When Jerry Brown took over the Horseshoe, there was some thought that now we would finally be able to get of really good progressive legislation enacted. Turns out that wasn't entirely true, but nor was it entirely false.
Today, the Governor signed Mark Leno's SB 48, a bill that ensures that the historical contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and disabled individuals are accurately and fairly portrayed in instructional materials by adding these groups to the existing list of under-represented cultural and ethnic groups already included in the state's inclusionary education requirements. As it stands right now, the state requires inclusion of minority groups contributions to the state, this law simply adds on the disabled and LGBT to that list.
From an immediate standpoint, this probably means that students are going to learn a thing or two about Harvey Milk in their history classes. But in the long run, this bill will help decrease bullying and protect LGBT youth in our schools.
"I am awed and humbled to be part of this historic moment," said Carolyn Laub, Executive Director of Gay-Straight Alliance Network. "By signing the FAIR Education Act and ending the exclusion of the LGBT community from instructional materials, Governor Brown has realized the hopes of youth who have been fighting for safe and inclusive schools, where all students learn about our history and gain respect for each other's differences as a result. This is a part of the American story that we can be proud to know all students will learn."
As many of you already know, a recent Field Poll survey was released showing Senator Dianne Feinstein slipping in her approval rating. 43% of California voters surveyed approve of Sen. Feinstein, while 39% disapprove-- the highest disapproval rating she's had since first being elected to office in 1992. While these numbers don't necessarily spell trouble for California's senior senator, they do indicate that people are starting to think of a changing of the guards in the Golden State. It most certainly has crossed her mind as well.
There are always politicians and prominent Californians waiting in the wings for political jockeying. With Feinstein reaching 80 years of age soon, more and more elected officials are prepping their resumes and spending extra time coddling donors in preparation for the inevitable.
So it begs the speculative question, who would be ready and able to run a statewide campaign for the United States Senate in the event of Senator Dianne Feinstein's retirement? Who would make a great Senator? Who should make for a great race? Who would be an abysmal choice? In this "fantasy draft" diary, I've narrowed it down to the 13 most probable potential candidates who are at least thinking about a potential run from the Democratic side. All the apparent pros and cons will be listed, and your suggestions/comments are always welcome. And by all means, if you know of any Republicans that would seem likely, include those as well!
For a few years, San Francisco's legislators have been pushing, in one form or another, legislation to allow at least that county to control additional forms of taxation. The chief target of that has been the vehicle license fee since the time that Gov. Schwarzenegger lopped off a huge chunk of revenue from that source. Both Sen. Migden and Leno have been keen on allowing my fair city to restore the VLF to return revenue to the City and County of San Francisco.
Now, there have been a few stumbling blocks around this. Logistically, the taxes would be approved by different majorities depending upon the election circumstances. That's not an overwhelming obstacle, but certainly getting 2/3 is challenging. Not impossible, as the slew of parcel taxes over the past few years has shown, but difficult nonetheless.
But in a larger sense, it would be something of a declaration of war against the Republicans and their ideology. And frankly Gov. Schwarzenegger was having no part of that policy, or of the politics. But things are different now; Gov. Brown is not Gov. Schwarzenegger, and the time for a smooth reconciliation is drawing ever smaller.
And so, the possibility of local taxation is back in a major way. This would allow counties to tax a whole slew of items that were previously regulated only by the state, and the anti-taxers are none too pleased. Dan Morain has an excellent column on the subject in today's Bee:
The latest: Grant all 58 counties the power to tax everything from booze and cigarettes to oil extraction and personal income. Don't forget cars, soda pop and more, assuming voters would approve the new local levies. ... Lobbyists representing the oil, tobacco, soft drink, auto industry and many more are taking the latest tactic in California's budget battle seriously.
"I know it has gotten the attention of a lot of people, and I'm glad," Steinberg told me Wednesday. "The majority party needs to begin, appropriately and intelligently, using the power of its majority. One way or another, it is our responsibility to do everything we can do to avoid $5 billion in cuts to education, and billions in cuts to public safety." (SacBee)
As this doesn't actually raise any taxes, it is a majority vote measure. No Republican votes are necessary. Tony Strickland was suitably apoplectic, but really nothing new there. And as the budget fight grows longer, and more teachers get pink slips, county supervisors are going to find this ability extremely attractive. While voters won't have the right to vote on statewide taxes, they may get the chance to vote on local taxes.
