Top 2 Creates Interesting Scenarios Within Republican Assembly Caucus
by Brian Leubitz
The headline itself sounds like insanity. But with only a month until candidate filing opens it is looking increasingly like Republicans may realize they have to choose between keeping a few RINO pets or face extinction.
We all know the situation in the Senate, where Republicans are pinning their hopes of keeping Democrats below 2/3rds on a handful of seats along the Central Coast. They are so worried they have launched an expensive referendum challenge in hopes of getting more favorable lines from the Supreme Court. Members of their Caucus must think they are in trouble as they resemble rats on the proverbial ship with both Senators Blakeslee and Strickland announcing they will not be running for re-election.
The Assembly is more interesting. Most analysts believe that Democrats cannot reach two-thirds in that house in 2012. But looking at the Republican frontrunners they may not have to. In AD 77 there is Brian Maienschein, a former San Diego City Council member who is well liked by local labor and who the Flashreport had labeled as too moderate to be considered a real Republican.
In AD 61 they have Bill Batey. Besides being a Moreno Valley City Councilmember, this guy is pro-choice, fine with gay marriage and won't sign the no-tax pledge. And yes, he says he is a Republican.
In AD 8 they have Peter Tateishi who is a by-the-book Republican. But leadership is so worried about his ability to win the seat they have been quietly encouraging local developer Jon Bagetelos to run. Why quietly? Because among his moderate credentials, Bagetelos is a major backer of Sacramento's Democratic mayor Kevin Johnson. Bagatelos lost an Assembly race once before to a conservative Republican and this time is trying to quietly set himself up before the tea party people figure out who he really is.
Then you can throw sitting Assemblymember Jeff Gorrell in the mix. The only reason he hasn't been branded a RINO yet is that he hasn't had the chance to vote due to an extended military deployment to Afghanistan. But once he is back and if he has some other moderate voices to give him cover, expect Gorell to go up on votes for taxes, labor, choice and marriage equality.
So unlike the Senate where Republicans are putting up a vigorous fight, if something doesn't change by the time candidate filing closes Assembly Republicans may simply hand Democrats the two-thirds votes we need to advance our agenda no matter what happens in November. Where is Republican leader Connie Conway? Are the conservative members of her Caucus giving her a pass because they would like to remain at least sort-of-relevant? Or are they asleep at the wheel as she pulls the wool over their eyes? Given Assembly Republicans penchant for dumping their leaders, I guess we will know soon enough.
If you care to look, it seems that the Sacramento press corps (all three to five of the hardy souls) have just written either a wrap up of 2011 or a preview of 2012. You basically get a few points with slightly different order depending on the writer(s), but here are a few points worth noting:
1) Jerry Brown is just Jerry Brown
That isn't to say he's any worse than any other governor that we could have ended up with, but that he's not some super hero who can ride in to save the day. Even with all of his experience, he can't magically do Jedi Mind Tricks on the Republicans to somehow be reasonable. I think there was a lot of hope this time last year that Jerry Brown, with all of his experience a generation ago, would be the adult in the room for the bunch of children in the legislature. But I suppose sometimes the delinquents win.
2) 2012 will be a make or break year for Brown and California generally. Or not.
This is sort of a funny one. Because, really, the same thing has been said about our situation for the last four years or so. Really, ever since the worst of the budget mess began, we have been playing with fire. So, in that sense, yes, every year is really important, but somehow we've been able to find some way to make the cuts, cuts, cuts and more cuts into our budget to avoid any real decision-making. Yes, those cuts are a real decision, but more in the passive sense. We have left the decisions for a few whims of whomever gets the last word at the dais of the respective budget committees, or whomever manages to catch the leaders at an opportune moment.
They say that budgets are a statement of our priorities. But I hope, for all of our sakes, that isn't true of the past five years. Is it really our priority to make the school year shorter? Or to abandon our sick and elderly? Or to cut fire protection services? It is hardly any robust statement of priority when there is a gun at your head. Our system is so skewed towards one particular priority, taxes, that we have lost all sense of everything else.
Perhaps this is the year that changes that, but from the statements of Sen. Steinberg and Spkr Perez, I wouldn't expect much from the Legislature. They seem content to wait back for the Novemeber election and to satisfy the budget deficit ($13B-ish) with cuts alone until then.
"My view is you always have an open door and outstretched hand, but I don't think we do anything as our main strategy that requires a two-thirds vote," Steinberg said. "We're gone down that path far too many times."(SacBee)
So, perhaps we'll see a fairly standard legislative year. Maybe something happens with pensions, but more likely, we are in a holding pattern until something is determined at the ballot box with a revenue measure of some sort in November.
3) New Districts and Top 2 Will Bring Changes to Composition of Legislature
At the very least, we will see something new here. There will, most certainly, be several Dem-on-Dem elections in November. Laura Richardson and Janice Hahn, Howard Berman and Brad Sherman seem destined for some expensive races. There may be a few Rep-on-Rep, but the numbers and costs will likely be far fewer. The thing is that there is usually enough Democratic support to get one Dem in a deep Red district top 2, but that isn't always the case in some of the Bluest seats. Or to flip that, the Deepest Blue is darker than the deepest red.
Now, as to the districts, well, there is still the question of the Senate district referendum. There is still no word as to whether it will qualify (but expect some sort of word within a few weeks as to whether they will need a full count verification). But, with the signatures out there, the sponsors of the referendum (GOP Senators for the most part) are trying to get some other map more to their liking. The Supreme Court will likely decide on that fairly soon as the SoS needs to prepare for the elections.
There is a very real chance that the Democrats get 2/3 in the Senate (and take away whatever power the Senate GOP caucus had), but it is extremely unlikely that the Assembly Dems are able to do the same. (Cali_girl_in_texas has the over/under at 50). I'm skeptical that situation would really bring all that much change. Democrats would just be paying more attention to the Assembly. Just a few different, slightly more radical, people in the position of blocking action.
Well, it's about time to get rolling into a new Legislative year, should be fun!
Asm. Anthony Portantino has had his run-ins with Assembly leadership. Many of them, some of which resulted in getting tossed in one of the so-called "doghouses" and getting his office budget cut. The spat got really nasty when the Rules Committee demanded a rather large cut from his office and accused him of overspending. Portantino then took it upon himself to release his budget records and demanded that the rest of the Assembly do the same.
That was a few months back, and since then the Senate has released most of their records but the Assembly is holding back. Perhaps it is part of the Portantino feud, or perhaps it is just to be consistent with years past. Nonetheless, a Sacramento judge issued a tentative ruling yesterday ordering the Assembly to release the records.
Earlier this year, Assembly administrators had claimed that the records were confidential under provisions in the Legislature Open Records Act that exempt "preliminary drafts, notes or legislative memoranda" and "correspondence of and to individual members of the Legislature and their staff."
On Thursday, Frawley said the Assembly "improperly withheld" the records and chided the lower-house for its "somewhat ironic" view of the open-records law, with legislative lawyers arguing for "a narrow interpretation that significantly restricts the public's right to inspect legislative records."
"The records requested by the news organizations indisputably contain information relating to the conduct of the public's business," Frawley wrote. "The records all reflect how Assembly money is budgeted and spent, which is critical to an understanding of the Legislature's operations."
The judge strongly rejected the Assembly's argument that the records qualified as confidential "correspondence" under the open-records law.(LA Times)
Tentative rulings are rarely changed, and the Assembly has apparently seen that it really isn't worth the PR hit to continue this fight, at least for now. Yesterday they announced that they won't be protesting the ruling at the hearing with the Judge. However, they can still appeal, but again that is hardly without risks. The longer this goes on, the more (negative) attention it gets. And with an approval rating hovering around 10%, that's really the last thing the Legislature needs.
While we might not get the records right away, expect to see them fairly soon. Heck, who knows, maybe some interesting information is hiding out in those budgets.
Controversial legislative technique faces scrutiny over rushed proceedings
by Brian Leubitz
Gut and amend has its purposes.
I say that because there are a few major pieces of legislation, that were heavily discussed and fully vetted that still required gut and amend. Most notably, Mark Leno's marriage equality bill in 2005, which was ultimately vetoed by Schwarzenegger.
Some issues should be given the second crack that gut and amend offers. But a little background. "Gut and amend" basically means that a legislator will take a bill that was passed out of one house, strip its language, and replace it with entirely different language. It ultimately has to get a confirming vote back in the first house, so every legislator votes on the new language.
The issue is that frequently gut and amend bills will come in the context of the last few days of a legislative session, where it is difficult if not impossible to deliver the proper scrutiny on the new text. And thus, we get stories like this:
A few hours earlier, using an obscure parliamentary procedure, the senator had carved the contents out of a bill about local gas taxes and "amended" it into a proposal to warn women about breast cancer risks. It was now speeding through the statehouse so fast, and with so little scrutiny, that Simitian would later be on the defensive about one significant effect: a possible multimillion-dollar windfall for a medical business in his district.
Although most bills take months to wend their way through the Legislature, Simitian's midnight measure was no anomaly. Proposals routinely emerge from nowhere in the waning hours of a lawmaking year and ride a fast track to the governor's desk, without normal vetting and with standard rules waived. In the chaos, special interests can manipulate state law, sometimes so subtly that they elude detection.
The senator's bill was one of many that bypassed the usual reviews this year as they flew through lawmakers' hands at the eleventh hour. They included an exemption from environmental rules for a Los Angeles stadium developer, which Brown signed Tuesday, and a gift to unions that would permit child-care workers to organize. The governor has until Oct. 9 to act on the labor bill, Simitian's proposal and hundreds of other potential laws. (LA Times)
Now, I'm not sure it's time to point the corruption arrow on Joe Simitian on this, but you can see where it comes from. Given the haste most gut and amend bills get through the Legislature, transparency is far from the first goal. The bill in question isn't necessarily a bad one, but perhaps something that could have waited for the next legislative session.
The problem with gut and amend isn't the process itself, it is the extent to which it is used. Legislators need to consider whether the bill they are pushing can wait to proceed through the normal process to allow a more transparent process. If the answer is no, well, hopefully it is no because it is critical to the state, and not because those pushing the bill favor the lack of transparency.
UPDATE: I want to just emphasize one point. I think it is unfortunate that this breast cancer prevention bill got singled out for a discussion of gut and amend. Like Mark Leno's marriage equality bill back in 2005, it has been through the full process of hearings, and people on both sides of the issue have gotten a chance to present their case. Ultimately that isn't true for some gut and amend bills, and it probably would have been helpful for the Times to point to one of those bills as the poster child.
This bill ends up getting lost in the forest, but I'm confident that Sen. Simitian has the best of intentions for breast cancer prevention. And, given the attention that the bill just got from the Times, it makes it more difficult for the Governor to sign it now. That is ultimately unfortunate, as the bill deserves a fair hearing based entirely on the merits of early cancer detection. I, however, am optimistic that Gov. Brown considers policy before politics on his legislative decisions. Good legislation still makes good law, even if it came through an ugly process.
The clock ticking down on the last night in the California statehouse is always a lot like waiting for last call at a rowdy bar around 2 AM -- you wonder how much damage will done before the last shot.
With the Republicans continuing their obstinacy, Democrats in the Legislature are looking for some way, any way, to make sure they don't lose their pay after tomorrow's Constitutional deadline.
The alternative plan would keep paychecks coming even though talks between Gov. Jerry Brown and Republicans have snagged on the issue of taxes.
"We will have a budget," said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento).
Barankin and others close to the process declined to provide details. But a fallback blueprint would almost certainly rely on accounting moves and other measures that would merely paper over the state's remaining $10-billion shortfall: Democrats, who have sharply cut back many programs already, have little appetite for further reductions.
Barankin acknowledged that any plan written without a renewal of some tax increases or more drastic cuts would not fully restore the state's financial health.
The Governor has already walked back from his hard-line "No Gimmicks" stance from the election. Certainly that would appear to be what he wants, but he is trying to make some accommodation to get something, anything passed. Most likely, some of that will be borrowing and a bunch of accounting tricks.
They have about 36 hours to pass something, who knows what we'll get.
Well, the Legislature is back in session, just in time for another exposee of California governance, or lack thereof. This time, it is the Economist magazine's monthly headline. So, yay!
While the Economist looks at everything from an economic perspective first (uh...right...the title), they aren't necessarily dogmatic. Rather than simply joining the chorus of "man, California really sucks, their leaders are terrible," they actually look for the root of the problem. In their opening story of the section, they point the finger chiefly at the initiative system.
This special report has shown how one of the three ingredients of direct democracy, the initiative process, has, cumulatively over the past three decades, caused much of the dysfunction that paralyses California whenever it suffers an economic shock, as it is doing at present. Does it follow that California must get rid of the initiative process?
It is a moot question because Californian voters would never agree (in what itself would have to be an initiative) to end initiatives. Ronald George, California's former chief justice, says that "people will never vote to give up their own power." The best we can hope for is to make the process "less extreme". (The Economist)
The entire series takes a serious look at where we are, how we get there, and how we get out of this situation. Particularly, how we harness the power of direct democracy in a state of nearly 40 million people. This is no easy question, and while it is easy to be glib, it is harder to get to real solutions.
They do suggest some particular reforms, from emphasizing referenda over initiatives, to requiring a sunset of all initiative legislation. These are all solid ideas, and I think you could get a majority of Californians to agree to many of them. However, getting them on the ballot, in a hostile climate amongst consultants, with a fair bit of money coming from those who have used the system to hijack the apparatus of state? Well, that's more easily said than done.
At any rate, while some of the particulars, which I'm going to try to take a greater look at this week, are slightly skewed, the report as a general is well-done and informative. Take a look, and hey, let me know what you catch.
$538 million. That's how much is said to have been spent on lobbying the legislature, and that's just what has been reported.
Special interest groups with business before the state government spent $538 million on professional lobbyists to influence the passage or defeat of bills during the 2009-10 legislative session. ... State and local governments spent the most on lobbying of any special interest group. Other governmental entities that spent millions to lobby government included kindergarten-through-twelfth-grade schools and public universities. Education ranked fifth on the secretary of state's list.
Rounding out the top five lobbying spenders was the healthcare industry, including hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies, and the manufacturing-industrial category, which includes powerful trade groups and giant industrial corporations such as General Electric Co. and Apple Inc (LA Times)
On the plus side, that number is slightly down from the previous legislative session, so yay for us, right? But the underlying fact is that it is just nearly impossible for the people to break through the din of the moneyed interests. Sure, occasionally there can be a confluence of interests, or a really widespread organized movement (see organized labor), but when you get down to it, the interests with all the cash get the attention. It's basic political law.
With real clean money still being a distant dream, this increased spending means that organizations without all that cash need to put a high premium on a visible presence and consistent contact with legislators.
Jim Sanders has some interesting thoughts, many of which have passed between my two ears over the last couple of weeks with the closing of the legislative sessions. Specifically, there have been a few instances of crass political maneuvering outweighing policy. Not that it is anything new, nor is the impact of lobbyists anything innovative. But it seems, as the legislature has completely lost its institutional knowledge, the power of the almighty lobbyist dollar has become magnified. And Sanders has some specific examples, take for example the interesting case of the plastic bag measure, AB 1998.
Plastic bags have been "banned" from major San Francisco groceries for several years now. The sky has not fallen, and prices have not skyrocketed. You see more reusable bags these days (which is an incontrovertible good), and a bunch more paper (which is a bit of a wash). But, what is also clear is that the plastic bags are killing the San Francisco Bay and other California waterways. Millions are floating around the bay, and drastic action is necessary, as these things just don't break down over any short-term horizon.
But, you know, as Dustin Hoffman learned in The Graduate: "plastics!"
Supporters of the plastic-bag ban struggled to overcome an army of lobbyists - including former Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez - and a tsunami of "misleading ads," said Dan Jacobson, of Environment California.
"Money was no object," he said of opponents, who also unleashed a flurry of political donations.
"If the American Chemistry Council wasn't in the middle of the debate, this would have been a no-brainer bill getting through the Legislature and to the governor's desk," said Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, a Santa Monica Democrat who proposed the ban.
But Tim Shestek, of the chemistry council, said accusations of undue influence unfairly ignore that the coalition of AB 1998 supporters was high-powered as well, including grocers, labor groups, environmentalists and legislative leaders. (SacBee)
Was it a fair fight, maybe, maybe not, but the greater issue is that the paid corporate interests are now drowning out the voices of the people. Even if legislators make a concerted effort to talk to constituents, they get flooded with industry spurred communication.
There are many reasons for these issues, and some have no simple cure. BUt surely, some sort of fix that allows our legislators to gain the upper hand through experience in their position before they are on to the next gig would be a reasonable starting point.
When I wrote regularly for Calitics, the progressive blog for California politics, I took a particular interest in the prison crisis, which has reached epidemic proportions in the Golden State. The health care system has already been taken over by a federal receiver because it violated the prisoners' Constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment, with at least one prisoner dying each week from medical neglect. The entire system, which fits 170,000 convicts into jails with 100,000 beds, may get taken over by the courts as well. Severe overcrowding, cutbacks to rehabilitation and treatment programs, and an insane parole policy which sends 2/3 of all recidivists back to jail for technical parole violations have contributed to the problem. As has the pervasive "tough on crime" stance from the political leadership of both parties, which has yet to be contrasted with any kind of progressive message on how to fight crime smartly and safely, at lower cost and with corresponding lower incarceration and crime rates.
Here are a few stories that all happened within the past 24 hours in California, regarding these matters: (over)
On the scale of concerns with the Legislature, too much transparency would seem to be pretty low down on the list. Yet in a story that seemed more like a slightly edited press release than actual journalism, Michael Gardner writes down the GOP theory that when it comes to transparency, the cost is around $33.
To make a long story short, some Legislative Democrats have decided to do something of a roadshow around the state to discuss the budget. This is an undisputed good idea. Now, the Republicans apparently would like more control in how they are conceived, but, you know, try winning a few more seats before you start whining. So, instead of actually doing something to further the budget talks, the Republicans decide to attack the costs of the roadshow. It seems they have found some expenses that they think would make the state furious!
The Legislative Dems spent $16,000 on these budget hearings!!! Can you believe it, that could, oh wait...that's 16 thousand? Not million? For 12 hearings around the state? That seems like a pretty reasonable tally, all things considered. But, apparently they should have been more thrifty.
That $16,000 in tax dollars was spent on staff airfare, hotels, rental cars and meals as they assisted lawmakers who held sessions on the state's grim financial situation, including a stop May 8 in San Diego. The bills included four $19.99 bar stools, $500 audiovisual equipment rentals and a $35 cab ride. (San Diego U-T)
Really? This is what the Republicans are going off about? Some $20 bar stools? Frankly, that seems like a bargain. A quick search of Target's website gives me a cost of $54.99 for the cheapest stool. $500 in A/V rental is basically the cost of renting a mic and a multi-box. And a cab ride? Really? This sentence closes the story:
In another, an employee took a $35 taxi to the airport instead of the $2 bus.
Is this really all we have to fill our newspapers with? Look, I don't know how to tell Mr. Gardner and his friends in the Republican caucus this, but the employee's time also holds value. Him sitting in the bus also costs the state money. We lose his productivity that we could be gaining were he to sit at his desk.
Honestly, if this is where we are headed, fighting over a cab ride to the airport, the tone of the budget talks is way ahead of last year. I mean, we didn't get to this petty stuff for at least another month in 2009. Well, actually, I'm not sure if we even got this bad last year.
In the end, while I understand the desire to reduce expenses, there is being economically prudent, and then there's just being cheap. And this one is clearly on the counterproductive side.
Oh what joyous news we have been greeted with this week! We're $20.7 billion short again, says The Bee. And, alas, surprise surprise, the Barbarian says he won't fix it with taxes, according to Reuters.
Allow me to write the next headline: DEMOCRATS CAVE ON BUDGET DEMANDS, AGREE TO ANOINT SEN. MALDANADO EMPEROR FOR LIFE.
It's sad, isn't it? We can already write the story. The Democrats will write a budget that goes against everything they're supposed to stand for. Hell, there won't even be DEATH PANELS, they'll just be throwing the old people straight into the glue factory this time. Something insane like the privatization of the community college system (University of Phoenix for all!) will be thrown in there, but the whole thing will fail because there's a 50 cent tax on yachts.
Update: Perhaps along the lines I suggested here the last time we had this dance.
The Republicans won't have to do anything except say 'no' to everything, claim that the T-100 isn't a real part of their party and this is the Democrats' fault.
I tried to tell people I know in the party that they needed to have it out last time, that making a faustian bargain for one more year was never going to work and you were only going to set a precedent of weakness. I'm no one of consequence, not that they would have listened to me if I were.
When are the Dems in the Legislature going to realize that while they have a majority, they are not in control of the Legislature or the Government. The Republicans control the executive branch and control an overriding bloc of the Legislature for purposes of everything except banning text messaging while driving.
I know this is a metaphor that has been worn thin over the last 10 years, but enough with the Chamberlain negotiating tactics. Let them shut down the government to protect the rich and powerful on the backs of the poor. Ask Newt fucking Gingrich how that worked out! And then realize California is a more liberal state than the US as a whole.
Over the past year, the Legislature has seemed to go into marathon session after marathon session. There have been several sessions lasting nearly 20 hours this year dealing with the various budget gaps. And then there was the water marathon. Thus, we get this from the Bee:
Early - very early - one morning last week, state Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod wandered to the back of the ornate Senate chambers and expressed a feeling shared by many of the other people in the room.
"I would rather stick my finger in a light socket," she said, "than spend another hour in here."
The Chino Democrat's observation was colored by the fact that it came at around 3 a.m., during an 18-hour legislative session on overhauling the state's water system. (SacBee)
This just isn't good governance. Ignoring the question of whether the legislators are tired, there is also the fact that actions taken in the middle of the night are far less transparent. Legislators can't get input from stakeholders and the general public at 3 AM. While I understand the dramatic nature of the all-nighter for purposes of forcing compromise, there has to be a better way than something you'd see on collegehumor.com.
And, legislators, take the advice from the "Health Guru." You are probably better off to think ahead and lay off the Ritalin!
I wake up this morning and see some sort of shock from the LA Times that the stars didn't align themselves to create the perfect water package. It turns out, that this stuff is hard. Who knew? Well, those who listened to the Calitics podcast, that's who!
"It's fear of losing water, fear of having to pay for stuff," said Ellen Hanak of the Public Policy Institute. "It's the same old interests," she added, that have for decades impeded any kind of overhaul of California's complicated and increasingly troubled water system.
The Democrats' proposal is broad-ranging, but far from revolutionary. It takes what many water experts have characterized as modest steps in regard to groundwater, urban water conservation and state enforcement of water rights.
(LA Times 10/28/09)
The package is quite modest, a good start, but it doesn't really solve our water issues. But to tell you the truth, nobody expected our water issues to be really resolved this year. There are too many moving parts, too many interest groups for this to all be resolved at once.
Meanwhile the Republican "plan" is an even more modest change that, while provides for more storage, doesn't address conservation in a suitably strict manner.
And the elephant in the room that everybody feels no compulsion to discuss? None of the plans call for any water conservation by agricultural users. Look, I'm for a healthy agriculture sector as much as the next guy, but we have to be realistic here. While urban users have dramatically cut usage, especially areas like Monterey and Sonoma Counties that have radically reduced their water usage over the past twenty years, agricultural users have barely scratched the surface. There have been a few stories here and there of farmers using forms of hi-tech water monitoring and drip irrigation to reduce water usage, but these stories are notable because they are the exception. For the most part, farms are planting the same crops and watering the same ways.
The problem is that we have come to expect that water is an infinite resource whose price is at or near zero. It is a model that works fine for online storage and email, but it's just not a sustainable course in California's water future. Until all users start treating water as the precious resource that it is, we can't really get to a "solution." And as much respect as I have for Steinberg and Bass, that just isn't going to happen this year.
This year we'll get some modest reforms and maybe some interesting storage products. But we'll only get a real solution when water is properly valued.
We can get a portion of the way to meeting our future water needs with a bit more storage. But, quite simply, we can't build our way out of the water crisis. No matter how much we build, we will not create additional rain or mitigate the effects that climate change will have upon the state.
So, conservation is where the rubber meets the road. Consider this:
New dams would produce up to 1 million acre-feet of water annually, compared with up to 3.1 million acre-feet freed up each year by new water efficiency programs, according to the delta task force, which cited state Department of Water Resources statistics. (Fresno Bee 10/21/09)
The question then is how we create some of the efficiencies to actually conserve the water. Some conservations are fairly straightforward. For example, many cities do not yet have water meters, installing them will rapidly reduce water usage as people get an idea of how much they are using and start paying for excessive use.
The bigger question is where these conservation gains will come from, and how do hold users accountable. There are a number of questions to look at, and this Fresno Bee article does a pretty good job taking a look at some of the bigger issues.
One issue that seems to always pop up is the question of coastal vs non-coastal. In the current negotiations, Republicans are arguing that coastal cities aren't required to do enough for conservation. Much of that is because many coastal cities have already put in some pretty effective conservation measures. Under the current proposal, the targets for each city are generally a 20% reduction, but cities that have already made reductions have to do less.
The biggest question is enforcement. Republicans want to give the least possible teeth to this measure by assuring that their could not be any legal ramifications of failing to meet the requirements, which Democrats already say isn't in the bill. However, it isn't at all clear that without the possibility of legal challenges there will be enough teeth to actually enforce with only some grants as a carrot for compliance. In other words, the bill is all carrot, and no stick. If you meet the targets, you get some extra grants, if you miss them, you don't. But the water still gets pumped either way.
If this water package is going to last for more than 5 or 10 years, it is going to need to be able to require very strict water efficiency. However, the key is getting beyond short-term political gain to do what's best for the state. Whether that happens appears to be up to the Legislative Republicans...again.
Nearly three dozen bills stalled on the Senate floor last month amid a personal clash between the two Senate leaders. Hollingsworth has implied that Steinberg reneged on earlier promises to strip funding from the state's free tax filing system, Ready Return, and make changes to state sales tax law.
Steinberg denies ever making any promises about those issues to Hollingsworth. And Democrats did not make any changes to Ready Return or the single-sales factor issue this week.
So what changed?
In the end, it was a matter of politics. A bill to give tax credits to homebuyers, sponsored by Assemblywoman Anna Caballero, D-Salinas, was killed. In its place Wednesay, the identical language was amended into a new bill, SB 3x 37, authored by Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield. (CapitolWeekly 10/15/09)
Of all the things that can bring about compromise, it was the giveaway to the homebuilders. While I don't begrudge Anna Caballero her win, whether acknowledged or not, the homebuyers tax credit wasn't so exciting. Of all the things that got blocked because of Intuit's temper tantrum, the homebuyer's tax credit was essentially a big giveaway to big homebuilders at the expense of regular Californians trying to sell their homes.
Here's the quick story on this bill. Basically, it gives a tax credit in the amount of several thousand dollars for purchasers of new homes. Not homes that are being resold, but of new homes. That's all well and good for the home builders, but if you are trying to sell your (old/used) home you are now at a competitive disadvantage to the new homes.
At a time of economic peril, there just seem to be a lot better ways to stimulate the economy. Heck, you could probably drop dollar bills over the state from an airplane and get a better multiplier effect on that money.
One other question for our legislators, do real voters really care about who's name is on what bill? No, they care about what the legislators did, and how they pushed the issues they cared about. The legislators can still document their work on the bill and still discuss it on the campaign trail, and few voters are really going to look up who the author was. Let's try focusing on something that matters please?
The downward trend in voter appraisals of the job performance of both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislature continues.
The most recent Field Poll completed last week finds that just 27% of this state's voters approve of the governor's performance, the first time in his nearly six-year tenure that his job ratings have dropped below 30%. The governor's disapproval rating has also reached a new high - 65%.
Voter appraisal of the state legislature is even lower, with just 13% of voters approving and 78% disapproving, the lowest rating The Field Poll has ever obtained for that institution. (Field Poll 10/13/09 (PDF))
This is the biggest surprise since the Raiders lost on Sunday.
So remember the last legislative year? Well, if Arnold follows through on his latest threat, you might as well forget it. He's threatening to veto every bill on his desk if he doesn't get a water deal by, um, tomorrow.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today affirmed a looming threat to veto a large bulk of the bills that have been sent to his desk unless lawmakers can strike a deal on a package of water bills.
"I made it very clear to the legislators and to the leaders that if this does not get done then I will veto a lot of their legislation, a lot of their bills, so that should inspire them to go and get the job done," he said at the end of remarks to the Association of Community College Trustees' Leadership Congress, which is meeting in San Francisco today. (CapAlert 10/08/2009)
We've mentioned the water issue for a long time, but there is no way to overemphasize one critical point: No matter how many projects you build, you do not get any additional water. The rush about getting water for the West Central Valley is toxic to the state government and to the environment.
The West Central Valley is a relatively dry area. The soil is fairly fertile, but right underneath it lies a layer of clay that sucks water away from the topsoil. That means lots of tilling and lots of water. But in order for these farmers, most of which are big corporate operations, to make any real money, water has to be very, very cheap. Unnaturally cheap.
This, of course, is why there wasn't much agriculture done in the area by the native peoples. It was too inefficient to bring water there. But once we built a slew of pumps, it could be done. The problem is that pumps are expensive, and the farmers of the Western Central Valley don't want to pay for it.
The Westlands Water District has been getting cheap water for a long time, but they are the bottom rung on the water priority list. They are trying to use the crisis in Sacramento and the drought to get around the contracts that they signed last year putting them at a lower priority in exchange for a lower price.
And Arnold is trying to help them to do just that by threatening, intimidating, and generally being a jerk. And of course, Susan Kennedy, his "Democratic" Chief of Staff, is right there with him. Putting a gun to the head of not only the legislature, but some very important measures.
It's ugly. But it's an available political tool that the governor would be derelict not to use when an issue as critical as water is at stake.
This isn't about some narrow scheme important only to a narrow interest. Nor is it merely about a governor's pet project -- other than his legacy-building, which should be encouraged as long as it helps the state. It's about finally resolving an acute, decades-old problem that is worsening and affects practically all Californians.
Here's another old white man with health insurance who could give a crap if women get maternity care in their health insurance plans, to just pick one bill at random. Or who could care less if people who have insurance get dropped from it when they want to use it, to pick another. George Skelton would actively make the lives of Californians worse because he thinks it's sporting to see the Governor "use his power." That the power is illegal is of no consequence.
Then there's this whopper:
These and other arguments -- such as details of a new governing system for the delta -- have raged for years. Schwarzenegger apparently doesn't much care what the Legislature decides. He just wants it to compromise and send him a bill.
Yeah, he doesn't care at all. He actually invented the Latino Water Coalition, the fake-grassroots group pushing all the Republican solutions in water negotiations, but he's really just an innocent bystander. An innocent bystander who would destroy women's health and allow insurance companies to kill people for profit and a host of other things, all with an asshole like George Skelton cheering him on.
In the Assembly, Democrats are employing tactics that seem designed to pressure the governor into signing bills. Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico, D-Newark, sent a letter to Attorney General Jerry Brown asking him to investigate whether the governor's strategy is illegal. He cited a part of the state constitution that says it is a felony to seek to influence a legislative vote by means of "bribery, promise of reward, intimidation or other dishonest means."
"While politicians are certainly allowed to express their disagreements in any way they find productive, they are not allowed to refuse to perform their sworn duties in order to force the legislature to accept policy positions," Torrico wrote. "And public officials are specifically prohibited from the kind of direct 'horse trading' in which a government official agrees to take, or not take, a certain action in exchange for a specific vote."
Assembly sources said some Assembly Democrats even suggested on a conference call last week that the lower house should impeach the governor if he imposes a mass veto. The constitution says the Assembly has the "sole power of impeachment" and that it can pursue it on a majority vote for unspecified "misconduct in office." The Senate would then conduct a trial.
The idea seems to crop up every time lawmakers are frustrated with the governor, said Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco. It appears to be mostly talk for now.
"I know some members have mentioned the possibility of impeaching the governor," Torrico said, adding, "There's certainly a growing number of members who consider the governor's extortion tactics to be illegal and a dereliction of duty. But (impeachment) has not been discussed formally in the caucus as an option."
This sounds like a bluff on all counts, although the Governor's actions certainly violate the spirit and (depending on your reading) the letter of the law about using "bribery, promise of reward, intimidation or other dishonest means" to influence a legislative vote. I don't expect Jerry Brown to act on it, however, because he'd probably welcome the ability to threaten the legislature in this manner were he the Governor.
And yet, if the Governor were to veto the entire legislative session because he couldn't get his way on water (and doesn't that represent a failure of HIS leadership, not the legislature's?), I would say a case could be made that using extortion and running the state like a Hollywood negotiation is grounds for removal. What's more, while a two-thirds vote for removal in the Senate would be unlikely (though, given Schwarzenegger's standing in the Republican Party, not completely out of the question), just saddling him with the legacy of impeachment would be a crushing blow to his ego, not to mention his efforts at putting a happy face on his astonishingly awful leadership.
I don't think this is much more than a parlor game. But just so we know the rules, a Governor can be impeached for "misconduct in office" by a simple majority in the Assembly. According to Article 5 of the Constitution, it seems that during impeachment - not removal but impeachment - the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor. ("The Lieutenant Governor shall act as Governor during the impeachment, absence from the State, or other temporary disability of the Governor or of a Governor-elect who fails to take office.") Given that John Garamendi could be elected to Congress in four weeks, the line of succession appears to show that the President Pro Tem of the Senate would be next in line. So if the unthinkable happens, by November 3 we could be looking at Governor Darrell Steinberg.
