Before I start this post, I should put this out there: I'm a nerd. Always have been, always will be. My experience with marijuana is limited to a couple of times in college and an accidental brownie in Golden Gate Park. That being said, the statistics and research all say one thing: Marijuana is Safer than alcohol. (Again, square alert, I drink one beer a week at most and I'm tipsy at the first sniff of alcohol.)
We mentioned in an open thread a few days ago that there were a couple of initiatives that have been approved for circulation to legalize mariujana. And one of these measures now looks like it might have some momentum behind it.
In a rather smart move all around, former State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata has joined the effort to tax and regulate marijuana. As a candidate for Mayor of Oakland, this can't help but be an asset in the campaign. After all, the voters in the City of Oakland recently passed a measure to tax marijuana by a vote of 80%-20%.
Given the poll numbers showing such a measure passing by about 10 points now, this certainly has a shot at passing. While the state laws would be superceded by the federal laws, the statement alone would result in a push for bringing the conversation up in DC. If this can get on the ballot, this might be an interesting item to watch.
Last week, Don Perata joined the effort to stop the wasteful overhead Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) by sending a hard-hitting letter to Metropolitian Transportation Commissioner and Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty. On July 8, the MTC will be voting on providing even more funding to the OAC from Regional Measure 2 funds, and Perata is not pleased about this:
As the author of SB 916 – which placed regional Measure 2 on the ballot-, I must oppose the Oakland Airport Connector project. In short, the proposal is too much money for too little transit and economic value.
While the connector was included in the menu of RM2 transportation projects, that election was in 2004. The world has since changed dramatically. And so has the project. In 2003 when the project was proposed, only $30M was needed to complete funding for the $230M connector. In fact, we told the voters (in the ballot pamphlet) that this was "the final portion of funds needed for direct BART service" to the airport. Project costs have now increased by over $300M and the RM2 dollars needed have quadrupled. Even more damning, the ridership predicted in 2003 has fallen substantially from 13,540 to fewer than 4500 by 2020. This fails any cost-benefit analysis on its face.
Advocates have been making these arguments for months, to the MTC, BART, and the Port Commision, and most of our pleas for reason have fallen on deaf ears. But I'm hopeful that these elected officials will find it more difficult to ignore the former State Senate Democratic leader and the likely future mayor of Oakland.
Don Perata has been cleared of wrongdoing in an ongoing corruption probe that lasted throughout the Bush Administration and was seen by many as politically motivated.
We have had many problems with Perata, mostly that his terrible leadership contributed to scaring Democrats out of challenging Abel Maldonado and botching the Jeff Denham recall. If we had a real leader who actually sought to win elections instead of making friends or idle threats, and who was successful on both of those fronts, we would have a 2/3 majority in the State Senate today. I'm very glad to have him out of the state legislature. But by and large, corruption issues never made their way into our critique of Perata, and I for one am pleased he has been cleared. You can read the extremely brief letter from the Acting US Attorney here and Perata's statement here.
What we did have a problem with was Perata transferring $1.5 million dollars from a campaign account intended to help elect Democrats and push party issues to his own legal defense fund, one day after the election. The move was not illegal but certainly unethical - if he needed legal defense money he could have raised it for that purpose, and instead he raised money for one ostensible purpose and then used it for himself. (NOTE: Perata also took $450,000 from the California Democratic Party for his legal defense fund as well.) I was quoted at the time:
David Dayen, an elected Democratic State Central Committee member from Santa Monica, blogged angrily this summer about his party's contribution to Perata's legal defense fund, contending the money would've been better spent on legislative races. The same goes for Leadership California's money, he said Wednesday; despite a Democratic presidential candidate carrying California by the largest margin since 1936, Democrats netted only three more Assembly seats and none in the state Senate.
"Every time I asked the California Democratic Party about getting more active and involved in local elections, they said the state Senate and the Assembly control those races ... and we don't have a lot of flexibility. So Perata, at that time, and Nunez or Bass had the authority to run those elections," Dayen said. "Now we see what happens when you vest power in these closed loops - suddenly self-interest becomes more important than the good of the party."
He believes this is why Perata didn't step aside as Pro Tem earlier, as Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez relinquished his post to Karen Bass in May: "Darrell Steinberg was sitting there ready to go ... and we were all like, 'What the hell is going on?'
"We speculated it had to be that he still needed the leverage to make the calls to raise money for himself."
So, now that this legal case has wrapped up, let me pose the question - Will Don Perata return the money left in his legal defense fund to accounts intended to elect Democrats? Both the membership of the California Democratic Party and scores of anonymous donors to Leadership California unwittingly seeded his legal campaign. If Perata used all $1.5 million between November and today, I'd like to see the receipts; no court case was ever filed, no depositions taken in the intervening 7 months, no movement whatsoever. Either some lawyers got rich on having donuts or there's a lot of money left over. What's more likely, of course is that Perata will now siphon that money from the legal defense fund into his campaign account for his run to be Oakland's next mayor. In the end, it's all about Don Perata.
That would be a betrayal, and a disservice to those who donated, expecting to help Hannah-Beth Jackson win in SD-19, or to help defeat Proposition 11, the redistricting measure. There's not much of a way to contact Don Perata anymore, though I'm assuming his Oakland Mayor campaign will ramp up soon. He needs to be asked about this pot of money, and why it cannot now be used toward its intended purpose.
I can't believe he blew through all that money. Look out, City of Oakland Treasury! Clearly he was paying off years' worth of debts with that fund. Wow.
Yesterday, I checked out Capitol Weekly, as I do every Thursday and was excited to see that one of their weekly features focused on the Oakland mayor’s race. Well, I didn’t stay excited for too long. In “Experts Expound,” they asked a bunch of Sacramento “experts”:
“Don Perata is running for mayor of Oakland — a job he’s always wanted. Can he beat Ron Dellums? Why or why not?”
As any Oaklander would know, this is an absurd question to ask. Dellums isn’t running! Perata made this clear in his media interviews this week. And if Dellums ran again, Perata would crush him - it would be embarrassing.
CapAlert reports that on December 5, Don Perata took ANOTHER $400,000 from his unused campaign account and moved it into his legal defense fund.
The latest transfer means the Oakland Democrat has now taken a total of $1.9 million raised in an account earmarked for ballot campaigns and used it to shore up the legal fund he created to fight an FBI corruption probe.
The transfers are legal, though California's campaign watchdog agency is considering stricter regulations of ballot accounts like Perata's [...]
The FBI has been investigating Perata since 2004, inquiring about his business dealings and those of his family and close friends. Both Perata's and his son's homes were raided by FBI agents four years ago.
No charges have ever been filed, though Perata has tallied up more than $2.1 million in expenses fending off the investigation.
His defense fund was $250,000 in debt as of the end of September, as the former leader faced the unwelcome prospect of being out of office - and without leverage over potential donors.
So Perata has transferred $1.9 million (out of the $2.7 million he had amassed) from the ballot committee to ease his legal debt load.
Once the election ended, Perata had no use for that $1.9 million in his campaign account as a termed-out legislator. However, there was plenty of use for it BEFORE the election, when Prop. 11 was being outspent 10 to 1 and losing by less than 2 percentage points.
Again, the alibi that he needs this money to fight off a "fishing expedition" from Bush partisans at the US Attorneys office doesn't scan at all. Those prosecutors are all resigning in a month. If he's done nothing wrong, what use could he possibly have for $1.9 million dollars over the next 30 days? Or are the expected Obama US Attorneys going to continue this partisan witch hunt?
By the way, the rank and file in the CCPOA is pretty pissed off about what amounts to theft of their political donations.
On PacoVilla's Corrections Blog, a Web site popular with state correctional officers, one user wrote: "Not only did we (CCPOA) back the wrong horse (No on 11) but now we're paying for Perata's corruption defense and from (CCPOA spokesman) Lance (Corcoran)'s comment ... it sounds like we're very happy to be privileged to do so."
By the way, there's still $600,000 or so left in that account. So don't be shocked when Perata drains that out too.
When Josh Richman, the fine reporter for the Oakland Tribune, called me for comment yesterday on the breaking news that Don Perata transferred $1.5 million dollars the day after the election from an IE account intended to elect Democrats to the State Senate and wage initiative campaigns into his personal legal defense fund, my initial reaction was "I'm not surprised." My slightly longer reaction is captured in the article:
David Dayen, an elected Democratic State Central Committee member from Santa Monica, blogged angrily this summer about his party's contribution to Perata's legal defense fund, contending the money would've been better spent on legislative races. The same goes for Leadership California's money, he said Wednesday; despite a Democratic presidential candidate carrying California by the largest margin since 1936, Democrats netted only three more Assembly seats and none in the state Senate.
"Every time I asked the California Democratic Party about getting more active and involved in local elections, they said the state Senate and the Assembly control those races "... and we don't have a lot of flexibility. So Perata, at that time, and Nunez or Bass had the authority to run those elections," Dayen said. "Now we see what happens when you vest power in these closed loops - suddenly self-interest becomes more important than the good of the party."
He believes this is why Perata didn't step aside as Pro Tem earlier, as Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez relinquished his post to Karen Bass in May: "Darrell Steinberg was sitting there ready to go "... and we were all like, 'What the hell is going on?'
"We speculated it had to be that he still needed the leverage to make the calls to raise money for himself."
I want to expand on that. The behavior of Don Perata can be directly tied to the continuance of a status quo that has failed and is failing California families. At no time is the way elections are run - without transparency, without accountability, without meaningful checks on the potential for corruption - questioned by the powers that be. It is enabled through a shrug of the shoulders and the words "that's the way things are." What Perata did was perfectly legal, although that is subject to change, as the state Fair Political Practices Commission votes today on making such transfers illegal. But as Michael Kinsley famously said, "The scandal isn't what's illegal; it's what's legal." The bigger scandal is that there's no desire or even interest at the top to see that change. And why not - it suits them just fine.
California has 63% majorities in both chambers of the legislature, has just seen a 61% share of the vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate - and yet this state is completely, inescapably and hopelessly beholden to right-wing interests, as a function of a backwards set of governing rules that have climbed the budget hole over $40 billion dollars, without any reasonable hope of getting out of it. It's been beyond clear for several years now that the ultimate solution will come at the ballot box, and yet the state party has entrusted the most crucial elections, the ones that could net a working 2/3 majority in the Senate, to someone more concerned with saving his political hide. And so Hannah-Beth Jackson, who came within 1,200 votes of flipping a Republican seat, reads a story like this in shock and anger. And the citizens in SD-12, promised a recall of Jeff Denham; and those in SD-15, expecting a candidate in their majority-Democratic district to take on Abel Maldonado; they are similarly angry. Money they had every right to expect would go to help them now goes to help one man.
(By the way, the alibi from the defenders of Perata on this doesn't scan at all. First of all, nobody begrudges him from raising money in his own defense - the problem lies in taking that money from an account intended for campaign work. And second, if this is a "political witch hunt," as they say, why would he need this lump sum of money 75 days from the time when a Democratic Administration with no inclination to prosecute Democrats on allegedly bogus charges is about to be installed? It's either a witch hunt about to end or a going concern. The alibi is pathetic.)
But the larger point is that the status quo, the closed systems at the top of the Democratic leadership, the lack of transparency and accountability, create the crises we see in our state, or at least disable anyone from reacting to them. And this is not likely to change. John Burton is going to be the next state CDP Chair. He's been in politics for 205 years, and he's basically muscled out the competition for the job. Does anyone think that a lifelong pol, with a long history of backroom deals, the guy who was Arnold Schwarzenegger's cigar-smoking buddy (that seems like a good profile for the opposition party chair), gives a damn about urgently needed reform? He's making sweet little noises about turning red areas blue, but there's absolutely no hope that he will provide any change from the insular, chummy, mutual backscratching society that exists in Sacramento. Grassroots activists should be furious that, in the wake of seeing countless opportunities wasted and crises lengthened, we're boldly taking off into the future with a Party Chair who was first elected in 1965.
The future of California is a mystery right now, because there is a crisis of leadership and an unwillingness to reform. At the very least, activists should look to electing Hillary Crosby as State Party Controller so that someone in the room will have a reform message that can spark a modicum of change. But until the fundamentals are altered, we will lurch from one disaster to the next.
In a stunning but not too surprising revelation, Josh Richman of the Oakland Tribune is reporting that Don Perata transferred $1.5 million from his PAC to his legal defense fund - one day after the election. Instead of using that money to help defeat Prop 11, which narrowly won, or to help elect more Democrats to the state senate - such as Hannah-Beth Jackson, who lost by 1,200 votes - he took it for himself, leaving California Democrats and the state itself worse off.
Contributors to Don Perata's political action committee this year might have thought their money would bankroll the attempted recall of state Sen. Jeff Denham or opposition to a legislative redistricting reform measure.
But one day after Election Day and with only a few weeks left as state Senate President Pro Tem, the Oakland Democrat moved $1.5 million from Leadership California into his own legal defense fund, formed to counter a years-long FBI corruption probe.
This sum dwarfs the California Democratic Party's $450,000 contribution to Perata's legal fund over the past year, which had caused an outcry from some party activists. It also dwarfs the $555,000 Perata had moved from his Taxpayers for Perata committee - ostensibly created for a 2010 Board of Equalization run - into his legal defense fund in several chunks since 2005.
The transferred amount is more than the entire $1.4 million the committee had raised in this year's first nine months, and more than half of the $2.7 million it had on hand as of Sept. 30.
Jason Kinney, Perata's spokesman, is quoted as saying there was nothing illegal here. Even if that is true, it's beside the point - $1.5 million is a huge sum of money that should have been spent on winning the 2008 election, not pocketed by a termed-out legislator.
Our own David Dayen is quoted in the article making that very point with forceful eloquence:
David Dayen, an elected Democratic State Central Committee member from Santa Monica, blogged angrily this summer about his party's contribution to Perata's legal defense fund, contending the money would've been better spent on legislative races. The same goes for Leadership California's money, he said Wednesday; despite a Democratic presidential candidate carrying California by the largest margin since 1936, Democrats netted only three more Assembly seats and none in the state Senate.
"Every time I asked the California Democratic Party about getting more active and involved in local elections, they said the state Senate and the Assembly control those races ... and we don't have a lot of flexibility. So Perata, at that time, and Nunez or Bass had the authority to run those elections," Dayen said. "Now we see what happens when you vest power in these closed loops - suddenly self-interest becomes more important than the good of the party."
He believes this is why Perata didn't step aside as Pro Tem earlier, as Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez relinquished his post to Karen Bass in May: "Darrell Steinberg was sitting there ready to go ... and we were all like, 'What the hell is going on?'
"We speculated it had to be that he still needed the leverage to make the calls to raise money for himself."
David makes a key point here - this is not just about how Perata screwed California Democrats. It's about what he called "closed loops" and a party leadership hostile to open accounting. This should become a rallying cry for all Democrats to demand more accountability from their leaders, and a greater commitment to winning elections as opposed to pocketing those funds for your own uses.
Many in the Democratic grassroots, including a large number of CDP delegates, want to build a better, more successful party, using the disappointing results on the state level as a motivating force to produce change. That is made easier by Perata's long overdue exit from the Legislature. But this should serve as a wake-up call for the CDP as a whole, which must take a strong stand against this kind of action and take whatever steps are within their power to prevent it from happening again.
Darrell Steinberg is clearly not simply Don Perata redux. The tone and tenor of the conversation with him are simply different. And you get a great taste of that with this conversation with Steinberg and then Perata in this edition of KQED's Forum.
Steinberg enters a full leadership role at a time of crisis, but claims that, like Al Gore, he sees opportunity in this time of crisis. Opportunity to increase legislative oversight. Opportunity to improve the governance of the state by ending the 2/3 rules which have brought the state to its knees. Opportunity to really and truly revamp the tax system. And part of that revamp could lead to further results on AB32's carbon emissions goals by monkeying with the Vehicle License Fee.
After running as a write-in candidate on the Democratic ballot line in June, Abel Maldonado is now buying spots on Democratic slate mailers, even though he is facing only token opposition from independent Jim Fitzgerald. This guy REALLY doesn't want to self-identify as a Republican.
Independent state senate candidate Jim Fitzgerald accused incumbent Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) of wanting to have it both ways, running as a Republican but appearing on slate mailers for Democratic and independent voters.
"I wonder if John McCain would have let him speak at the RNC if he knew that Abel would be paying for flyers that tell voters to vote for Barack Obama," said Fitzgerald, a retired UPS worker who is self-financing his campaign, in a press release. "I wonder if the Republican Party would have contributed over $50,000 to Abel's campaign if they knew that he was going to pay $12,000 to appear on literature that promotes the Democratic ticket."
This is another reason why Don Perata's bullying of Democrats to keep them out of the race against Maldonado was such a failure. He wouldn't have an opportunity to buy his way onto these slate mailers if there was a Democratic candidate. And so he gets to position himself as an independent-minded reformer instead of the down-the-line Yacht Party Republican he is, for the most part. This enhances Maldonado's public image at precisely the time when he is likely to run for statewide office (I know he lost the primary for the Controller's race in 2006, and afterward claimed that he'll never run for office again, but I don't buy it). He spoke at the RNC this year, a clear sign that the party views him as a rising star. The proper move for opposing parties is to try and cripple the other side's rising star. You don't enable them when they can come back and beat you years later.
Thanks a lot, Don Perata, don't forget to pick up your parting gift in a month...
I’m getting fed up with the Bay Area mainstream media. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but all of them have completely missed the boat on what the Rebecca Kaplan vs. Kerry Hamill race for Oakland at-large city council is really about.
Over the past week, the Chronicle, East Bay Express, and Bay Guardian have all depicted this race in essentially the same way, as the progressive outsider vs. the Perata-machine backed candidate. I understand that this makes a nice, simple story that fits into a few hundred or thousand words and doesn’t require the reporter to do much investigative work, but that’s not what the race is about.
So I wanted to make something clear - I am voting FOR Rebecca Kaplan, and not against Kerry Hamill or for that matter, against Don Perata or his political machine. I actually have no problem with Kerry Hamill. I think she cares a lot about Oakland and would make a fine city council member - I don’t think the city would crumble (anymore than it already has) under her watch.
But unfortunately for Kerry, she’s not just running against a decent opponent. She’s running against one of the most intelligent, committed and creative people I’ve ever known.
You know this whole mini-Depression/Mega-Recession that we're going through right now? Well, it's hit our revenue coming into the state coffers. Hard:
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata estimated Tuesday the state will face a $3 billion to $5 billion deficit this fiscal year without corrective action, a significant gap that increases the possibility lawmakers will have to consider new spending cuts or tax increases in a special midyear budget session.
State Controller John Chiang, meanwhile, announced California has taken in $1.1 billion less through the first quarter than state officials projected earlier this year.(SacBee 10/8/08)
So, there you have it. This is where we are. Broke, and slashing at the very heart of our government. Perata and other state leaders are further estimating that next year's budget deficit could be another $15-20 Billion. There is nothing left to cut. We've already cut services that shouldn't have been cut. We already on the hook for about $8 Billion in prison building thanks to "ToughOnCrime".
Of course, the Republicans continue to fiddle while the walls of our government come crashing down in flames. There is no more choice, there is no more chance to hedge. We either raise taxes or our government will end up like Lehman Brothers. Well, you can call Dave Cogdill the new Richard Fuld.
"As this continues to get more serious, it's going to take even more drastic action on the part of the state to rein in spending," said Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill of Modesto. "We're not supporting any additional tax increases. It makes less sense today than it did the day we put the budget out."
Besides raising taxes, Perata suggested the state could save money by releasing low-level prisoners who committed nonviolent crimes. But Cogdill said the state could find other ways, such as selling off excess state-owned land.
We need capital, ie cash, just like some of these big banks. Unlike Lehman, however, we have a means of getting it. It's called taxation. All of Cogdill's little techniques are merely tricks that won't bring in anywhere near the amount of money that we need.
Perhaps it is time to start gathering signatures for a progressive budget reform measure on the special election ballot? The outlines of such a plan are still hazy in my mind, but the general concept of going to the ballot to avoid the legislature might end up, unfortunately, being the only way to save the state from Dick Fuld the legislative Republicans.
Legislative Democrats and the governor are backing off their demand that the state budget be balanced with new taxes, according to a confidential e-mail the state Senate leader sent to fellow Democrats and obtained by The Times.
Senate Leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) told his caucus in the e-mail, sent Thursday night, that he informed the governor "we urgently need a budget -- let's see if I can work on a deal with the Reps [Republicans] that is no tax, no borrowing. He agreed."
I quibble with the words "Legislative Democrats" at the head of the article. It sounds like Don Perata is backing off his demand. The Assembly appears to have no say whatsoever. Later in the email, Perata writes "We then bring in Assembly leaders to show them what we're sending them," as if they are supposed to just carry out whatever The Don wishes. Maybe he'll force them to contribute to his legal defense fund while he's at it.
A no tax, no borrowing budget is either cuts-only or the mother of all accounting gimmicks, probably both. We do urgently need a budget - but we more urgently need Don Perata to extricate himself from this process. He is nothing but a poison. At a time when 82% of Californians are extremely worried about the late budget, and large majorities favor a balanced approach over the cruelty of the Yacht Party, NOW he decides to cave in? If so, why wait 74 days and cripple working Californians everywhere?
Without 2/3, we can't move forward as a state. But of course Perata has single-handedly made it impossible to get to 2/3 in the Senate, so he's been wrong in practically every respect.
Senate Leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) told his caucus in the e-mail, sent Thursday night, that he informed the governor "we urgently need a budget -- let's see if I can work on a deal with the Reps [Republicans] that is no tax, no borrowing. He agreed."
Perata wrote that he anticipates working with Republicans through the weekend, trying to pull together a final deal.
"We then bring in Assembly leaders to show them what we're sending them," Perata wrote. "And then we go to the floor the moment we have mocked-up language ready. . . . We'll do our best to hold the line on borrowing."
How lawmakers can close a $15.2-billion gap without taxes and borrowing is unclear.
Evan Halper and Patrick McGreevy are understating that last part. It is not possible to close the gap without taxes and borrowing. There's no way around that fundamental fact, unless Perata thinks the solution to California's budget crisis is to bankrupt every city in the state by taking their funds. That in turn will lead to massive layoffs, worsening an already bleak economic picture in the state.
This is why Democrats lose - Republicans know that if they hold the state hostage long enough Democratic leaders will give in. Speaker Karen Bass has been a strong leader and making the right moves in resisting Republican demands. But Perata is set to undercut her with this sellout, which as the email suggests, is going to be presented to the Assembly leaders as a fait accompli.
Democrats are poised to win several seats in both the Senate and the Assembly as a result of Republican obstructionism on the budget. As Brian noted earlier today the public supports the Dems and opposes the Reps on the budget and on taxes. For Perata to toss all that out the window because he suddenly has cold feet would undercut Democratic candidates across the state and continue to leave Californians vulnerable.
Of course, that's par for the course with Perata, who has a long record of backstabbing Democratic activists. His latest move to give Republicans what they want on the budget is a sorry parting gift to the state and to his caucus. And it would ensure that we will see exactly the same tactics from the Republicans next summer.
If this report is accurate, then Perata needs to resign immediately - or his caucus needs to remove him from power and give Darrell Steinberg the power to work on the budget instead. Californians and Democrats have suffered from what passes for "leadership" from Perata for long enough. It's time we got real Democrats who understand the stakes and are willing to use their advantage with and support from the people of this state and break Republican hostage tactics for good.
"First of all, though it doesn't help much this year, I think this process and the frustration many of us are expressing reveals what must be done next year.
We need to not only think about but begin planning for taking significant questions about state and public finance back to the people of California. And next year as your leader I intend to do that. I'm not going through this anymore. I'm tired of it. It's unproductive. It does nothing for the way people view us.
You're right Senator Aanestad, under the current state of the Constitution; it is a two-thirds requirement to pass a state budget. And I know that question has been taken to the people in one form or another. But maybe it has not been take to the people in the right form, at the right time. And so, be prepared next year. Whether it is through the legislature or by the initiative process, we're not going to go through this anymore.
If Darrell Steinberg was in charge right now, Jeff Denham wouldn't be in the State Senate. Abel Maldonado would be hanging on for dear life. And we'd have a 2/3 majority. Because he would prioritize it. He would design the entire year around achieving it. Don Perata simply has failed in understanding what is crippling this state. Steinberg gets it. And finally, progressives and the legislature will be on the same page. For now, we struggle with the failed perspective of the past.
He was elected by voice vote with no opposition as the new President Pro Tem of the California State Senate. I'm not sure what this means for the current legislative leadership, though it seems that he wouldn't start until December, so Perata is likely to continue through the budget slog.
I wish it was sooner, but I'm happy to get to the day when we have the leadership of Steinberg and Bass in the legislature.
Despite Don Perata's extreme efforts to keep Democrats off the ballot to face his BFF Abel Maldonado in a plurality-Democratic district, Jim Fitzgerald has succeeded in getting enough petitions to mount a challenge on the November ballot. This is from his press release:
Independent Candidate, Jim Fitzgerald, is building support to unseat Abel Maldonado on November's Ballot.
"I am running for office to bring independent thinking and change to Sacramento. Our state is still operating without an approved budget. The price of gas is out of control. Schools should not pay the price for wasteful government spending. These are just a few of the issues that are important to me and the citizens of our district." (Independent Candidate Jim Fitzgerald)
Fitzgerald is not a career politician beholden to any party. He is an ordinary citizen who wants to breakup the gridlock in the State Senate divided on party lines.
Fitzgerald has worked for UPS for over 30 years ending his career as an account manager. He had personal dealings daily with small businesses throughout the Central Coast. Working from the ground floor up, he knows what it is like to work long days in order to support a family. Fitzgerald is not a professional politician but rather a hard working individual who will give back to the very people he is supposed to be representing.
Now, Fitzgerald is an independent candidate, not a Democrat. But his issue positions certainly lean Democratic. His main proposal on his website concerns modernizing the government fleet to make every state-issued car a hybrid or electric vehicle.
This is obviously longer than a longshot, but I appreciate Fitzgerald's efforts if only to force Don Perata to make good on his word to walk precincts for his good buddy Abel in the fall. That'll be a good use of time for the guy who just got $250,000 for his legal defense fund from the CDP.
I will be on KRXA 540 AM at 8 this morning to discuss this and other California politics issues. Cindy Sheehan will be on at 9 - any questions you want asked?
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata began Wednesday saying he had made enough concessions to secure a budget deal with the governor and called for Republicans to sign on.
But the day ended with little progress, as Perata concluded that negotiations remained at "impasse."...
In the five hours between Perata's two comments, it became clear that Republican leaders were not joining Perata's call for a vote. Neither were Assembly Democrats nor Schwarzenegger.
"I think we keep getting closer, but there are still issues to work out," said Aaron McLear, Schwarzenegger's spokesman. "We hope that the legislators have the same sense of urgency that we do. We need to get this done."
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass was not ready to end budget talks, spokesman Steve Maviglio said.
"We're continuing to negotiate on all the pieces of the puzzle," he said. "Until they all come together, it's premature to say what's in and what's out."
Perata's notion of a spending cap was apparently less rigid than the Republicans were demanding, although as far as I'm concerned any spending cap is a bad cap. Another sticking point is the Republicans' insistence that any temporary increase in the sales tax to balance the budget be not only reversed after 3 years, but that the sales tax rate gets cut below its current level.