As Morain suggests in his column, this really isn't the ideal situation. It's one more way to draw the line between the haves and the havenots of the state. What we'll end up with is Bay Area counties with more stable revenue streams, while the Central Valley faces ever deepening cuts. The inequality would be both troubling, and possibly violate some laws.
On the other hand, counties that choose a more reasonable fiscal path shouldn't necessarily be bogged down by an obstinate minority in the Legislature. And if this is what it is coming to, then so be it. The state, and the counties, need additional revenue. There are several counties that have shown themselves ready to tax themselves, and we shouldn't rule that out right away. If the decision is between inconsistency across counties, and keeping thousands of teachers in classrooms, I suspect many Californians would opt for the inconsistency. Heck, at least that way our kids can learn about inconsistency at school.
Perhaps this is just a negotiation ploy, but it is one that should be viewed from a serious policy perspective. It's certainly not the best alternative, but it is among the best options that we have remaining, given the Republican Minority.
Mark Leno, the Senate Budget Committee Chairman, called out Republicans today on the anti-tax pledge:
Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, vice chairman of the Senate budget committee, said it was unfair that Republicans had to vote on cuts without knowing what other ideas Democrats are working on.
That prompted a sharp response from Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, chairman of the committee. He suggested that Republicans face no choice but to vote for all of Brown's cuts since most GOP legislators have signed no-tax pledges.
"It's second grade math, balancing this budget," Leno said. "It's addition and subtraction. You've already taken addition off the table, so it's actually a given that you're going to accept every one of the cuts."
"But we, because we are not signing pledges taking either addition or subtraction off the table, are here to massage this and see how we can soften some of the edges," he added. "You don't have that option because you abrogated that opportunity before you even got here."(SacBee)
Aww, it must be hard to not be informed what cuts they are going to vote on. On the flip side, they still have yet to actually propose any cuts, so there's that.
On the more practical side, Sen. Leno and his colleagues concurred with the Governor on most of his cuts. However, they did block a couple. Most notably, they killed the proposal to cap Medi-Cal patients at 10 appointments per year.
If ever any corporation earned regulatory legislation, PG&E did so when they spent nearly $50 million of ratepayer funds to try to pass a constitutional amendment to guarantee the monopoly. And Mark Leno is making it happen.
Senator Mark Leno today announced legislation that would prevent Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) from using ratepayer funds to finance future political campaigns. The bill allows the corporation to continue participating in political campaigns, but stipulates that money derived from ratepayers cannot be used for political or public affairs expenditures.
Senator Leno's bill requires PG&E to report its annual political and public affairs spending to the California Public Utilities Commission. The PUC will ensure that all political and public affairs spending identified in this report did not derive from ratepayer funds.
This is already the rule for municipal utitilies. And, frankly, if PG&E wants to guarantee its monopoly so much, they should be totally fine with competing on a level playing field.
STATE SEN. Mark Leno has represented the Marin/Sonoma 3rd District for only a short time, but might be interested in trading in that seat for the mayor's job in San Francisco. There are many variables that could get in the way.
We have reached a pivotal point in fire safety. Recently, the fire protection industry announced a new generation of fire safety products. Citizens for Fire Safety has worked tirelessly to encourage and promote this next generation of fire retardant products that are safe, effective and environmentally friendly. This groundbreaking move is one of many in the industry's unwavering commitment to environmental sustainability and fire safety.
This commitment has been hailed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, credited by the International Association of Fire Fighters, and will undoubtedly prove to be the paramount model of sustainable fire safety in the future.
The EPA agreement sets forth a rational, effective transition to newer alternatives, while allowing critical services such as police, fire and airlines to continue to use existing fire safety products that are critically important to saving lives. Proactive fire safety companies have already announced the production of environmentally-friendly fire retardants which minimize the use of raw materials, energy, byproducts and waste. This progressive thinking is largely a result of the efforts of Citizens for Fire Safety and their coalition of supporters across the nation.
As we make this transition, we must remain watchful of legislation that would preemptively ban existing products, leaving communities without adequate fire safety protection. This kind of legislation has been recently considered in states like Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, New York and Connecticut. While these states should be commended for their vigilance in the fight for fire safety and environmental health, we believe that the timeline that has been worked out with the EPA is the most appropriate. Let's trust the scientists of the federal environmental agencies and not act precipitously to put our families and children at risk of serious injury or death. An effective national solution to this critical issue is the only solution that is truly safe.
