"Well", I says to myself. "The seniors sure don't like John Laird much." I had just listened to a radio ad hitting John Laird in his race for the Special 15th Senate District. Something about budgets and spending and salaries and expenses. Standard hit. Nothing special. But I was struck at the end by the sponsors of the ad: The California Senior Advocates League. I've been worried recently about my father who is in a senior center,so I'm glad to learn that there is a League that advocates for him. Who are these guys and is it possible they could help my father?
Abel Maldonado sworn in today as Lt Gov, meaning SD15 needs a special election. And Governor just proclaimed it: 6/22 primary, 8/17 general.
That means: less than four months to build a campaign that can prevail in a very winnable special election with a not insignificant Democratic registration advantage.
Former state Assemblyman John Laird of Santa Cruz and current Assemblyman Bill Monning of Carmel, both Democrats, say they would consider running for Maldonado's seat. On the Republican side, Assembly Minority Leader Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo has expressed interest....
While Laird said it was too early to decide on a Senate run, he said he would consider it should Maldonado become lieutenant governor. His bid would require him to move from his current home on Santa Cruz's Westside, since he now lives in Sen. Joe Simitian's district, to nearby Scotts Valley or points south, something Laird said he is willing to do.
"I represented a significant amount of that district when I was in the Assembly: Santa Cruz County, Santa Clara County, Monterey County," he said.
Monning, who replaced Laird in the Assembly last year, said Tuesday he would also weigh a run for the Senate.
Meanwhile, Assemblyman Blakeslee, considered the Republican front-runner for Maldonado's seat, has already raised more than a quarter million dollars to seek that office in 2012, according to filings with the Secretary of State. Blakeslee's office, reached by phone Tuesday, declined to comment.
This all jibes with what I'm hearing on the ground here in Monterey County. It's a certainty that Blakeslee would run in the special election on the Republican side, and he will likely have a clear field.
On the Democratic side, either Laird or Monning would be strong candidates. Both hail from the northern half of the district, so they'd have to run a strong campaign in San Luis Obispo County and Santa Maria, where Blakeslee currently represents. But given that SD-15 has a 6.5 point Democratic registration advantage, and given that we in SD-15 voted for Obama by a 20-point margin, there's every reason to believe either Laird or Monning would be able to do well in the southern half of the seat. Plus, it's not exactly going to be hard to entice Southern California progressive activists to make the trek to that part of the beautiful Central Coast in the spring to help organize in SLO and Santa Maria.
It is also unlikely that Laird and Monning would face off against each other. Instead they would almost certainly find some way to work it out and ensure that only one of them runs for the seat.
The race between Laird/Monning and Blakeslee would be a battle over California's future. We can expect Blakeslee to argue that a vote for his Democratic opponent is a vote for a certain tax increase, and that a vote for Blakeslee is the only way to stop Democrats from raising taxes. Laird or Monning would counter by pointing out that they're going to save local K-12 schools and higher education (San Jose State, UC Santa Cruz, CSU Monterey Bay, and Cal Poly SLO have been hit hard by the budget cuts, as have the district's community colleges), and provide for the economic growth and recovery that Blakeslee and the Republicans refuse to offer.
It is the kind of battle Democrats and progressives should wholly embrace. Laird and Monning are both deeply progressive people, the kind of Democrats we can get excited about putting in office. Central Coast Democrats aren't just excited about winning the seat, but winning it with the kind of Democrat that we're proud to work hard to elect, the kind of Democrat who knows the way forward for our failing state.
No matter which Democrat ultimately becomes the candidate in SD-15, we will have the strongest chance we've had in a very long time to finally win the 2/3 majority we so desperately need in order to finally solve California's crisis. Bring it on!
(Check us out at 3:30! - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
UPDATE: We just wrapped up the show, which I think went very well. The archive is available in the player to the right, and will be available on itunes shortly.
There is much news going around the Capitol around water issues. One of the most noticeable issues is the growing opposition from Delta legislators that was highlighted in Capitol Weekly:
Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Sacramento, and Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Linden, don't agree on much. But both are against the water plan being negotiated between the Legislature and the governor - and both think they have the votes to kill it.
Their opposition stems from one thing they do have in common. Each represents a district within the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the water-rich region at the center of the water policy and bond package.
"Absolutely there is bipartisan opposition," Niello said. "Lois' concerns are not the same as mine, but she is nonetheless every bit as opposed as I am."
*** *** ***
[Wolk] added: "Southern California has to do away with its dependence on the Delta."
