roughly $26 million in interest for July, the state controller's office estimates. The IOUs also prompted Wall Street bond rating agencies to lower California's credit to near junk status. That potentially could cost the state $7.5 billion over 30 years, according to the treasurer's office.
Schwarzenegger, aides say, calculated that Democrats wouldn't negotiate seriously without facing a deadline, such as the latest: most banks refusing to accept IOUs. Negotiating piecemeal would get nowhere, the governor believed.
But he might have dodged IOUs completely. Guess it doesn't rankle much that the state he has governed for nearly six years must now pay bills with scrip.
Schwarzenegger's clumsy attempt at the Shock Doctrine, when the deal Democrats were willing to agree to was painful enough, was about as irresponsible as a chief executive could be.
...just one more thing on this that the LAT article makes clear. Schwarzenegger AGREES that education should be paid the money borrowed from them in the out years. But Democrats suspect that his fingers are crossed and they want it in writing. That's the argument now.
The problem is that even his ever-changing "plan" isn't actually complete. Not only are there 0, count 'em 0, votes for the plan in the Legislature and there is no actual legislation, but the plan they have has big holes:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget package, which he has touted as a way to solve the state's entire deficit, has a glitch that may jeopardize $10 billion in federal stimulus funds for California's public schools, colleges and prisons. (SF Chronicle 7/9/09)
Basically, the stimulus tried to prevent the actions of 50 little Hoovers from counteracting the additional funding by cutting their own spending. So, they have maintenance of efforts clauses. Unfortunately, the Governor's cuts slash into those requirements.
However, with some fiddling with the numbers, Arnold's plan could adjust some of the way the dollars borrowed from the local governments are spent in order to meet some of these requirements. If there is anything that our politicians are good at, it must be fiddling with accounting numbers. I think that particular skill is part of the freshman orientation for new legislators, and the governor's people are basically PhDs in the subject.
But Sen. Steinberg points out the sheer lunacy of the Governor's position: Get me a complete solution...never mind the fact that I don't have one.
"It just shows that there's rhetoric and reality," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. "He's made these bold pronouncements that even he can't deliver on in many cases, and this is a good example." (SF Chronicle 7/9/09)
See, actually having a plan would be something Arnold is less familiar with: Real Leadership.
You can almost set your watch by it. The state budget picture is a mess, Democrats ask for a balanced solution, Republicans hold their ground and say no, Democrats don't have the vote so they let it go. It happens practically every single year, and it's happening again, according to CapAlert:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said separately Thursday that they are optimistic a budget deal can be struck within several days.
The tone of their comments marked a stark contrast to Capitol fighting over the last few weeks between Democrats and Republicans over bridging the state's $26.3 billion budget gap.
Steinberg also said Democrats had given up any attempt to increase taxes on tobacco or establish an oil severance tax [...]
The Senate president said that Democrats no longer are pushing for a 9.9 percent tax on oil extraction or for hiking the state's tobacco tax by $1.50 per pack.
"We would like to see an increase in the tobacco tax and the oil severance tax as a solution, but in this chapter that's not realistic and it's not what we're holding out for," Steinberg said.
It's never going to be realistic in ANY CHAPTER. Republicans know exactly how to play this game. Their votes are needed for tax increases, so if they hang together they cannot lose. The Democrats haven't figured out how to shame the Yacht Party or make them pay for their votes, giving them no reason to do anything but hijack the process. You'll notice that as a result of this horrific experiment in governance, California is operating worse than practically every other state in the union.
We've seen this kind of "it's almost over" trial balloon on many occasions, so I wouldn't put on the party hats just yet. But somehow at the end of this process, somebody will step up to a microphone and claim how reaching agreement is a sign of success. No. It's a sign of failure. A failure to responsibly manage the state's finances, reflected by the worst economy in 70 years. The only lesson that can be learned from this process is that it's fundamentally broken.
Schwarzenegger and I then repaired to a tent that he had put up in a courtyard next to his office, which allows him to smoke cigars legally at work (no smoking is allowed inside the Capitol). The tent is about 15 square feet, carpeted with artificial turf and outfitted with stylish furniture, an iPod, a video-conferencing terminal, trays of almonds, a chess table, a refrigerator and a large photo of the governor. Schwarzenegger reclined deeply in his chair, lighted an eight-inch cigar and declared himself "perfectly fine," despite the fiscal debacle and personal heartsickness all around him. "Someone else might walk out of here every day depressed, but I don't walk out of here depressed," Schwarzenegger said. Whatever happens, "I will sit down in my Jacuzzi tonight," he said. "I'm going to lay back with a stogie."
This is the guy who dares to chide others for not doing their job.