In order to stay at the forefront of fire safety, Citizens for Fire Safety needs your support. It is our job to keep you informed as an important new generation of fire safety emerges. If you have any questions regarding the EPA announcement, state legislation, or require more information, please do not hesitate to contact Citizens for Fire Safety at 310-310-2616 or info@cffsi.org.
(This originally appeared in Capitol Weekly last week, but I thought it was worth reproducing here. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The Legislature finally broke through nearly impassable political barriers and in September enacted a set of evidence-based reforms to California's correctional system. These reforms make common-sense revisions, like updating some property crime thresholds to reflect the cost of living, many of which had not been changed since 1982. They refocus parole to apply limited resources on higher-risk offenders, and will improve how parolees are supervised, including the use of a "Parole Reentry Court" for parolees with substance abuse or mental illness histories. Prison credit laws have been retooled to create incentives for inmates to follow prison rules and programs.
Legislation enacted this year will launch an innovative system of performance-based funding for supervising adult felony probationers. About 40 percent of new prison admissions are offenders who failed felony probation. SB 678 (Leno - Benoit) provides a formula for sharing state savings with probation when those savings are achieved because of reduced prison admissions attributable to better felony probation outcomes.
While immensely worthwhile, these reforms will not be enough to achieve the savings and public safety improvements California needs. (EDIT by Brian: There's more over the flip...)
Sen. Mark Leno and Asm. Jared Huffman have today essentially extended the state's death penalty moratorium by at least temporarily blocking the expansion of the death chamber at San Quentin Prison.
Last-minute objections from Assemblyman Jared Huffman and Sen. Mark Leno have prompted state Treasurer Bill Lockyer to put on hold plans for issuing bonds to pay for the expansion of death row at San Quentin State Prison.
"I think there is a very good chance that we have prevented any attempt by this administration to jam this project through," said Huffman, D-San Rafael.
Huffman and Leno, D-San Francisco, sent a letter to Lockyer on Wednesday asserting that sale of the bonds would be illegal until resolution of litigation challenging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto of budget language on conditions for financing of the project.
"Because of the legal issues raised by the letter, we downsized our bond sale to basically take financing for the San Quentin condemned inmate complex out of the sale," Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for the treasurer, said Thursday. (Marin I-J)
The state is under a court order (yes...another court order) to not execute until they can constitutionally carry out the death sentences. Michael Angelo Morales (and his legal team) successfully argued that the chamber is cruel and unusual under the 8th Amendment as it now stands.
Incidentally, California has carried out just 13 executions since the nationwide moratorium was lifted in 1976.
Sen. Mark Leno has a diverse legislative platform, from single payer health care to fighting against toxics in our homes. However, it is for his work for marriage equality that he has built his name in San Francisco and Sacramento.
Today, the Senator bags two more achievements. First, after getting a veto from the governor last year, the state will now declare May 22 Harvey Milk Day (not a day-off though). The recognition for a man who was dedicated to pushing for equal rights for himself and his community is an important marker for the fight for full equality for the LGBT community. It does not win us any additional rights, but it does give the state a chance to pause and reflect on a man who gave everything for the struggle.
On the other hand, Sen. Leno's SB 54 does have an immediate and real impact that goes beyond symbolism. The bill would grant marriages performed outside of the state before Prop 8 was passed full marriage status, just as the same-sex marriages performed between June and November. Marriages that were performed after that Nov. 5 date will get all the rights and benefits of a California marriage save the moniker "marriage."
Apparently Arnold saw the confusion brought about by the situation that Californians who had previously been married in, say Massachusetts, were in. They were told that they didn't need to renew their marriage, but the law was entirely unclear on the issue.
In a signing message, Schwarzenegger said California will not recognize the couples as married but will "provide the same legal protections that would otherwise be available to couples that enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships out-of-state. In short, this measure honors the will of the People in enacting Proposition 8 while providing important protections to those unions legally entered into in other states." (SacBee 10/12/09)
Expect SB 54 to be challenged by at least some of the right-wingers. There's not much of a substantive legal argument against these measures given the case law as it stands, but that's never stopped them before.
UPDATE: I forgot to point out that Arnold vetoed two transgendered focused bills, but Pam caught it. The vetoed bills would have made birth certificate records easier to handle and allowed for special protection of transgendered prisoners.
