Democratic state senators pushed the first budget cuts of 2010 through a key committee Wednesday, slicing government payroll costs by 5% and cutting $811 million from the prisons' healthcare budget.
The votes were the first on budget matters since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called a special session last month to address California's roughly $20-billion deficit. Lawmakers deferred decisions on how much to cut from California schools and social services -- the state's costliest programs -- until summer budget talks. (LA Times)
The easy part apparently involves going to the federal prison receiver and begging for help, because if they haven't done that already, they better start doing it now. As the healthcare system has been the center of the prison receivership, you don't just cut money from under a federal court's nose.
Meanwhile, the Assembly spent their time hamming it up "for appearances," don't you know? Like the waste of having safe airports, and the waste of having serviceable state vehicles. The airports one is my favorite.
The Department of Transportation was asked about a single-engine plane it bought for nearly $1 million. Mike Miles, operations director, said the plane is needed for inspections of public airports and other required aerial duties. It will replace one that is more than 40 years old, and, because of the fiscal crisis, delivery is not planned until 2010-11.
Oh, did the Assembly Panel nail them or what?! Can you believe they want to replace their 40-year-old single engine plane? Why, they don't make them like they used to back in 1970. It is clear that the DOT is just "tone-deaf" to the people!
"We've got to answer to our constituents - and they're screaming at us," Assemblyman Tom Berryhill, R-Modesto, said of state spending.
*** **** **** ***
"They need to realize that to the general public and to us, the Legislature, they sound a little tone deaf," Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, a South Gate Democrat who chairs the committee, said of the millions spent for seemingly routine items. (SacBee)
So, as I have it, the public is "screaming" for unsafe airports and dangerous state parks, is that right Assemblymen? How's about this for an answer to your screaming constituents, Asm. Berryhill: We spend this money to protect public safety.
Perhaps the reason the public is screaming is that nobody has bothered to tell them why the state budget is so important. Or perhaps done anything to address why we are paying near usurious interest rates rather than increasing revenue to provide for ongoing services.
So, we're taking care of the "easy" part, but be prepared for a long, hot summer.
UPDATE: I can't forget about the other Democratic candidate: SF Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier thinks she's running for the race as well. She entered the race too late to file for the July filings.
Here's today's entry into my continuing money race series: insurance commissioner. The insurance commissioner is kind of a strange gig. There are a number of other insurance regulators in the governor's administration that also do a lot of regulation that the title is kind of overbroad. For example, the department of managed care regulates HMOs and most health insurance, so strike that one off the list. Although I'm not really sure it should be an elected position, the insurance commissioner does play an important role in publicly defining the relationship between the state and insurers.
This should be an interesting race. In theory, it's one of those races where typically people vote based upon party because they haven't really heard of the candidates. The exception would be 2006 when voters had heard enough about the Democratic candidate, Cruz Bustamante, to know they thought his campaign slogan was very apt: Lose with Cruz. Seriously, the campaign was something about weight loss or something.
Anyway, this time you have three Assembly members running for the race, with the Republican, Mike Villines, probably having the highest profile due to his Assembly Minority Leader position until he was deposed after the February budget deal. On the Democratic side you have Dave Jones, a long-time progressive who is pretty popular with the grassroots wherever he goes, and Hector De La Torre, a pretty good guy himself.
Account/Candidate
Dave Jones
Hector De La Torre
Mike Villines
1st Half Contribs
$293,190.97
$528,459.96
$612,399.00
Ending Cash IC Account
$257,788.86
$512,328.15
$185,944.93
Assembly Account
$845,398.04
n/a
$44,717.28
Total Cash
$1,103,186.90
$512,328.15
$230,662.21
All of the candidates are pretty good fundraisers, but Villines has one key advantage: he's taking money from every insurance company he can. He's received money from Aetna ($1500), Farmers ($3900) and the Association of California Insurance Companies PAC ($2000), among others. Asm. Jones has said that he will not accept any insurance money, and I found no evidence that he has done so. Asm. De La Torre has taken a few contributions from insurance companies as well, but it seems to be less pervasive than Villines. That being said, if you are looking for the guy who is keeping as far away from taking money from the people you are supposed to be regulating, there is a clear winner: Dave Jones.UPDATE: It turns out those transactions were old, dating all the way back to 2006 and 2007. Asm. De La Torre has also pledged to take no insurance company money for this campaign. It is reassuring that both Democrats see this as an important issue this time around.
As for the money totals, Dave Jones takes a huge cash on hand advantage into the race from his assembly account. Contributions for the first half of the year, despite looking lopsided in favor of Villines and De La Torre, were actually quite equal, as both of those candidates included transfers from their old accounts into their new insurance commissioner accounts. Keeping track of Villines money was particularly confusing because he also has an account for state senate in 2014 where he raised for the first part of the year, and the transferred to the IC account. Nonetheless, each raised slightly under $300K for the first half of the year. Villines spent a ton of money, over $400K. It seems to have gone to slate mailers, so perhaps this was related to the May 19 election. Otherwise, I'm not sure when these mailers are going to go out.
This should be an interesting race. The Democratic primary could be an interesting discussion between two qualified candidates, while the general election could end up being a little more competitive than we'd like.
This post was written by Asm. Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate) and is being promoted pursuant to our policy to bump post from candidates and electeds.
Democratic Party activists have complained to me for years about the Party's finances. Alex Rooker and Eric Bradley have also been concerned, and shared their frustration with me.
If we agree there is a problem, then we need a solution. That is why I decided to introduce a Resolution at the upcoming Democratic Party Convention and asked Alex and Eric to join as co-sponsors: to fix our Party so we can get more Democrats elected!
But we can't do it alone. This common sense CDP finance reform resolution is the beginning of coming together for reform. I strongly believe that when delegates come together in support of this resolution, it will send a loud message for positive change throughout the Party.
The companion measure to our resolution is a bylaw amendment that will block cash payments to politicians' campaign accounts (especially those that are termed-out). I am confident that broad delegate support will build momentum to make this long-overdue change happen--to stop spending that does not meet our main goal of electing more Democrats at the federal, state, and local level and supporting worthy ballot measures.
I encourage every delegate, and every Democrat, to visit our website: www.LetsFixCDP.com and sign up for our reform effort. As we saw in November, we can accomplish amazing things when we unite for change as Democrats.
In a sign of the growing health care crisis in California, the number of health insurance policies offering maternity benefits - from pre-natal screenings to birth - has dropped dramatically in recent years. In the aftermath of the failure of Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Year of Health Care Reform" in 2007 all sides agreed to pursue greater regulation of the insurance industry as a stopgap before a broader solution was reached. And yet Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have mandated insurance plans cover maternity.
About 805,000 Californians have insurance policies that specifically exclude maternity coverage - a number that has more than quadrupled from 192,000 in 2004, according to the California Health Benefits Review Program, which provides independent analysis of proposed health insurance benefits mandates.
"You see this tremendous jump in just a few years. That's where we're going with this," said Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, D-South Gate (Los Angeles County), whose bill to require maternity coverage is headed to the Assembly Health Committee today. Insurance companies are "pushing these policies clearly onto people, and people are making their decisions based solely on dollars and cents."
De La Torre's bill, AB 98, would solve this problem. But Arnold has repeatedly vetoed the bill, including one by then-State Senator Jackie Speier in 2004.
The failure of insurance companies to provide these basic benefits is especially acute here in Monterey County. The Chronicle article linked above profiled Wendy Root Askew, a good friend of mine, whose experience typifies the problem that results from insurers' refusal to provide basic maternity benefits:
When Wendy Root Askew of Monterey started looking for a doctor she hoped would be her gynecologist as well as deliver her future children, she was shocked to discover her health insurance policy didn't include a single OB/GYN in her county.
The 31-year-old considered changing health plans. But then she learned that while 85 percent of the plans available in Monterey County offered maternity coverage five years ago, just 15 percent offer it now.
She found only two individual policies that included maternity, but they were three to five times as much as the policy she already had and came with annual deductibles of up to $15,000.
What the insurers that oppose AB 98 claim is that if a woman gets pregnant, she can purchase maternity benefits for an "additional sum". Insurers claim this amount is small, but as Wendy found it is anything but small - it can be as much as five times the monthly cost of existing health insurance. A $15,000 deductible is essentially punishing women for getting pregnant, a stunning example of gender bias and inequality in an insurance system where prostate exams are routinely covered by basic plans.
Some insurers, and Republican opponents of AB 98 like Audra Strickland, claim that it would cost all Californians more money to mandate maternity benefits be included in all health insurance policies. And while that might mean a whopping average increase of $7 per month per policy (oh noez!) for Californians, the savings are actually much larger. Numerous studies show that proper prenatal care is vital to the long-term health of a child. By spending a little more per month to ensure all insurance policies provide expectant mothers with maternity benefits, we will be saving a far larger sum when their children turn out to be healthier.
Strickland in particular argues that it's a matter of choice - if women want to get pregnant, they should choose to pay the extra cost. This is absurd on its face. By segmenting high-cost risks out of the insurance "market" you're also actually undermining the entire system of insurance. Insurance is supposed to work by pooling the cost of risk, making it cheaper for everyone to get health care. By dumping the costs of pregnancy onto a small handful of people, health care costs actually soar, public health is undermined, and insurance as a system will go from a state of near-collapse to total collapse.
In reality Strickland, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, are arguing that the only "choice" here is whether one accepts that unless you're wealthy or lucky enough to still have a job with group coverage, you're going to not be able to afford to have a child. It's typical conservatism - the rich can afford the basics of life, and who cares about those who cannot?
There is no plausible reason to oppose AB 98, and certainly no reason for Arnold Schwarzenegger to again veto the bill, unless he believes that society has no obligation at all to ensure that mothers and their children are healthy. And while AB 98 won't solve the health care crisis itself - and it's surely no substitute for true universal health care - it is a sensible and necessary move to provide gender equity and basic health care to mothers and children.
Over the flip is Wendy Root Askew's testimony given to an Assembly committee on AB 98 last week.
Hector De La Torre's bill, AB 1945, which would have forced health plans to seek approval from a third party before rescinding health insurance - a VERY common practice, unfortunately - was vetoed by Arnold today. Interestingly, Arnold was for it before he was against it as De La Torre noted:
Having the governor not engage in any discussions or negotiations for months, and then just veto the bill is astonishing," he said. "The issue was good enough to use as an applause line in his State of the State Address in January, but not to sign a good piece of legislation that would protect insured people in the individual market.
It's another sop to the HMOs, whose business model relies on preventing people from getting the health care they need. This is especially true on the individual health insurance market (the one John McCain wants you to rely on) - if you get sick, the insurance company is going to comb over your application, your policy, and your life with a fine toothed comb to find a reason to cut you off and watch you suffer.
Arnold has vetoed a lot of bills this session, but few vetoes will hurt more Californians than this one.
Vice President Al Gore recorded a video and wrote an email to Courage Campaign members about the importance of investing in education even during a time of economic crisis.
In it Al Gore asks for people to respond back to him directly on Current.com with either a video response or text. They have a pretty nifty tool that will detect a webcam on your computer and let you respond right there, just scroll down to the bottom.
On Monday, I went to the capitol and filmed 18 different Assemblymembers responding to Al Gore. Dave has been cutting them into individual videos and uploading them. Below the fold is the rest of the email from Gore. I had hoped to be able to embed those videos from the Assemblymembers here, but the code from Current is not playing nicely, so you will have to click the link to see.
Assemblyman Anthony Portantino AD-44, Assemblywoman Betty Karnette AD-54, Assemblyman Dave Jones, AD-09, Assemblyman Kevin DeLeon AD-45, Assemblyman Ed Hernandez AD-57, Assemblyman Hector De La Torre AD-50, Assemblyman John Laird AD-27, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine AD-40, Assemblyman Lori Saldana AD-76, Assemblyman Sandré Swanson AD-16 and there are a few more coming including Speaker Karen Bass.
Dear Julia,
I don't write emails like this often.
But, with Californians facing a massive budget crisis and potentially devastating cuts to education, I feel compelled to speak out. As members of the Courage Campaign community, I hope you will speak out as well.
Because I'm dumb: corrected to Portantino from Portafino
Rep. Anthony Portantino got a fax last week informing him that he was no longer chairing the Education Committee. Rep. Hector De La Torre lost his chairmanship of the Rules Committee and won't even get to stay on the committee. The LA Times and the Pasadena Star News, along with Capitol Weekly, paint the moves as some combination of retribution for running for Speaker (both ran against Karen Bass) and lining up Bass' preferred leadership ahead of her taking over the Speakership.
Steve Maviglio, in his normally flowery language, said simply "it's an internal caucus matter." Both Portantino and De La Torre have said they spoke to Bass and she told them she knew nothing about the demotions. If you've been living under a rock lately, you may have missed that Education is rather a hot topic about now in the halls of the Capitol, so a shakeup at the top of the committee is notable. And the Rules Committee is always a big deal, so swapping out a recent Bass (and Nunez) competitor for Ted Leiu (who's long been in Nunez's and Bass' respective camps) and dropping De La Torre all the way off the committee, well...that's also notable.
If anything, it brings into stark contrast two competing governing theories. Some people want to govern surrounded by the folks who get to the top based entirely on their merits, some prefer to be surrounded by the folks they work best with. Certainly this isn't a cut-and-dried contrast between the two options, but I'm sure it sets (or reinforces more likely) a standard of discouraging people for aspiring to higher positions lest they be punished for it.
Yesterday I put up a Quickie about a eminent domain reform proposal brought to the floor by Asm. Hector De La Torre linking to the "Californians for Eminent Domain Reform" website. I was going to do a whole post, but other things came up and it never happened. But, this is a good idea, politically.
For some reason, the wingers have themselves all frenzied up over eminent domain and are prepared to spend heavily on it (see Prop 90). But that's not even the worst part, it's that the wingers think that eminent domain is their way to attack a number of other progressive causes (again, see Prop 90). Follow me over the flippio for some additional background and details of the current proposal...
The Nunez health reform measure made it out of an Assembly Committee today, but I'm more interested in this other bill that Randy Bayne discusses:
HEALTH PLANS WOULD BE BANNED FROM RESCINDING POLICIES WHEN CONSUMERS USE COVERAGE
In a victory for consumers Tuesday, the Health Committee also passed AB1324 (De La Torre), which re-states and re-emphasizes California's law prohibiting health insurers for canceling coverage consumers if they turn out to be sick.
The bill comes about after several high profile cases in which several insurers such as Blue Cross of California rescinded coverage - retroactively - from policyholders after expensive claims were made. Consumers were left with hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills after the insurer refused to pay the bills incurred during the time patients believed they were insured. Blue Cross alleges that the patients knowingly lied about their health status on their applications for coverage, triggering the cancellation.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has rejected the Bush administration's request for more troops along the border, but some Dems wonder if that's the whole story.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office said Friday that he turned down a White House request to more than double the number of California National Guard troops that will be deployed to the border, fearing the commitment could leave the state vulnerable if an earthquake or wildfire erupts.(LA Times 6/24/06)