Meanwhile, the hard work of actually making it happen is getting some attention from the California Teachers Association and the High Broderist George Skelton. And the issue of funding is still a mysterious one. Nobody has really laid out a plan, in public, to pay for all of this new construction. Construction that doesn't even bring us any additional water.
So, tomorrow we'll talk with Senator Lois Wolk, the Legislature's leading water expert and former Assemblyman John Laird, in my opinion, the go-to guy for questions of funding and the budget. Please join me on the Calitics podcast, live at 3:30. You can also catch the podcast at the same address after the fact.
If you have a question, feel free to leave it here.
When the summer budget deal went down, I'll admit that I was a skeptic and suggested that we would be back in October/November to fix it. Hey, I was wrong, it looks like we might make it all the way into mid-winter!
Of course, those glad tidings may just be a temporary respite. But for now, buoyed by a resurgent stock market and other signs the recession is on its way out, the state's fragile revenue and spending projections ought to hold up until at least mid-January - and maybe even beyond, analysts and economists say. (SJ Merc 9/28/09)
So, who is jumping for joy like me right now. Sure, the budget deal left us with more questions than answers, but we get to ignore it for a few weeks. Hoo-ray! Sure, there doesn't seem a realistic option for getting that $1 billion sale of the "State Fund", a quasi-governmental workers compensation fund. And the budget backloaded a whole litany of spending items and frontloaded tax intakes.
But, we get to wait until winter! Hoo-ray! And don't listen to those nattering nabobs of negativism like former Assembly Budget Chair John Laird. Just because he knows the budget system inside and out doesn't mean he, umm...
Should the economic turnaround prove short-lived, "I just don't know where they go," said Laird, who helped draw up last year's budget. "They've already done some of the worst possible things, and to still have to go further "... It's just a nightmare."
John Laird kicks a little Republican tail on the budget. The backstory here is that the Reeps have been demanding a vote on the Democratic proposal despite their leadership offering other options in secret. In addition, the Republicans have consistently opposed the budget without marking out what their alternative would be. Here's Laird:
"One of the great joys in serving in this body is when some of my colleagues take firm stands on both sides of an issue.
"We stood here on this floor just a couple of months ago and we wanted to take just an itty-bitty portion of windfall profits from the oil companies-where last week they reported $11 billion in profits-and use it to keep from laying off teachers. And speaker after speaker on this floor said, "Don't waste our time with a drill. We're against drills. Debates with foregone conclusions are of no value." Now from the same quarter it's "We demand a drill."
"If I had gone 7 months into the budget process and not made a public proposal, not shared what my point of view for balancing the budget was with the people of California, I might want to change the subject as well.
"We have a situation where the voters of California have been taken hostage but we can't get a ransom note.
"Because it's been said on this floor today, people are having a tough time with gas prices. Well, if you are going to take their public transit away, they have to know. People have to have the courage to tell them.
"People are struggling with education. Well, if we're going to take their retraining away at a time of economic downturn, we should tell them.
"People are having trouble making ends meet. Well, if their health care is going out the door, shouldn't we tell them?
"Because the governor-it's interesting people were making comments against the sale tax on the floor. Well, that is not in the conference report. That is the Governor's proposal. And the reason the Governor has make the proposal is he originally said you can't just do cuts. He says you have to have revenue. He had $7 billion of revenues in his proposed budget, and with $7 billion of revenue he still wanted to close 48 parks. He still wanted to cut health care by 10%. He still wanted to take the overwhelming majority [sic] from transit. He wanted to cut schools by $79 per student in California and what's been demanded on the floor is that we have cuts that are higher than that because we won't have revenue.
"Because if that's the case, of course, there wouldn't be a public budget. You have to level with the public. It's time to have a budget in public. You can't compromise with nothing.
"And we want to drive this down the middle. We want to get it done. We want the people to know what the issues are."
They're complete cowards. They don't want to explain their scheme to hurt struggling and vulnerable Californians and make them suffer. So they play these games every year. The 2/3 requirement must be demolished so we have a legislature that's slightly more mature than the average elementary school playground.
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.
The California Budget Project released a report on Friday entitled "Budget Cuts or Tax Increases: Which Are Preferable During an Economic Downturn?" Their findings? Well, let's just say their findings have proven the Republican minority wrong once again. "Carefully chosen tax increases are preferable to cutting public spending when the economy is weak."
The economies of states that substantially increased taxes in recent years performed as well as or better than those of states that did not. States that enacted large tax increases between 2002 and 2004 - increasing state revenues by at least 5 percent - subsequently experienced stronger average growth in personal income than states that did not increase taxes at all. Additionally, average job and wage growth was essentially the same for states that increased taxes the most during this period as it was for states that did not increase taxes. Moreover, states that raised taxes substantially are considerably less likely to face budget shortfalls this year than are states that did not.
(I added the Speaker's Web report on the budget. There's some good information in there. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
I will be on KRXA 540 at 8 tomorrow morning to discuss this and other California political topics
I've been looking over the Democrats' budget proposal and the more I see it, the more I really like it. It's a testament to the leadership of Speaker Karen Bass and of Assembly budget wizard John Laird (not his official title but it might as well be) that they put together such a good plan. Of course it will be a starting point for future negotiations, but Californians should rally behind this plan, which provides for the public services this state needs to survive a tough economy without hurting working Californians with a tax increase.
The plan is smart, fair, and above all progressive. It would reverse the trend toward regressive taxation in California by finally making the wealthy pay their fair share. Just as Bush's tax cuts have blown a hole in the federal budget, so too have the McClintock Republican tax cuts done the same to ours.
The first thing to understand is that, as Speaker Bass explained on a conference call earlier today, that we already have cut the budget. Over the last 3 years some $15 billion in cuts have been made, particularly back in February. We will hear the usual "more cuts!!!" from Republicans - but there really is nothing left to cut. We've cut fat, we've cut muscle, we've cut bone. We're reduced to sucking out the marrow and leaving a bare rickety skeleton.
Second, the tax increases - some of which are temporary, some of which are permanent - are not designed to be the final solution to the structural revenue shortfall. Speaker Bass made a good point that while the income tax increase is permanent, it can and perhaps should be changed when the tax reform commission unveils its proposals next year.
Third, the increases will hardly hurt the economy. Many of these tools were used in 1991-92 with the severe budget crisis at that time and they did not prevent the state economy from going into recovery by 1993-94. Of course we need to get away from the notion that tax increases by themselves hurt economic growth - firing teachers, cutting public transportation, and closing hospitals are really what produce severe and lasting damage.
That all in mind I discuss the specific plans over the flip.
John Laird has always believed that Arnold Schwarzenegger's reckless cut of $6 billion from the state budget by cutting the VLF was a bad idea. And representing the 27th Assembly district, with some of the most beautiful parkland in our state (really - ever been to Point Lobos?) he has long sought ways to improve parks funding and access.
The additional funds would be a huge boost to a parks system that has accumulated $1 billion in deferred maintenance and has struggled in recent years with ranger staffing and park security, Laird said.
"This will allow us to begin to return to the level of parks we used to know," Laird said. "It's in a process of dying over time. Unless we find a strong, stable source (of funding), we're just going to fall farther behind in our maintenance and have trouble acquiring more land."...
Because cars would be able to enter parks for free, the state would lose about $40 million in entry fees it collects every year. The net funding increase would actually be $242 million.
Also, the state parks system's entire $150 million annual budget would be available to the state's general fund in the first year of the registration fees. Every year after that, the state's general fund will be allowed access to $50 million less from the state parks budget until the entire amount is designated for the parks.
At that point, state parks would have a $392 million annual budget, not including any variations in the total number of registered vehicles in California....
"We can negotiate things like that if people think it's going to be an issue," Laird said....
A recent poll of Californians showed 74 percent favor the registration increase, Laird said.
While I'm not sure I like the idea of leaving the parks budget available to the general fund - it's time we stopped raiding other funds because the state isn't willing to tackle the structural revenue shortfall - and though I'd prefer a full restoration of the pre-1998 VLF, the overall concept seems sound. California's beaches and parks should be free for day visitors, and as they are part of the state's natural heritage, everyone should pitch in to help keep them afloat.
Besides, at many parks, folks have already found workarounds to avoid paying the day use fee - including here in Monterey County, where folks can simply park along Highway 1 and walk into most parks and beaches rather than pay the fee. This provides a more sustainable parks budget, helps address the backlog, and all with new revenues. It's a progressive solution.
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.
Greg Pettis, in his 14th year as Cathedral City Councilman, former-Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City, and Candidate for the CA 80th Assembly District, has now received the endorsements from every member of the California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Caucus in Sacramento. Pettis has widespread support in the LGBT community Nationally, State-wide, and locally because of his progressive stands on issues important to the LGBT communities: Pettis fully supports the HIV/AIDS communities, universal healthcare, a strong local economy, good local schools and responsible academic oversight, a healthy environment, equality and justice for all Californians, and mentoring other members of the LGBT community.
Today on KQED's California Report, (audio can be streamed at this player) there's a story about what seems to be a great program all around. It's a community behavioral health court. It tracks mentally ill offenders through the system. And, in the end, it saves us money by reducing the recidivism rate (by half!).
The trouble is that only a few counties have followed San Francisco's model. While several are gearing up to come online, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill to make these courts statewide. The reason?
Money. Penny-wise, the Governor felt that we couldn't afford to pay for this system. The problem is that we are now probably paying more for not having the system in the offenders we are holding in our prisons. So, he vetoed a bill that would have expanded the courts across the state.
You see, we have choices to make, and priorities to set. And we have consistently been making the decision that costs the least NOW, rather than the decision that has the best long-term consequences. It is a policy that has led us to lock up about 1% of our population, and a policy that will soon lead us to spend more on prisons than on higher education. It is a failed policy.
But yet, we continue to protect the material concerns of now, rather than think long-term. It's been a consistent failure since Pat Brown left office, and been even more obvious since Prop 13 passed back in 1978. And today, we can see it ever more with the failure of the yacht tax loophole to be closed. "It is unconscionable to not close the yacht tax loophole when we're making cuts to public education and medical care." Assembly member John Laird said today, "If California's teachers and students, as well as those receiving medical care, can take cuts, so can California's yacht owners."
We choose this course for our state. And it has but one stark, inevitable conclusion: a downward sprial of increasing prison costs and decreased spending on programs that work. At some point we must break this vicious cycle, but today, every single Republican in the Assembly felt it better to cut health services from the poorest amongst us than to plug a loophole on the taxation of yachts. And so, let's keep riding the merry-go-round to hell.
In the aftermath of the failure of Prop 93 on Tuesday, most attention seemed to be focused on the leadership contests in Sacramento. But Prop 93's failure has sparked a whole series of contests to replace outgoing lawmakers. With the June primary four months away, potential candidates are scrambling to get their names out there in the public eye, raise money, and rally supporters. These contests will help determine the future of the Democratic legislature and progressive politics in the state, and so it's time we looked at some of these in greater detail.
Here in the Monterey Bay area, in AD-27, we're faced with the task of replacing the incomparable John Laird, one of the most knowledgeable legislators on the budget and a strong progressive. The Yes on 93 campaign won Santa Cruz and Monterey counties with an effective "Yes on 93 - Keep John Laird" appeal, but it wasn't enough. Laird's future is uncertain - like the equally talented Fred Keeley, who represented the district before he was termed out in 2002, Laird does not live in SD-15, the long coastal state senate district currently represented by Republican Abel Maldonado. Most of us here would love Laird to move a few miles east and run in SD-15, one of the most winnable Senate districts in the state (Dems now have a lead in registration), but Laird has not announced his intentions.
Five candidates have declared for the Democratic primary here in AD-27. Emily Reilly is a member of the Santa Cruz City Council and last year served as the city's mayor. She's visited Calitics before - in December she wrote an excellent piece attacking the "design-build" concept that Arnold is so much in love with, and I personally support her in the race to replace Laird. She has strong progressive credentials on issues from health care to sustainability and climate change, and has also demonstrated significant fundraising prowess - she raised nearly $120,000 from over 300 small donors in Q4 2007, even before it was known whether she would actually be a candidate for AD-27 (she, like most in the race, promised to withdraw if Prop 93 passed).
Bill Monning is another experienced entrant into the race. Monning is a Monterey attorney, and has challenged for this seat before - in 1994 he was the Democratic nominee, but lost to Bruce McPherson in that year's Republican tide. Monning, like Reilly, emphasizes his strong progressive credentials, and is especially interested in action on climate change. According to the Monterey Herald Monning has $60,000 in the bank, but plans to raise $480,000 for the primary.
Over the flip I discuss the other announced candidates for the seat...
In the weekly radio addresses, we get some Governator talking points from former Secretary of State George Schultz and a frank discussion from Assembly member John Laird.
In the Governor's address, we hear that we spend too much money, and that Ronald Reagan wanted to restrict spending. The trouble with that comparison: Ronald Reagan was also willing to look at tax increases and fixes as well. This Governor seems to be taking adjustments to the revenue stream off the table while saying that nothing is off the table. In other words, he's devouring that cake that he's hold onto. As George Skelton said today, Arnold "talks like FDR, but walks more like Scrooge."
On the other hand, Assembly member John Laird talks about actually addressing how we fund our state. He points the finger squarely where it belongs, at the Governor for his full-throated assault of the VLF. Laird acknowledges that cuts seem inevitable, but does not yield to the idea of a cuts-only budget. We must adjust our revenue as well.
Well, we're in one. Under Prop 58 approved right after the recall, the Governor has the authority to declare these emergencies to allow him to hold the Legislature hostage. More deets at the SacBee:
It will mark the first time Schwarzenegger has used the "fiscal emergency" authority that he asked voters to create by passing Proposition 58 in 2004. The provision allows the governor to declare an emergency when revenues are "substantially below" what was anticipated when the budget was signed. Such an emergency would summon the Legislature into special session.
If lawmakers fail to send the governor legislation addressing the budget problem within 45 days, they cannot take action on any other bills or adjourn until they do so. (SacBee 12.14.07)
Well, this puts a damper on our ever-so-sunny outlook in Sacramento. Spending will likely be slashed, but when are we going to address the real problem? We can't keep going on this boom/bust budget roller coaster that we are riding. Maybe we can appoint John Laird as our fiscal administrator. Trust me, things would be way better than they are now.
Last week, I sat down with Assemblymember John Laird of Santa Cruz/Monterey, to talk about Prop 93, the environment, and civil rights. I'll be editing up more of the video where we talk about these issues in more detail. However, I wanted to share this video first.
John Laird has a long history of fighting as both a progressive activist and now in the Assembly. He's worked extensively on promoting a sustainable economy, and has spent much of his time in the Assembly by going through each of California's non-discrimination laws to ensure that the rights of all Californians are honored. And given his experience as Assembly budget chair, few have the breadth or depth of knowledge about the priorities of the California government. After all, as he told me, the budget is the one document that represents all of our priorities, our hopes, and our dreams for the state. Flip it for more.
(Bumped to move the 2 budget diaries together. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The Schwarzenegger era will be remembered as the era of "blockbuster politics," where the Governor took the same marketing techniques that made his movies popular and transferred them to the political stage. He wouldn't just make an issue a priority, he would structure the entire year around it. "The Year of Reform!" "The Year of Education!" "The Year of Healthcare!" "The Year of The Environment!" As an actor he only put out one movie a year, so one legislative initiative a year sounded about right for the average attention span. The details of governance would be pushed backstage; the thrust would be to go big on one issue and hope the goodwill gained from success would mask whatever failures occurred. This has not been a slam dunk; the year of reform crashed badly, other signature issues have yielded fruit. Now, with this year's blockbuster on the rocks due to Republican resistance, legal challenges, initiative politics and structural roadblocks, the inattention to the small problems that weren't on the big agenda are starting to consume the state. In an excellent editorial, Assemblyman John Laird, Chairman of the Budget Committee, explains how our current mess of a $10 billion dollar shortfall could have been easily avoided if the Governor would have paid attention to something other than staging the next blockbuster.
(I've changed the title, but all else is straight from the candidate's fingers. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
We have a real chance to do something good for California and I think for the country since this State leads the nation in many ways. California governance is currently hamstrung by a fraction. That fraction is two thirds. We are embarrassingly only one of just three States in the Union that requires a two thirds majority to pass a budget or manage tax revenues. This is in a State, a nation state really, that is the 6th largest economy in the world-equal to France.
That is why, along with eventually achieving universal, single payer healthcare, I am running as a Democrat for the 15th Assembly seat for the California State Legislature.
It's a long time held Republican seat right on the doorstep of the Bay area. Jerry McNerney won his race, Tauscher gets re-elected, State Senator Torlakson too and yet with these same voters the Assembly seat has stubbornly remained in red hands. ....more on the flip.
You don't need to explain the looming water crisis to John Laird (AD-27). For his district, there's nothing "looming" about it. His home city of Santa Cruz has recently implemented water restrictions due to the dry winter of 2007. Down here in the Monterey Peninsula portion of his district, we've been in Stage 1 rationing since 1999 and I am only able to take a shower in the morning or get a glass of water as I sit to write this post because we pump the Carmel River dry.
It's fitting, then, that Laird has become the Assembly's point person on water as the special session kicks into high gear this week. A combination of growth, overpumping in the Delta, drought and the specter of climate change has forced California to face its water crisis. And as such, it's worth taking a bit of time this Sunday afternoon to get everyone up to speed on where things currently stand in Sacramento.