(An action item over the flip, call your assembly member. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Hi all,
I just want to thank this community for its support of Sen. Mark Leno's bill (SB 772) to get rid of a state de facto rule requiring toxic flame retardants in baby products. (Thank you, Brian, for promoting the diary!)
Unfortunately, that bill died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee -- by a mere 2 votes. Despite intense lobbying by the chemical industry and its front group "Citizens for Fire Safety" we lasted 5 rounds to that point.
Nonetheless, many of us have dusted ourselves off and we are intensely working on the same Assemblymembers to pass another bill, SB 797 sponsored by Sen. Fran Pavley, that would ban the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in baby products like bottles and formula cans. Other states like Minnesota and Connecticut already have passed similar bills.
The Governor clearly has the power of the line-item veto, but that power is far from absolute. In fact, many of them might actually be illegal under the California Constitution, and a good claim could be made by somebody who is injured by the cuts. First, here is the relevant section of the California Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 10(e):
The Governor may reduce or eliminate one or more items of appropriation while approving other portions of a bill. The Governor shall append to the bill a statement of the items reduced or eliminated with the reasons for the action. The Governor shall transmit to the house originating the bill a copy of the statement and reasons. Items reduced or eliminated shall be separately reconsidered and may be passed over the Governor's veto in the same manner as bills.
Importantly, this is a budget revision, not a budget. There weren't any appropriations to the health and human services, only cuts in spending. The Legislature may cut funding for anything with a majority vote, and these majority vote changes to the budget do not allow for line item vetoes. On something of a side note, the cuts are implemented immediately with a 2/3 vote, or in 90 days with a majority vote. Yes, this is a fantastic process, huh?
Either way, these cuts were not part of the budget. That was passed back in February. A very strong argument could be made to the state courts that the line item veto isn't applicable to these cuts in services. Take this from Senator Mark Leno:
We believe there are strong legal grounds to fight many of these vetoes. California's constitution empowers the Governor to veto or reduce appropriations, but our budget agreement doesn't make new appropriations, it makes spending reductions. In the end, my colleagues and I will fight these devastating cuts with everything we have.
There are all sorts of reasons as to why this isn't really a budget that can be cut by the line item veto. I won't go into all of the details, but suffice it to say that this isn't the last you've heard of the line-item veto.
Incidentally, the Legislature also has the power to override a veto. It would involve the Legislators coming back for an override session, which hasn't happened for over 25 years, but it certainly is high time that the Governor get a little pushback on this.
More to come on this post, but as we are rapidly approaching 6 pm, I wanted to get the word out about the Budget town hall with Senators Leno and Steinberg. Here's the link for that:
There are some moments when you just notice the absurdity of some of the arguments we are stuck on. Let's try this one from the servants of Howard Jarvis' Corpse that appeared in the Bee today:
"You still have more revenue coming in than any other state in the union," David Wolf of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association told the committee. "You just can't justify continuing to raise taxes." (SacBee 6/9/09)
Really? This is what they are going with? California is a vastly larger economy than any other state. Of course we have more revenue than any other state. What exactly is the point of this statement, and why was it published in the story. We cannot pretend that this is merely a spending problem. making revenue untouchable.
"I get the politics of this," Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said, "but I don't think we as legislators should be silent and feel we can't talk about certain things when it's the big elephant in the room."
If we don't talk about revenue, then quite simply the will just won't materialize. It's not going to come from simple Republican mistakes or something crazy like that. We have to actually create the will through serious messaging work. Mark Leno and other progressives are doing that, but so far the greater conversation has been played on right-wing terms
And instead of actually being "post-partisan", Arnold is simply playing old-school special interest politics and rejecting all calls for additional revenue. No taxes on Chevron when they pull oil from the ground. No taxes on sports tickets, nothing new on tobacco or alcohol. Guess what the common thread is in that list? Yup, those would be the donors to his special election campaign.
The Governor and the Legislative Leaders need to be honest here, if everything is on the table, then everything must really be on the table. No more of this third rail politics shit, where people can't discuss the real problems. Let's have an honest debate, you know this time with facts that are actually relevant.