It should be made crystal-clear to California voters by Democrats that what Republicans are demanding is a further breaking of the budget process. They don't want solutions, instead they are actively trying to make matters worse through a hard spending cap or a sales tax cut. Democrats need to be campaigning on the budget and turning the budget into a campaign, but it's difficult to do that if you're willing to agree to Republican-framed proposals like a spending cap, even if your details are different from theirs.
California voters deserve to know that Republicans are trying to implement Grover Norquist's "drown government in a bathtub" agenda. Because as far as I can tell, budget negotiations are no further advanced than they've been in weeks, and since this is likely to drag until the fall, Democrats need to mobilize the electorate against Republican hostage-taking. We've begun to see some campaigning on the budget but it needs to be massively expanded and made a core element of the Sacramento Democrats' daily routine.
It's also time to mobilize the unions and other stakeholders, who have been quiet of late on the budget. The model for action must be the 2005 special election, which revolved around many of the same issues. Californians don't want Republican budget proposals, but they won't reject them unless Democrats ask them to do so.
Finally, it's time for Don Perata to go. His "budget deal" stunt makes him look even more ridiculous than before and suggests he has no strategy or grasp of political reality and, as a lame duck Senator, has no place in these negotiations. He should hand over power to Darrell Steinberg now, not next week, and allow the state to get on with business without Perata's silly theatrics or distracting legal issues or his unfortunate tendency to sell out the Democratic base.
David mentioned this below, but it deserves deeper elaboration. Don Perata's agreement on a spending cap is one of the worst possible outcomes of the budget crisis. A spending cap has been a core demand of the Grover Norquist far right. In Colorado, where a spending cap had been in place for several years, it nearly destroyed state government and had to be suspended.
If Democrats agree to this, they will be agreeing to the destruction of the state of California, finishing the job Prop 13 started 30 years ago. I cannot stress strongly enough how bad an idea this is.
It's also unpopular with voters. Arnold's spending cap, Prop 76, went down in flames in 2005 with 62% of voters rejecting it.
But what is the spending cap about? And why is is such a horrible idea? An excellent LA Times article from 2005 explains how spending caps are at the core of the right-wing plan to drown government in a bathtub:
Hard-line fiscal conservatives say they hope to reinvigorate the types of populist uprising that led to the approval by California voters of landmark protections against property tax increases through Proposition 13 in 1978 and the passage of term limits on politicians here and in several other states....
The proposals put strict limits on how much state budgets can increase each year. Anti-tax activists see such controls as a means to scale back spending on education, healthcare and social-service programs that even the staunchest free-market Republicans have been reluctant to cut.
Schwarzenegger and his advisors, already battling charges that their spending cap is part of a conservative agenda the governor is trying to force on Californians, have resisted forming alliances with the national groups. But the groups have eagerly embraced the governor's crusade.
"We think California is very important," Armey said. "It is a trend-setting state. Getting it done in California will set a very good example for all these other states."
The article also mentioned the impact on Colorado, which enacted a spending cap in 1990. By the 2000s the cap was gutting government, as intended. The problem is that the spending cap readjusts to a lower level during a recession - but cannot be easily increased once the recession ends, meaning the spending that was cut during the lean times can't be restored.
It is Grover Norquist's way of drowning government in a bathtub. Even though Prop 13 has had a destructive impact here in California, leading to a structural revenue shortfall, we have been able to muddle through and protect education, transit, and health care from total collapse. Norquist's spending cap would deal the final blow to those services.
It would not solve our budget problems - as Colorado found it would make them much worse. In November 2005 Colorado approved a 5-year suspension of the cap, as even Republican governor Bill Owens realized the state couldn't survive with the spending cap in place.
For Democrats to consider accepting a spending cap is unconscionable. If Democratic leaders agree to a cap as part of a budget deal they deserve to be recalled from office. The current budget crisis is severe, yes. And we need a solution. But a spending cap will produce worse budget crises in future years while leaving California public services in ruins.
Dems should take comfort from the 2005 special election results. Californians do not want a spending cap. Don Perata is totally and completely wrong to agree to one. Let's hope other Democratic leaders, especially those in the Assembly, refuse to give away the state to the Norquist crowd.
I've been mulling this around in my head for a few days. Three powerful members of the House Judiciary committee have have sent a letter to the Justice Department calling for an investigation into leaks surrounding the inquiry into State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata.
No article since November 2004 has explicitly said that any information came from a federal government source. But in a letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey obtained by The Times on Monday, U.S. Reps. John Conyers Jr., Linda Sanchez and Zoe Lofgren wrote, "We are disturbed and concerned that news story after news story . . . has cited federal law enforcement sources as the basis of information."
The only article specifically mentioned in the July 31 letter was a story in the San Francisco Chronicle. The article cited "sources familiar with the probe," a broad term that could encompass federal agents, defense attorneys and people who have been questioned [...]
On Friday, the day after the congressional letter was sent, a Wall Street Journal article said the investigation into Perata "gained momentum over the past year." The article's details were attributed to anonymous people "close to the defense," who said Perata's longtime political consultant, Sandi Polka, was granted immunity to compel her to answer questions.
The Perata investigation certainly has dragged on for years, leading to him needing more and more funds to raise in his defense. In particular, the dumping of $250,000 from the California Democratic Party into his legal defense fund raised a lot of eyebrows around these parts. After the initial explanation of "We're the CDP and we can do what we want," a secondary explanation was that the investigation had been politicized and that this was part of the DoJ's efforts to prosecute and delegitimize Democrats. A couple weeks later, out comes this letter, signed by two members of the California delegation. But it's Conyers' participation that makes me believe that this is a real concern. I trust Conyers enough to think that he wouldn't simply badger the DoJ to help out a political problem in California.
Of course, let's look at what the letter is actually alleging. It's not suggesting that the investigation itself is unnecessarily political, but that someone inside the investigation is using the media to disparage Perata. That may well be true, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the whole investigation is a farce.
Let's now look at what this does NOT suggest:
• It in no way excuses the CDP for paying off Perata with $250,000 in the middle of an election year, whether that money was simply laundered through them and earmarked for Perata or not. Based on this SacBee report, it appears Perata is perfectly capable of raising money for himself:
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata has solicited at least $200,000 this year from political interest groups for a nonprofit foundation that promotes and rallies support for one of his bills.
The arrangement, apparently legal, allows the Senate leader to solicit unlimited funds for his own political agenda without having to detail how the money is spent.
"He may have found a loophole in the Political Reform Act that needs to be closed," said attorney Bob Stern, a co-author of the state's Political Reform Act who now runs the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.
Which leads me to point 2:
• There is no way that Perata should still be Senate President Pro Tem at this point. While he has done a good job of hammering Republicans for their intransigence on the budget, this image hit, as well as the constant distraction of having to find new ways to raise money for his legal bills, are not what we need at this sensitive time, ESPECIALLY when Darrell Steinberg is waiting in the wings and perfectly capable of performing the same duties without the black cloud of indictment hanging over the head of the Democratic leadership. They haven't even taken a caucus vote on this yet, to my knowledge - it's currently scheduled for August 21, but during these budget negotiations that's doubtful to come off.
It is perfectly consistent to be skeptical of the Justice Department's case against Perata and to ALSO demand that he step down from his leadership position, and to excoriate the CDP for their conduct in either shoveling Perata money or acting as a conduit for that fund transfer.
Yesterday's news that Democrats were considering borrowing to balance the budget, specifically the plan to raid transportation and local government funds, brought a vigorous response from Democratic leaders in the legislature. Don Perata, Karen Bass, and John Laird all issued statements claiming to not support budget borrowing, although the parsing of the words matters.
Today's Los Angeles Times story about state budget negotiations is inaccurate and misleading. Democrats have never entertained massive borrowing as a solution to this year's budget problem. In particular, Democrats have never advocated nor believed in taking money from Propositions 1A, 42 and 10."...
"Doing another get-out-of-town-alive budget would do nothing to help this state but rather would endanger Californians' standard of living and economic future."
Denise Ducheny chimed in with her own statement along these lines, and later in the day Bass and Laird added their stance. Karen Bass:
"Major borrowing is not part of the Democratic budget plan, and we don't believe it should be part of the final solution. Our proposal balances the budget with a mix of billions of dollars in difficult spending cuts and new revenues, similar to those proposed by a previous Republican governor. It's gimmick-free and honest. It closes our budget gap in a straight-forward manner, and eliminates out-year deficits."
John Laird:
Any proposal to borrow from voter-approved propositions is not coming from those of us who want to balance the budget without borrowing or gimmicks.
Strong words - but nowhere in them did anyone explicitly rule out borrowing from the transportation and local government funds. It's comforting to know that Democrats did not propose these plans and that they do not wish to use budget gimmicks - but a firm rejection of the plans is what we really needed to hear.
Sure, some might say we should not be negotiating in public. But if Republicans get to say "no new taxes" then surely Democrats are able to say "no new raids." As I argued yesterday raiding these funds would not only cause the state serious economic harm, but it would severely weaken the Democrats' political fortunes in the process.
Californians' opinion of the Legislature is low, and many don't trust their politicians. That gives the right wing a major opening to push through damaging things in the guise of populism. Democrats need to stand up to Republicans and protect working Californians. Refusing to even consider raiding the Prop 1A, 10, and 42 funds is a small but necessary place to start.
. (Again, square alert, I drink one beer a week at most and I'm tipsy at the first sniff of alcohol.)
