State Controller John Chiang has released a study by his department which shows a number of instances of fraud in the IHSS program in Fresno and San Diego Counties. Of course, our fearless "fraud-fighting" governor was quick to take credit for these findings.
I can't believe he had the nerve to try to hook onto the Controller's investigation. Here's why:
The Controller said that the instances of fraud found in his investigation are likely due to inadequate numbers of social workers and case workers needed at the county level to properly administer the IHSS program. Yet, Gov. Schwarzenegger wants to cut funding for these positions in his budget proposal.
In his totally self-serving news release praising the Controller's action, the governor referred to IHSS as: "this important program for Californians that rely on these resources." This, of course, is the same program that he wants to eliminate completely or cut by 90 percent.
The definition of the Jewish word: "chutzpah" is unmitigated gall. My favorite example has always been the story of the man who killed his mother and father and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan. But Arnold is providing us with many new examples this year.
Members of a coalition that supports the popular In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) homecare program have turned their focus toward legislative Democrats, many of whom supported cuts in the program last year.
In a letter to Democratic State Senators and Assemblymembers, coalition members urged them to:
...stand up to the governor, help reform our state's broken revenue system, and make decisions on IHSS based on its merits, not on sound bites used to disparage consumers and home care workers...It's time for Democrats to be accountable and to act like Democrats.
Leslie Stahl had a segment on 60 Minutes last night that purported to tell us the truth about the California Water Crisis and the Delta. She talked to Dr. Jeffrey Mount (UC Davis), Schwarzenegger and 2 farmers from the Westlands Water District who are dependent on getting more of the Delta's Water.
At no time did she talk to anyone who lives in, works in or would be dependent on the health of the Delta as an estuary. That seems to be an unusual omissions... or just call it sloppy journalism.
Of all the clips in the show, the one that was the most impressive was a simulation of how an earthquake could cause massive levee failure and turn the Delta into a salt water containment pond.
Below the fold, you can find the comments posted to the 60 Minutes Site by Lloyd G. Carter, Fresno Lawyer and one time UPI Reporter who went national (60 Minutes / Ed Bradley) with the Kesterson Reservoir story.
(From our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
First of its kind economic analysis shows significant cuts in global warming pollution will cost small businesses only pennies
Los Angeles County - As international climate treaty negotiations begin in Copenhagen amid controversy over economic impacts, a new report shows that the costs for small business operating under California's landmark climate law (AB 32) can be measured in pennies. Conducted by leading economists and released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today, the report finds that AB 32 policies will only increase the percent of small business revenue spent on energy by only 0.3 percentage points--from 1.4 to 1.7 percent--in 2020. In a case study which examines a real world small business--Border Grill restaurant--the report finds AB 32 will cost diners a mere 3 cents extra per $20 meal in 2020.
The analysis, The Economic Impact of AB 32 on California Small Businesses ( www.ucsusa.org/small_business ), a peer-reviewed first-of-its-kind analysis, uses empirical data on the cost characteristics of small businesses to estimate the economic impacts of AB 32 and was commissioned by UCS and conducted by The Brattle Group, an international economic consulting firm.
"Our report finds that the incremental cost impact of AB 32 on the average California small business will be relatively small and definitely manageable," said Jurgen Weiss of the Brattle Group, and co-author of the report. "The AB 32 cost impact pales in comparison to the effect of inflation over ten years, and falls well within the range of historic cost variation most small businesses face everyday regardless of climate policy."
The Brattle Group projected the likely changes in electricity, natural gas, and gasoline prices due to the major AB 32 policies: cap and trade (which puts a price on carbon), a 33% renewable energy standard, increased energy efficiency measures, and a low-carbon fuel standard.
There's an incredible scandal brewing at the Orange County Fairgrounds and Attorney General Jerry Brown better get on top of this before it blows up in his face. The deal to sell the fairgrounds has stunk, and the Attorney General's office is right in the middle of the muck.
The Fairgrounds is run by an obscure state agency, the 32nd Agricultural District, and their legal representation comes from the Attorney General's office. Unfortunately, the current functionary has completely failed to protect the interests of the people of the State of California. The Fair Board, political appointeees of the Governator, have gone far beyond violating open meeting laws, and instead have used public funds in a conspiracy that approaches racketeering.
Here's how the story unfolds.
The Board of Directors of the Orange County Fair Grounds are as arrogant and clueless a bunch of Yacht Party Republicans as you would find anywhere. Their appointments were political plums for big campaign contributors. Until public scrutiny ended the practice, each of them was receiving tens of thousands of dollars a year in front-row concert tickets complete with catered meals at the Pacific Amphitheatre summer concert series.
Once again, political backroom deals have locked out those stakeholders most affected by the proposed water legislation. Previews are circulating Sacramento but are not made available to the people, companies and organizations who will have to live with the results.
If political cynicism is a viral disease, actions like this are the reason that it spreads so quickly.
Below the fold, you will find that action alert from Restore the Delta. Since Calitics has a podcast scheduled for this afternoon with Lois Wolk and John Laird, I would like to know just how much longer they expect the public to sit down, shut up and get with the program. For my part I will continue working the Restore the Delta, the Planning and Conservation League, the Sierra Club, Heal the Bay, Green LA, Clean Water Action and all of the other folks who sent a letter to our bosses, Arnold, Darrel and Karen.
Gov. Schwarzenegger's budget butchery cuts services from IHSS recipients. After November 1, 2009, people with an overall functional index score below 2 will no longer qualify for IHSS. People who receive a functional index ranking below 4 for any domestic service will no longer receive that particular service.
Functional index ranking is how the county determines the level of needs people have. As part of the assessment for services, the county determines the person's ability to complete certain tasks, such as housework, laundry, shopping and errands, meal preparation and cleanup, eating, bathing and grooming. Also they assess the person's control over respiration, memory, bowel, bladder, orientation and judgment.
Now, in addition to assessing need, the "functional ranking system" is being used to take away services from the people that need them. Let's take, for example, an individual who has a "3" ranking for sweeping floors, a "4'' for changing bed linens, and a "5" for cleaning bathrooms. Under the new law, the individual would no longer receive service for sweeping floors because the ranking for this service is "3" and therefore too low. The individual would continue to receive service for changing bed linens and cleaning bathrooms.
There is also a "functional index score" (as opposed to the functional ranking index just mentioned) which is now being used as a line drawn to sever services from those who need them. After a social worker assesses a person's needs, the county gives a "functional index rank from "1" to "6" for each of the tasks. This ranking is then averaged out. The result is called the "functional index score." Effective November 1, 2009, the new law eliminates IHSS services entirely for individuals with a functional index score below level 2.
On October 1, 2009, Disability Rights California and other organizations filed a lawsuit to stop these cuts. We are hopeful and hard at work to reverse this dark ideology as soon as possible.
This narrow vision couldn't come at a worse time. At a time when the State should be preparing for growth nothing is being done to prepare for the exponential rate of growth in the populations of people who rely on these services to live from day to day. Instead of alleviating the pressures that the future burdens us with, the Governor shoots holes in the bucket that he asks us to fill.
However, we are happy to say that persons who receive protective supervision or paramedical services will not have their IHSS services cut regardless of their function index rankings or score.
Lost in the press clippings of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's vapid executive order to boost the amount of renewable energy that California's utilities offer, is the question of what happens to this unenforceable executive order when this governor terms out (executive orders expire when the governor who orders them leaves office).
At the press conference to announce the order, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols, offered this analysis:
"I think any new governor is likely to want to continue that program," Nichols said.
Obviously Nichols isn't paying attention to the California Republican Party primary, in which it seems that no position is too backwards for the two main candidates: Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman.
One of the biggest achievements of the Legislative session was the passage of bills to require all electric utilities in California to generate a third of their power from renewable sources by 2020. The word is, however, that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will veto the bills - Senator Joe Simitian's SB 14 and Assembly Member Paul Krekorian's AB 64 (disclosure: I'm Senate pro Tem Darrell Steinberg's Communications Director).
Environmentalists who have been told about the governor's still-evolving plans said Schwarzenegger also was considering directing the California Air Resources Board to look at broadening the state's definition of renewable energy sources to include large hydroelectric dams and nuclear energy plants.
This morning, my boss, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) sent the following letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, advising the Governor to reconsider the administration's furlough program. The letter comes after much information has come to light that shows that the furloughs are costing the state money and hurting the economy. Click here for "Preliminary Findings on State Employee Furlough Program."
September 3, 2009
Hon. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor of California
State Capitol, First Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
In the months since the furloughs began, the evidence shows that the policy is costing the state money and further hurting the economy. It is a significant district issue for me as I represent so many state employees.
Information we have gathered indicates that California will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in our general fund at the state tax agencies alone. The current furlough policy has become a "penny saved, a dollar lost" approach that can be corrected immediately.
I offer these furlough fixes to help the General Fund.
First, the Legislature should enact AB 88, the bill that would implement the collective bargaining agreement that your administration reached with SEIU, Local 1000-the largest unit that represents state employees-which contains one furlough day that all agreed to. A 5 percent pay cut is a sacrifice for a state employee; a 15 percent cut is punishment.
Second, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and I will introduce a bill tomorrow to reduce the furloughs by one day. The union already gave us one day, now we ought to give them one back. I suggest that we pass urgency legislation to buy-out a day of furloughs with an across-the-board reduction on the state bureaucracy. This time, we ought to cut from the top down, not the bottom up.
Third, your Administration should get back to the bargaining table and hammer out agreements with the other collective bargaining units.
You recently re-examined the furlough policy as it applied to dispatchers employed by the California Highway Patrol, and exempted these employees from the furlough. I applaud you for that action. Now is the time to re-examine the policy more broadly. Please find attached information the Senate has gathered on the furloughs.
I look forward to working with you on this issue.
Sincerely,
DARRELL STEINBERG
President pro Tempore
Sixth Senate District
(From Jim Evans, Communications Director for Sen. Darrell Steinberg. This is a critical case for the future of the state.
- promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Today, attorneys for Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg filed this complaint on the Pro Tem's behalf against Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in San Francisco Superior Court (disclosure: I'm Sen. Steinberg's Communications Director).
The first line of the complaint says it all: "This case is about separation of powers."
The filing outlines how exactly the Governor overstepped his constitutional authority in making almost $500 million line-item vetoes to mostly human services programs. As the Pro Tem said Friday, Californians elected a Governor, not an emperor. The filing explains that the Governor can only use line item veto authority to cut "appropriations," and not the revised reductions in existing, previously enacted appropriations in the Legislature's July 24 budget bill.
From the filing:
The Governor has overstepped his authority. A reduction in an existing appropriation is not subject to line-tem veto. If the Governor wants to veto such reductions, he must veto the entire bill in which they are contained. He cannot decrease them further to arrive at an amount that he believes is appropriate and then sign the bill into law, nor can he veto specific control language that does not make an appropriation.
Among the deeply dishonest aspects of the Governor Schwarzenegger's Shock Doctrine approach to the California Budget crisis is a little noticed provision to piratize part of the the State Fund for worker's comp.
This will inevitably lead to higher insurance rates for 180,000 small businesses that now receive their worker's compensation insurance through the "public option".
As part of the ongoing California state budget negotiations the 'Big 5' agreed over the weekend that the bill directing the Department of Finance to sell parts of State Compensation Insurance Fund is - repeat - is going into the budget. Highly placed sources near the budget negotiations told Workers Comp Executive that the sale provision allows the legislature and governor to use the prospective $1B in revenue as income to balance the budget. It is as if the funds were real. But the funds are not real.
The bill, already rife with controversy, directs the Department of Finance to sell some as yet unknown parts of State Fund within two years for $1 Billion. The legislation specifically excludes both the Department of Insurance and the Attorney General from any role in the sale.
For large California companies and organizations, there's a competitive market for workers compensation insurance. Smaller companies rely on the State Fund, which Arnold is proposing to rape.
(Arnold Antoinette can't handle being held to account by the public. - promoted by Robert Cruickshank)
I just called the Sacramento number for Schwarzenegger to speak out against the cynical and shameful way he's been blaming CalWORKS recipients, state workers, and IHSS for the budget crisis, and his "constituent services" staffer hung up on me. I guess this is what I should expect from the staff of a governor who also refuses to engage and deal fairly with the people of California.
Here's how it went:
I called 916-445-2841 and said, "I want to voice my opinion about an issue. I think it is shameful that the governor is blaming CalWORKS recipients, state workers, and IHSS workers for the state's budget crisis," when the guy on the phone interrupted.
He said, "Well, you obviously misunderstood what the Governor said because he isn't saying that."
I began to say "Yes he did" when the kid hung up on me!
Two attempts to call back were blocked - I got a recording saying they couldn't take my call at this time for reasons beyond their control. Makes me wonder if he could block my number from getting through. (I have had a busy signal before, and I have waited on hold before, but I have never had this message in all the many times I've called Schwarzenegger's office this number). All I could think to do was call the SF number, where I left an angry message complaining about their constituent services and demanded a call back.
The quote I had in mind when I was calling was this one, from a press conference in LA on July 2: "Nearly 80 percent of California's welfare recipients aren't meeting our simple work requirements, yet year after year they're getting their paychecks and they're getting their benefits. All we want to do is just root out that fraud and abuse and I proposed simple reforms to curb this abuse but the legislature rejected it." If CalWorks recipients can't get jobs, I'm not sure the solution is to cut their benefits. There is no such thing as a welfare queen, the system doesn't pay enough.
More recently he's gone on about IHSS workers and state workers too. It's one thing to try to cut back on "waste, fraud, and abuse" in smart ways when it's a real issue, but that is NOT the source of California's budget crisis, and focusing on it is NOT a sustainable solution to the problem. The problem is Prop 13 (both the gutting of property tax revenue and the two-thirds vote requirement), the initiative process itself, and the governor's own refusal to approve a sensible, balanced solution that includes reasonable new revenues.
UPDATE: I got a call from the Governor's SF office this morning saying what happened yesterday was unacceptable and that they would follow up with the Sacto office. I got my licks in one more time and said thanks. But STILL. Keep the pressure on, people!
Despite plunging tax revenues, Wall Street's unwillingness to loan the state money and billions of dollars worth of IOUs hitting mailboxes, California's leaders are displaying a seeming lack of urgency to close the state's $26.3 billion deficit.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders blew past a supposedly ironclad June 30 deadline to pass a new budget...
Blew past? The legislature did pass a budget fix last week, but the Governor vetoed it! This choice by the Governor led to the state needing to issue IOUs.
Governor Schwarzenegger has talked about the need to act responsibly and pass a budget.
So the legislature is trying to do just that. According to the Sacramento Bee,
"... the Legislature's joint budget conference committee, on a party-line vote, adopted a plan that included about $2 billion in new oil production and cigarette taxes to help bridge a $24 billion budget gap."
So what is the Governor's response to a balanced approach to fixing the budget?
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wouldn't sign a plan that was balanced with tax increases."
He will shut down the state, close the schools, lay off thousands of workers, because the legislature balances the cuts with small tax increases on tobacco and oil companies.
Arnold's proposals for massive cuts, with a concomitant 4.5 billion rainy day fund was a brilliant political move.
He can "compromise" on four billion worth of cuts - state parks, Cal Grants, Prop 1A borrowing from local government, less drastic cuts to a few social programs, while still making barbaric cuts to social services and appearing as meeting the Dems halfway.
Our pathetic media will dance to his tune and reinforce whatever message he puts out.
Whoever is doing the politics for Arnold is pantsing the Democratic legislators, time and agan.
Last night the Alameda County Dem Party voted unanimously to approve the following statement:
Californians deserve real solutions to the budget deficit. Responding to our economic crisis with an all-cuts budget will only make the state's problems worse. Deep cuts to vital programs undermine our economic recovery and President Obama's investment in economic stimulus, disproportionately harm the most vulnerable Californians, and go against our core values.
More than 70 percent of voters sat out the May 19 special election because it is the Governor and Legislature's job to fix the budget. Polls show the defeat of the initiatives was neither an endorsement of an all-cuts approach nor a rejection of raising revenues.
Under Governor Schwarzenegger, California has seen $12.5 billion in tax cuts. Drastic spending cuts will irrevocably change the state we love. Californians support and deserve a state that provides for the common good and the needs of our residents, and we have the resources to make that possible. Cuts are not the only option!
Our state needs courageous leadership. We will support those who stand against an all-cuts budget, speak out for fair ways of raising revenue, and work to deliver a budget that invests in our future and protects all the people of our state. True leaders get their strength from the people they represent. We pledge to be that strength, and mobilize to support a sensible budget solution.
Please let us know if your organizations are organizing, lobbying, etc. on the budget too.
Join the statewide "Fix the CA Budget Now!" effort on Facebook:
(Good as always to hear from our Lt. Governor. - promoted by Julia Rosen)
My job and your government's job are to protect your job today and tomorrow. California's legislators are left little choice but to swallow hard and accept a very bad budget deal put together in secret without any public hearings and public input, all contrary to the open meeting laws of the state. The tragedy of this budget is that it robs our ability to advance our values and expand our economy by insuring a well-educated workforce. The budget does not allow us to provide adequate resources for the least among us. The budget does not allow transportation, water, and sanitation systems to keep up with population growth. Sadly this budget will force us to abandon robust research programs that will create tomorrow's wealth.
The governor wants to be known as the green governor, the education governor, the reform governor, yet he has utterly failed to lead a budget process that in the remotest way advances any of these goals. There is no real reform of education, prisons, or the state funded healthcare programs in this budget. Yet it is in real reform that efficiencies and increased effectiveness is found and fair cuts can be made. A significant change is in labor contracts that are unilaterally altered, setting aside a long and honorable negotiation process between labor and management. Where is the effort in this budget to advance the green economy?
Unfortunately the budget that is to be voted on in the days ahead does nothing to position California for a quick return to a healthy and growing economy. In fact the budget hastens the starvation of our educational programs at every level, thereby directly and in many case irreversibly damaging millions of our children. The budget accelerates the financial decline of the University of California and the largest university in America, the California State University. California needs teachers, engineers, nurses, doctors, and every other job skill. This budget gets a D in meeting the educational needs of tomorrow's workforce.
"People are asking if California is governable." Governor Schwarzenegger said in the State of the State address today that California faces insolvency within weeks. He said there is more gridlock in Sacramento than on our roads, if that is possible.
The governor gave a very short speech, saying there is no sense talking about education or infrastructure or water or anything else as long as we have this huge $42 billion deficit.
But the fact remains that the state's requirement that 2/3 budget-approval requirement means that the state is, in effect, ungovernable. A few anti-government extremists are able to continue to block the budget, refusing to compromise or even negotiate, demanding that the state lay off tens of thousands of workers, slash medical help for the elderly, slash police protection and firefighting capability, slash funding for courts, raise class sizes to 40 or 50 students, stop repairing roads and levees and everything else the state government does.
This is the idea that Sen. Dean Florez included in a letter sent to Treasurer Bill Lockyer. The two now plan on bringing the idea to the two largest pension funds in the country: CalPERS and CalSTRS. From the Bee:
Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, has proposed that the California Public Employees' Retirement System purchase the state's looming debt. The money would keep California operating - including paying state employee payroll and funding schools - into next year.
Florez outlined the plan in a letter to state Treasurer Bill Lockyer on Friday. Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar on Monday said his boss will also float the idea to the California State Teachers' Retirement System. Lockyer sits on the boards of both funds.(SacBee 10/7/08)
With the market still in the tank and below 10,000, and the credit markets still extremely tight, our long budget feud didn't make things easy. We need to sell these revenue anticipation notes (RANs) or we won't be able to pay our bills. It is that simple. Having CalPERS and CalSTRS do that seems a reasonable idea, save one minor catch.
Both pension plans have a fiduciary duty first to their clients, that is those whose money they hold. Both have lost substantial sums of money over the last 3-4 months, and so both are probably very nervous about their investments. Now, the legislature and governor could get some legislation requiring the purchase of the RANs, but barring that, CalPERS must do what is in the best interest of their shareholders. Or, as the Bee gets an investment guy to tell them:
It's possible that the funds will take a pass, said Keith Brainard, research director for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.
"If the state can't borrow money from the credit markets, why would CalPERS be interested?" Brainard said.
Yup, that's where it is folks. Welcome to the Aftereffects of the Bush Legacy, where even California pensions don't want our debt. You'll be seeing these effects for a while. If this ploy doesn't work, it looks like Schwarzenegger will have to go to DC, hat in hand, for $7 Billion. Oh, and the Feds are going to get back to us any day on that. Just keep holding your breath, Governor.