The real tragedy of the proposed cuts in the state budget comes when you recognize that some of them would cancel out federal stimulus dollars. A perfect example would be the elimination of the welfare-to-work program Cal Works. In Los Angeles County, the stimulus funds a program through Cal Works that provides jobs. Without Cal Works, the program gets eliminated, and $200 million in federal dollars cease to flow to the state. Funny how the welfare goes but the corporate welfare remains, ay? And that's really just one example.
"Advocates for the elderly in California say recent budget cuts are dramatically affecting the ability of social service programs to keep up with demand" at a time when "the state's elderly population - and the incidents of elder abuse - are exploding," NPR reports. One example is Contra Costa County, where the Aging and Adult Services Program laid off two-thirds of the staff who "investigate abuse complaints of elderly and dependent adults." The county is now "turning over virtually all of its self-neglect cases to some other agency - often, the police." The Contra Costa situation is "so severe that the county grand jury recently concluded that Adult Protective Services no longer has the resources to carry out its legal mandate to investigate physical and financial abuse complaints." This comes at a time when complaints of elder abuse are on the rise. According to "national studies," only "1 in 5 elder abuse cases is reported" (Siler, 6/3).
Needless to say, this threatens the ability for Contra Costa county to qualify for stimulus funds to backfill those cuts, thanks to "maintenance of effort" rules. The Feds giveth, the state taketh away and taketh away what the Feds giveth. And that undermines the goals of the stimulus and damages economic recovery, given that we are the nation's largest state.
Some would say that the state's "runaway spending" brought this on, but Sen. Mark Leno argues persuasively against this, detailing the nature of the spending over the past decade and where that money has actually gone - tax cuts (the vehicle license fee), prisons, debt service, and the rapid cost growth in health care and fire protection. This is familiar to most of us but ought to be shared with those friends who don't know the facts. Same with this.
What truly brought this on is a dysfunctional process that requires serious structural reform.
I haven't done my random bill blogging for a while, so I fired up the ol' (and by ol', I mean circa 1996) Senate website. I tried to be as random as I could be and chose 1279. Of course, that was too high to get a Senate bill, so I was stuck with only one choice: AB 1279 by Assembly member Bill Monning (D-Monterey).
AB 1279 is a short bill. So short, in fact, that it is likely just a placeholder bill for a program to be later defined. Here's the entirety of it as it currently stands:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would fund salmon restoration projects.
I suppose I agree with the merits of the sentence, despite any issues with the budget. Both the environmental and financial impacts of the death of the salmon are enormous. So, go salmon restoration.
If anything, I suppose this can be a testament on some legislative principles. First, there's the gut and amend process. Basically this allows one house to pass an innocuous measure like this, and then either stick in a real bill in its place on the subject matter at hand or an entirely new bill. It's not necessarily the most transparent process, and shouldn't be used on a regular basis. However, it can be used to help with some important legislation. Marriage equality comes to mind. When the Assembly did not have the votes to pass then Asm. Leno's marriage equality bill, a bill passed by Asm. Yee was gutted on the Senate side and replaced with the civil marriage language.
While this could, in theory, be a holding bill for some legislation to be passed in the normal course of business, the bill deadline for all policy committees in the Legislature to pass out bills that will have a fiscal impact on the state is this Friday. If Asm. Monning really wants to fund salmon restoration, he would need a real bill pronto.
I am thrilled to report that EQCA-sponsored legislation is moving right along, with two bills passing their first key committee votes yesterday, one to establish Harvey Milk Day, and one to protect LGBT victims of domestic violence.
SB 572, the Harvey Milk Day Bill, passed the Senate Governmental Organization Committee by a 9-4 margin. Introduced last month by Senator Mark Leno (D -- San Francisco), it calls for a "day of special significance" to recognize slain civil rights leader Harvey Milk.
The far-right wants to stop this bill. The Traditional Values Coalition and Capitol Resource Institute lobbied against it in the hearing, saying it would teach youth about a “controversial lifestyle.”
Sen. Dean Florez from Bakersfield countered by asking where the opposition witnesses were from – they responded Inland Empire, Roseville and Sacramento. He then requested to become a co-author of the bill to demonstrate that people living in more conservative parts of the state also support the measure.
Debra Jones, who served alongside Cleve Jones as an intern for then Supervisor Milk in 1978, also testified: "There are some who say that Harvey's contributions to the civil rights movement should merely be acknowledged locally. With that perspective, Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy would not be known outside of Atlanta, and the legacy of Cesar Chavez would not be known outside of the Central Valley. Hope doesn't know geographic boundaries."
While thousands of activists step up efforts to make single payer a part of the national debate on healthcare reform, similar efforts are underway in many state capitals as well.
With a dual purpose. Single payer might end up enacted in a few states first, then spread like a prairie fire across the nation -- the approach that worked for Canada. And the grassroots campaigns in states should reinforce the national push.
California is a case in point. Twice in the last few years, a single payer, Medicare for all style bill has passed the state legislature, only to be vetoed by the insurance companies' ever loyal Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Single-payer healthcare reform has a new bill number and a new sponsor. With my former State Senator Sheila Kuehl termed out, Mark Leno has stepped up to carry SB810, which in the past was known as SB840. The bill would, in the words of the press release, "guarantee comprehensive health care benefits to every California resident and streamline claims and reimbursements, which will save billions of dollars in health care administrative costs." Here's Sen. Leno:
"As a nation, we spend twice as much per person on health care as other wealthy countries, with the hope that our families will be protected from illnesses, yet most insured Americans still worry about how they will afford critical care if they become sick," said Senator Leno. "In California, 7 million people do not have health insurance. Wasteful health care spending is crushing our economy and forcing families to forego basic medical care. With the money we spend today on health care, California can have a modern, universal health care system that provides high quality care for everyone," he said.
A version of this bill has basically already passed the California Legislature, only to be vetoed by the Governor. So it shouldn't be a surprise that 43 lawmakers, including both leaders in the Assembly and Senate, have already signed on as co-sponsors.
Given the conservative veto and the 2/3 rule for revenue, SB810 lacks a funding source, so even if it were signed at some point - and realistically, Governor Schwarzenegger won't be the one to sign it - supporters wold have to go to the ballot to raise the necessary revenue to fund the bill.
There is no question that our health care delivery system is grossly inefficient, and insurance company profit and overhead is a pool of money that does little to provide quality care. As a nation we spend an extreme amount on health care - $2.4 trillion dollars in 2008, closing in on 20% of GDP - without a proportional increase in health care outcomes over the rest of the industrialized world. In fact, we pay more for care while ranking below dozens of nations in quality. Single-payer care, while varied in different nations across the world, has generally been proven to offer the best quality at the most reduced cost.
But of course, that is on a national level. And even though with 38 million people we have as many citizens as several other nations which have implemented single-payer, universal health care, what we lack is a printing press to coin our own money. Given the constraints of a balanced budget, given the far more onerous constraints of the conservative veto, and given that states have little control over the boom and bust cycles of the national economy, universal health plans have largely come ashore and beached when they are done at the state level. There are certainly reforms that can take place here, but we need the structural reform to set the table for them, and even with that, I am highly dubious (though willing to be convinced) that any state can manage UHC on their own without the tool of deficit spending that would occasionally be needed. And history bears this out.
While Arnold is putting the moves on President-Elect Obama in Philadelphia, there's some stuff going on here. So, here are some links:
• Senator Steinberg has named the committee chairs. Of particular note, Fran Pavley was named as chair of the Natural Resources & Water Committee. This is important because Pavley has not been particularly outspoken against the peripheral canal, something the SoCal water nerds were worried about. Apparently they think there's a better shot to get the canal through a Pavley led committee. I kind of doubt it.
• Following in the classy footsteps of his father, newly elected Rep. Duncan D. Hunter has decided that Tijuana is more dangerous than Iraq or Afghanistan. He's been to all three so we're supposed to believe him. Sadly for Hunter, anecdote is not data. And false assertions are not evidence.
• It's a good thing the OC Board of Supes has all this money to throw around to lawyers. Oh, right, they have a $32 million deficit. I bet they would love to have this 1.1 mil free to spend.
• It appears that Arnold wants to star in a new version of A Christmas Carol. At least that's how I can reconcile his desire to lay off state workers during the holidays.
• The SEIU State Council put out a budget plan of their own. Well, that's more than the Republicans have done. Peter Shrag also has a (sarcastic) plan: completely de-fund higher ed and the prisons until June. Seems about as reasonable as anything GOP has.
• The LGBT Legislative caucus is pushing a resolution opposing Prop 8, introduced by SF Legislators Leno and Ammiano. Sure, it would have been more helpful a few months ago, but it won't hurt now.
Mark Leno, the Senate Budget Committee Chairman, called out Republicans today on the anti-tax pledge:
