Boston MA - The four members of California's legislative leadership who in 2009 led a bi-partisan effort in a bid to close the state's devastating budget deficit have been named this year's recipients of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award™.
Dave Cogdill, California State Senator and former Senate Republican Leader; Mike Villines, California State Assembly Member and former Assembly Republican Leader; Darrell Steinberg, California State Senator and Democratic Senate President pro Tem; and Karen Bass, California State Assembly Member, and former Democratic Speaker of the Assembly, were chosen in recognition of the political courage each demonstrated in standing up to the extraordinary constituent and party pressure they faced while working with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to address California's severe financial crisis. (Press Release)
Look, I don't want to take anything away from the enormous difficulties that these four faced in political terms. Cogdill and Villines were villified by leading voices on their own side (ie...John and Ken heads on a pike), while Bass and Steinberg were never going to get those votes. As for the Democratic leaders, well, Democrats are in a really tough position with the supermajority constraints. It looks like they are working to do something
I suppose much of this is for history to answer. But I will say this as somebody who worked to oppose Prop 1A personally and professionally, the February deal that was rejected on May 19 last year, we are still on the same road to shock doctrining that we were on in January 2009. Nothing has changed on that front.
So, courage? Perhaps, if you mean courage in that, courage to keep the lights on sort of way. But if we are to truly build a sustainable future for California, the heaping amounts of courage that will be required from our leaders will make this look like tiny in comparison. In San Francisco terms, they had to jaywalk on Front Street. We need leaders willing to crawl over Highway 101 in rush hour. Blindfolded. On one leg.
Election news never stops, and this being an election year, don't expect a slowdown any time soon. So, why not combine two of the developments?
First, Speaker Bass made her entry into the congressional race to replace Diane Watson official.
"This is a very, very humbling moment," Bass told community leaders and supporters who joined her at her Mid-Wilshire-area office. "I am so proud to announce I'm going to throw my hat into the ring."
If elected, Bass said, she'll have "very big shoes to fill."
Watson, who announced last week that she would not run for reelection after 35 years in public office, said she was pleased to back Bass.
"I 100% -- maybe 300% -- endorse Karen Bass," said Watson, 76, whose Los Angeles-area 33rd Congressional District is among the most diverse in the nation. (LA Times)
Last week, Watson declined to endorse anybody in the race. It was a bit of surprise, but perhaps they just wanted to wait to make the announcement official this week. With the current field, Bass appears to be the big front-runner. Nobody else has really made noise about entering the race, but Congressional districts only come up so often, so you never know.
Now, to SF Mayor Gavin Newsom. When he left the race for Governor, he was struggling with money, paying Garry South $20K per month, and becoming increasingly unsettled. But apparently, he's interested in Lite Guv:
Nothing official yet, but San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is putting together a campaign team for a possible run for lieutenant governor and will probably submit a ballot statement today to go in the state voter guide. (SF Chronicle)
That's the report coming out of a meeting yesterday in Southern California with Diane Watson, who currently represents the 33rd District in Congress. A Swing State Project user diary from someone who attended the meeting, augmented by our own BruinKid who also was at the meeting and wrote about it in the comments to yesterday's open thread, explains the story:
Just left a CA delegation meeting with Cong. Diane Watson was quietly telling Members that she will not be running for re-election.
Word is that Former CA Assembly Speaker Karen Bass will immediately enter the race following Watson's announcement. Further proof of this plan --- Bass is scheduled to be in DC next week for a series of meet and greet events with potential financial supporters.
This would be a welcome development. Karen Bass brought a lot of progressive potential to the Speaker's office in 2008, but ran immediately into the brick wall of the state budget crisis, the 2/3rds rule, and the breakdown of California's system of government, all of which frustrated her agenda.
Term limits mean we'll never know how Bass would have taken those lessons and applied them to state government. But if the reports are true, she would be able to bring the experience of trying to revive an economy and protect the most vulnerable people in a truly broken political system to another institution, the US Congress, that is quickly going the way of the California Legislature in terms of Republican obstruction and inability to properly function.
Bass would certainly be both more progressive and more activist than Watson, who has not been very visible in her district in recent years. Bass would be a strong advocate for federal aid to state budgets, as she's seen the impact of budget cuts on core services.
The filing deadline is February 16th, just over two weeks from now, so we will soon learn whether these reports are indeed accurate. If so, the California Congressional delegation and the people of the 33rd District will be getting a good progressive leader to represent them in Congress.
The only downside, and this isn't Bass's fault, is that it shows California government, once regarded as the nation's best, is experiencing a worsening brain drain. Bass would join former Lt. Governor John Garamendi in going to Congress, and many other legislators are looking for more stable positions in local government. Term limits in particular have eviscerated our government, making it almost impossible for anyone to get the kind of experience and knowledge that is needed to help fix our ever-worsening economic and political crisis.
In some ways, the Legislature is becoming a kind of political graduate school, where those interested in public service go to learn the craft of representative government and then scramble to find a position in a tight job market that has a glut of folks competing for positions. That's not the kind of governance that the nation's largest state and one of the world's largest and most important economies needs.
Conservatives would claim that term limits are doing their job and making it difficult for "career politicians" to hog elected offices, and enables citizen representation. Not only has that not been the actual outcome of term limits, the notion that it produces citizen government is particularly absurd given the fact that huge sums of money are still needed to win a state legislative race. The same conservatives who claim term limits are needed to produce citizen government also support the Citizens United decision that allows almost unlimited corporate spending to influence our elections.
In short, while community organizers like Karen Bass are pushed out of the legislature just as they've come to understand the nature of our problems and have started to envision lasting solutions, the only "citizens" who actually have lasting power and influence in this state are the large corporations. Once again it becomes clear that to the right-wing, feudalism is the ultimate goal, not democracy. Power and representation should only go to the wealthy, and the rest of us should be grateful for the privilege of serving them.
Anyhow, rant over. I wish Karen Bass well should she decide to run for Congress. The House will be a better place with her in it.
Speaker Bass has been put in some tough situations as Speaker, and I have disagreed with her on several decisions. However, on this much, we agree:
In an interview, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) criticized the governor's tone and called the spat "unfortunate." She said she too would like to change federal formulas and obtain more aid but would do it in "a collaborative relationship with the California delegation."
"I don't think he's doing it in a way that strengthens the relationship," she said. (LA Times)
The latest salvo in the back and forth was a letter that Arnold sent Wednesday pointing to some comments that DiFi made...in 2003. The comments focused on formulas for medicaid and other federally mandated state expenses. Of course, seven years is a lifetime (or two) in politics. Why, back then, Arnold was talking about blowing up the boxes. Since then, well, boxes in place, walls even higher.
This confrontation with DC seems to have taken on a life of its own, without any real purpose.
Apparently, some sort of deal was reached, and Asm. Kevin De Leon will be backing down from his attempt at Assembly Speaker. That leaves freshman John A. Perez as the lone Democratic candidate.
Assemblyman John A. Perez's final opponent has bowed out, setting the stage for the first-term Democrat to be selected Assembly speaker today -- the first openly gay man to hold the post.
After behind-closed-door talks this week with Perez and other political leaders, Assemblyman Kevin de Leon agreed to bow out and is expected to nominate Perez in an Assembly Democratic Caucus today, Capitol sources said.(SacBee)
While this was a bit more heated and public than you would like to see, it is a good sign that the caucus was ultimately able to weather this storm without bringing the fight to the floor. A vote is expected very soon, with Bass serving some sort of transition period.
While John Perez allegedly has 29 votes for the speakership within the Democratic caucus, there has been no official vote of either the Democratic caucus or the Assembly as a whole. That's going to change this week:
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, is planning to hold a vote to elect her replacement on the Assembly floor this week. The two front-runners for the job - Assemblyman John Perez, D-Los Angeles, and Kevin DeLeon, D-Los Angeles -- spoke for about 20 minutes this weekend, and were set to meet again today to discuss the race.
The vote would likely be a voice vote, and could come Wednesday or Thursday, as the house reconvenes to discuss education policy. (Capitol Weekly)
The two leading candidates had a conversation over the weekend, and Mayor Villaraigosa is trying to keep the peace amongst the warring LA factions over this race. The troubling thing is that nobody really knows how this is going to play out.
Also of note, it looks like Jared Huffman of Marin is quite close to Perez, as the CW article relies on Huffman for the Perez perspective. I don't know if that means anything, but perhaps Huffman would have a more visible role in a Perez speakership.
You might have noticed that we've been talking about this whole Speaker's race thing. First there were like 4 potential candidates, then two, Felipe Fuentes and Kevin De Leon, and then 3, with the addition of John A. Perez. And then, Speaker Bass announced that she would be the 29th vote for a future Speaker Perez.
Yet things can never be that easy. This is California, and these are Democrats.
First there was the poll about Gil Cedillo challenging Perez for the assembly district. And then, over the last three days or so, there's been a discussion of the number 41. Because for some reason, the fact that Speaker Bass is #29, that a consensus in the Caucus has been reached, that's all now insufficient. 41 has been popping up in whispers around the Capitol, in random hints in quotes in newspapers and on the web.
41 is a powerful number. It's the number that seperates Democrats from ceding power to the Republicans in the Assembly. It's the number that allows progressives to maintain whatever semblance of power. It's the number that keeps vows from being made to Republicans that Democrats will have to maintain.
It's the number that represents the line that Democrats haven't crossed. Sure, it's been flirted with, and Willie Brown crossed it in the 90s to take the Speakership from the Republicans.
There is only one way that the number 41 becomes relevant, if we let this become bigger than it should. If we let personal ambition and personal grievances become larger than what is best for the caucus. And more importantly, if we let what's best for the state take a back seat.
Democrats are the Assembly Majority. The Assembly Majority Caucus chooses the Speaker. The same as it ever was, the same as it should be. The Member who has the majority of the Majority becomes the Speaker. Forget 41. 26 is the number that matters.
Since Willie Brown was termed out, the Assembly Speakership has been pretty much an LA thing. The LA members, and some other muckety-mucks, particularly now the former speaker and current mayor, get together to decide who will be the next speaker. While it might not actually be that simple and quick, it is the gist of it. So, people knew it was pretty much over when Speaker Karen Bass said this:
"I really very deeply believe that John will be a speaker that reflects the strong Democratic values that brought all of us here," Bass said. "The momentum is such that it's time for a resolution." (SacBee)
Of course, the other big competitor, Kevin De Leon, still hasn't conceded anything as he attempts to get 26 votes within the caucus despite Bass's remark that she was Perez's "29th vote."
During such a contentious process, there are always going to be some hard feelings. It's hard to imagine it any other way, such is the system that term limits has given us. Willie Brown's days as Ayatollah of the Assembly are over, and the consistency that Willie provided with his iron grip of the office are also gone. And pretty much everytime, there's a story like this:
Hurt feelings and allegations of treachery are de rigeur when it comes to the politics of the speakership. But the story of Assemblyman John Perez's rise as a candidate for speaker reveals the little talked about Machiavellian side of Karen Bass, a speaker who is often cited for her calm personal demeanor and affable political style.
Bass, D-Los Angeles, came out publicly in support of Perez's speakership bid Wednesday, telling the press about her decision before the caucus had formally chosen a new leader. But Bass's press conference has angered some Assembly Democrats, who complained that they had the idea of a Perez speakership forced upon them with no time to coalesce as a group. (CapWeekly)
In the end, everybody will move past this, and this will be just one more little private score in a town full of scores to settle. One can only hope that the bitterness doesn't extend to policy and that the caucus can move forward with the business of the state. I am sure this will happen in due time, but with a pending budget battle, moping time is a luxury we may not have.
John Perez is not a household name. Yet. In the coming days, Perez may well make history, becoming the first openly gay speaker of any state legislature in the United States.
This, from the California that narrowly voted to undo same sex marriage. This from the same California that faces as much as $40 billion in deficits in 2010. This from the same California that has a minority majority population, but where Latinos are fast becoming the majority. This from the same California that used to provide the best education on the planet to all and now can not graduate the majority of most high school students in Los Angeles.
John Perez is California. He's openly gay. He's Latino. He's a son of Los Angeles. He's an intellectual, a strategist, an environmentalist, a labor leader. He's an organizer, a skilled consensus-builder, a unifier and a stunningly disarming public speaker. John is that rare elected official that we know will hold the public interest at heart.
The only real question is why John would want the job? If he becomes Speaker of the California State Assembly, he'll face the worst problems this state has seen since the depression or even before. But he wants the job -- and I can't imagine a better leader in Sacramento to take it on. John has all of the qualities, and from what I hear, most of the support necessary to win. If the Democrats in the assembly unify behind John and avoid the "speaker wars" that have often marred the period since term limits passed, he will become the speaker.
I've known John for nearly six years. We met in March 2003, when I was a relatively inexperienced but highly motivated supporter of Howard Dean's candidacy for the White House. I had, for years, been involved in politics, but never so deeply as Dean's inspiring campaign to reverse the direction of our country.
At the suggestion of a mutual friend, John met with me at a restaurant at Universal City Walk right after one of the first Dean "Meetups" that would propel that campaign forward. He sat with me, very patiently explaining the who and the what of California labor and progressive politics. He did not need to do that; he could easily have looked at this relative neophyte in state politics and said, "if this is what Dean has to offer, I'm out of here." But he did not. And he was always there to help, after I became Chair of Dean's presidential campaign in California and then went on to found the Courage Campaign.
California rarely has the opportunity to place the assembly in the hands of a speaker for more than a year or two. John would follow Karen Bass, who has lived through one of the worst imaginable times in our history. Karen is a true progressive, and she supports John. So do I. And while these leadership battles seem very arcane and insider, it's time for all of us in this state who support progress to understand that we have a stake in who leads our assembly.
In the next few days, John Perez may well make history. And, as progress marches on, he will eventually live in a state that allows him to marry the man he loves.
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 previous career had him as a man of action, who blew stuff up first and asked questions later. He didn't frequently negotiate detantes, save for settling a dispute or two in Kindergarten Cop. It's Not a Tumor!
So, perhaps that's why he isn't really that good at actually doing the job of being the Governor. On occasion it is important that you actually have the ability to talk the parties back off the ledge. But as the Governor is usually the one playing the brinksman's games, you can understand that negotiation isn't a skill he's refined too well.
And apparently Arnold was once again not up to the task yesterday as the Big 5 Meeting blew up when Sen. Hollingsworth brought out his ransom note.
A private meeting of legislative leaders and Gov. Schwarzenegger ended abruptly Tuesday amid bad blood between Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and his GOP counterpart, Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth of Murrieta.
*** *** ***
Earlier, Hollingsworth said he would not put up votes for the bills until Democrats agreed to a list of demands that were laid out by Russell Lowery, Hollingsworth's chief of staff, in an e-mail to senior Democratic staff on the morning of Sept. 11, the last day of the legislative session.
"Senator Hollingsworth and others were party to conversations where it was agreed that Ready Return and the homeowner's tax credit issues would be completed before the end of session," Lowery wrote in an e-mail to Steinberg's senior staff on the morning of the final day of the legislative year. "It is my hope that we might get some movement early on these issues in order to avoid a train wreck on some important two-thirds legislation at the end of session." Lowery also mentioned pending legislation providing home buyers with a tax credit.(CapWeekly 10/06/09)
Maybe he was just yelling at everybody to shut up, but he really should have learned his lesson on that particular method from the movies.
By the way, the words "Ready Return would be completed" doesn't mean that this solid program would be permanently funded or otherwise enacted into law, nope, this meant that Ready Return would be killed so that Intuit could make a few more bucks off of poor people. Intuit's role is California politics in the last few years has quite frankly, been disgusting. They have spread cash over politicians like Southern Pacific in the Hiram Johnson days, and held up the budget all to kill ReadyReturn, a program that would simplify tax returns for lower to middle class Californians with simple taxes. Of course, the hypocrisy of this coming from the Republicans, who claim to support tax simplification, would be funny had it not endangered the lives of many Californians. But I guess campaign cash is a more important value to these Republicans.
And Hollingsworth claimed to have had some agreement with Steinberg that these issues would be handled, a deal that Steinberg said never happen. Some would call that illegal vote trading. And, according to the article, apparently Speaker Bass suggested that his ransom note actually had nothing to do with the bills at issue.
Meanwhile, Arnold is still being Arnold, demanding a water deal by Friday or he'll veto all the bills. The deadline for his veto is Sunday, or the bills will automatically become law.
At first I thought that the headline writer was confused. "California tax reform plan much too bold for Capitol," it said above George Skelton's column today. "Too bold" could maybe have more than one meaning. Surely Skelton wasn't throwing in with the idea that massively shifting the tax burden to the lowest income levels in society was too good an idea. But I think that is, in fact, what he's saying.
"I would sign it immediately" if it were a bill, Schwarzenegger told reporters. "Without any doubt."
Of course, this is a governor who constantly seeks out things new and bold. And the tax proposal was all of that -- much too new and bold for most Capitol denizens, especially those representing special interests.
As Genest told me: "It shouldn't come as any surprise that lobbyists in Sacramento are in favor of maintaining the status quo unless they are confident that the change will serve their interests. That's why they're called 'special interests.' "
Nowhere in Skelton's article does he quote any figures or statistics citing the practical effect of the Parsky Commission's plans. He doesn't mention that, under the plan, taxpayers making over $1 million dollars a year would save $109,000 annually on average, while taxpayers making between $40,000 and $50,000 would save four bucks. He doesn't mention that the proposal would result in a net loss of revenue to the state, causing wider budget deficits. He does manage to mention critiques of the business net receipt tax from the side of business and industry, but offers no critiques from the opposite end, a la Jean Ross' statement that "You could not say, 'We're going to tax child care so we can lower the income tax on millionaires.' But that's what this does." The fact that the BNRT would hit business payrolls and disproportionately tax companies in the knowledge economy rather than the service economy also doesn't make it in. Skelton never mentions that, by taxing all businesses in the state, the BNRT would effectively tax rents.
He just says it's "too bold."
The Parsky Commission was practically designed to shift wealth upward. It should surprise nobody that this is what it ended up doing. That is bold, but not in the way that Skelton means it, I don't think.
He does give voice to where Karen Bass may steer the debate:
Bass was holding her tongue, trying not to express disappointment in the commission. When she first proposed its creation, the speaker envisioned the panel proposing something more practical and simple: reducing the sales tax rate and spreading it to currently untaxed services.
She promised a "thorough and objective public review" of the panel's recommendations.
Good idea, but don't stop there.
"My biggest message to dysfunctional Sacramento is to get something done," Parsky says. "If you've got a better idea, get it done."
There's no question that flattening and broadening the sales tax base is a decent enough idea. Under the constraints of minority rule, it may be the best one lawmakers can get, and it would prove popular if enacted. We'll see if the Parksy Commission report is dumped in favor of that.
This Los Angeles magazine interview with Karen Bass is really illuminating about her life and her early activism, which she says started in middle school during the civil rights movement. Bass, a student organizer, antiwar activist and advocate for the poor in South LA, has a deep connection to the grassroots world outside Sacramento. And yet she is boxed in by circumstance and the minority rule in California to do things that directly conflict with her personal interests. This is a fascinating passage:
Why did you start the Community Coalition for Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment in South L.A.? In the '80s, crack cocaine took off as an epidemic, and I became obsessed by it. It was the first time that a drug impacted across class lines in the African American community, and it was also the first time in history a drug trend impacted both genders equally. It was really beginning to reshape the landscape in the inner city. I wanted to find a way to address the drug problem that did not involve massive incarceration-that could get at the root causes-and at the same time I wanted to build an organization that would help create, recruit, and train a next generation of activists. We've been around for 19 years.
Does the coalition show up at your office to protest what you're doing in the legislature? Absolutely. They're organizing a protest right now. They are nice enough to call me up and tell me when they're going to be protesting.
Would you be out there with them if the job didn't preclude it? No question. One thing that's a little funny, if you don't mind me going off the record-OK, I'll say it on the record. I would have been protesting, but even when I was making these decisions, I was still in contact with the groups that protest to tell them to continue, because I understand better than ever how important those protests are. So it is quite interesting to be in a position like this.
There's a very good reason why Bass' current position feels unnatural, beyond just the inside v. outside dynamic. It's because she thought she was going from a position of weakness, as an outside activist, to a position of strength, as a legislative leader. However, the truth was the opposite. At least as an activist she was free to advocate and maybe make substantive gains. As a leader in this legislature, she cannot. By rule. Because the minority holds sway.
Anyway, I found it to be a very interesting article.
The Assembly is struggling to to achieve what the Senate has already done: pass a substantive prisons bill. Instead we get a bunch of legislators changing their minds about a sentencing commission, and in the end, setting us backward on reforming the prison mess.
Today, Speaker Bass revealed the details of the legislation that she plans to put up for a vote come Monday. You can see a summary of that bill over the flip (h/t SacBee). To say it is entirely underwhelming would be an understatement.
The bill makes some minor changes to the Senate Bill on the way things are handled, including the "wobblers", which are crimes that can be charged as either a felony and misdemeanor. They changed some of the alternative custody rules and the definition of "grand theft." Really, nothing all that substanital. They don't restore funding for rehabilitation programs that were stripped in the Senate Bill.
But what they do take out of the bill is the "Public Safety Commission" aka the Sentencing Commission. Without the sentencing commission this bill isn't worth the pixels on your screen. It won't fix the prisons. It won't create any substantive change. It will merely kick the can down the road. In order for this bill to be worthwhile, it MUST have a sentencing commission with teeth. A sentencing commission that allows policy makers who understand public safety to make the decisions, not political hacks trying to make their way to the next job. Again, if it can play in Kansas, it can happen here. The only thing missing here are a few legislators with courage.
In other words, this bill misses the opportunity presented by the budget challenges. Frankly, we only have so many cracks at this apple, and this is the perfect storm for a sentencing commission: A Republican Governor providing some cover, a budget mess requiring cost savings, and a federal court order hanging over our heads. The time is now. Like Arnold and his crew are using the mess to shock doctrine the state, we should use this mess to fix the state.
But the Assembly frankly does not have the courage to do what they believe is right. I know they believe it is right, because they passed it as AB 160 back in 2007. The Senate can get it done, the Assembly should be able to muster the votes too.
We can move forward in one of two directions: We can pass a decent piece of legislation, or we can pass this half-hearted nothingness. We can have real reform, or we can just keep going on the same path that we've been pursuing. In all likelihoods, the Assembly will pick the latter, and nothing will really be accomplished. We might even end up with the federal courts deciding how to release prisoners. But, as activists, we must all remember who stood up to make the tough vote, and who did not. In politics, there is always an accountability moment.
Trying to appease the cowards running for higher office in the Assembly rank and file, Karen Bass has dropped the sentencing commission out of the prison reform package.
The sentencing commission was among the most controversial provisions of the Senate prison plan. But on Monday, Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said "a real sentencing commission, with teeth, is my top priority" for corrections legislation.
Steinberg spokeswoman Alicia Dlugosh said Monday that the Senate leader would like to see any legislation passed by the Assembly "realize the same dollar figure in savings as the Senate bill."
The bill passed last week by the Senate, AB 14 XXX would save the state an estimated $600 million, according to an analysis of the bill. But the Assembly seemed poised to make key changes that would reduce those savings by about $220 million.
Among the other changes expected to be made by the Assembly would be the elimination of a provision that would change some crimes which can be either felonies or misdemeanors --known as "wobblers" - exclusively to misdemeanors. The Assembly bill expected to come up for a vote this week would leave the state's wobbler law unchanged.
Assembly Democrats also balked at a provision in the Senate bill that would allow some sick and elderly inmates to finish their sentences under house arrest.
Bass said she hoped to pass the sentencing commission as stand-alone legislation later in the year. First of all, the year ends on September 11, and second, adding the commission to a must-pass reform package was the whole point. If lawmakers objected to it as part of a package, they're not going to turn around and support it in isolation.
Punting on this issue will ensure that federal judges will be mandating reductions of the prison population 10 years down the road. The only reform worth doing in the package now clarifies parole policy, devoting resources to those who need to be monitored instead of the blanket supervision that has turned our parole system into a revolving door. But that will not be enough to turn around the prison crisis for the long-term, without finally doing something about our ever expanding sentencing law.
This also shows the complete dysfunction of the leadership. Darrell Steinberg may not go along with the limited version, and I don't blame him. His chamber has now stuck their neck out three times on tough votes - Tranquillon Ridge drilling, HUTA raids and now this - that the Assembly has quashed. I wasn't unhappy about the first two, but if I was in the Senate, I'd be pissed about all these controversial votes I was needlessly taking. You'd think Karen Bass would have a sense of her caucus and know that she couldn't pass whatever she and Steinberg and the Governor hammered out in private. Because she's on her way out the door in 2010 she has no leverage over the caucus, because everyone's termed out and running for something else they have no fealty to the Assembly, and because they all live perpetually in fear they won't take a vote they know would help future generations deal with a crisis.
As I've said, a broken process will almost always produce a broken result. But individual lawmakers need to be called out. Particularly the three Assemblymembers running for Attorney General who think they're showing off their toughness. When all of them lose, they'll probably attribute it to other factors. They should be reminded of this day.
While the Senate was successful in passing meaningful, albeit not the prettiest, prison reform , the Assembly has been stumbling over the task for a few days now. They were going to try it on Monday again. Needless to say, it hasn't succeeded. They've pushed back the vote again, indefinitely this time.
"Work is moving forward on a revised plan to increase public safety, improve the effectiveness of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and reduce state budget costs" Speaker Bass said Monday. "There were a number of calls and meetings throughout the weekend with various stakeholders, including law enforcement. Those conversations are continuing. When we arrive at a responsible plan that can earn the support of the majority of the Assembly and makes sense to the people of California, we will take that bill up on the Assembly floor. We will provide advance notice when a vote on the public safety package is to be scheduled."
If you want to take your time, and get this right, that's a great thing. Unfortunately, I think this delay is less about getting this right than getting it wrong. Weak-kneed Democrats are failing California when we most need them to stand up for sound policy. Like the lawmakers in Kansas were able to do a few years back:
"But you know the old 'trail em', nail 'em and jail 'em stuff doesn't work. We want people to come out and stay out and become responsible tax-paying citizens."
She says many ex-cons have learned their lesson and don't want to go back to prison but others have so little to lose that they lack motivation.
Now her job is to give people like Lorelei, who has spent most of her life struggling with crack addiction and drifting in and out of penal institutions, fresh incentives.
*** *** ***
The new strategy seems to be working: five years ago around 203 parolees returned to Kansas prisons each month but by 2007, the number reduced by 100 per month and the number of new crimes - felony convictions that people pick up while they are on parole supervision- also nearly halved. (BBC)
Our prison crisis cannot simply be resolved with more beds, or harsher sentences. These tactics have been tried for generations, and we are clearly losing the "War on Crime." The more we see ourselves as fighting a war on our own people, the more we fail. It's a quicksand that you don't get out of by just hitting the gas.
See, the thing about prison policy is that we have our whole system targeted at the wrong people. Instead of simply looking to sate ourselves, we need to look to how we preserve the goals and institutions of our soceity. What works best for us moving forward? That is what is sorely lacking in California that has been rediscovered in Kansas, even by the people who run the prisons:
Roger Werholtz, the secretary of corrections, was forced to examine how to spend criminal justice dollars more effectively. For decades, he says, policy in the US has been driven by the public's emotional response to criminals.
"We are mad at them, frightened by them, frustrated by them, and so our typical response has been very punitive," he says.
But Mr Werholtz argues locking people up is only a temporary solution since more than 95% of prisoners will eventually be released into the community.
"We have to think long-term and stop arguing about what criminals deserve. Instead we need to focus on what we deserve as citizens and that leads us to a very different set of interventions."
But as we sit in limbo, waiting for the California legislators to look beyond 6 or 8 years, or whenever their next election is, we must remember that legislators are also accountable to us. Take the current issue. In the assembly we have three legislators who fancy themselves as excellent attorneys general of the State of California. That's a gig that requires planning for a period beyond their own tenure. Yet, it is widely speculated that these three Assembly members have been very reluctant to vote for a sentencing reform commission for fear of looking "soft on crime."
The sentencing commission isn't soft on crime, it is a policy board that will allow policy makers, not politicians, to make decisions on what is best for the state. Instead of grandstanding on penalties for each infraction, we can allow policy research and good solid ideas to take hold of California's messed up sentencing laws.
Yet, the Democratic candidates for Attorney General must also pass through the Democratic primary, and there are alternatives for the job who have been quite up front about their position on ToughOnCrimeTM. This is about good policy, and good policy should be remembered by grassroots activists when the time comes around for donors and volunteers come primary time.
UPDATE: Whoops, I meant to include the target list for your comments. Over the flip I have now provided the list that Dave ID'd last week. If they represent you, call them early and often. If they don't well, it can't hurt can it? Tell them that you support a sentencing commission and the prison reform package as passed by the Senate. And if you really get going, tell them to restore rehabilitation funds.
This is a big deal. John Burton just sent out an action alert to CDP delegates and supporters urging them to vote AGAINST an element of the budget negotiated by the Democratic leadership. Specifically, he wants the offshore drilling at Tranquillon Ridge voted down.
As you may have heard, legislative leaders and the governor have reached a tentative budget deal that the Senate and Assembly could vote on as soon as tomorrow.
One part of the package is a Republican-written bill that would allow offshore drilling in state-controlled waters off California's coast for the first time since the devastating 1969 oil spill off the Santa Barbara coast. This proposal is an affront to all Californians and we must urge lawmakers to vote it down.
This sweetheart deal for one oil company was negotiated behind closed doors, without any legislative hearings to allow public comment.
It strips the State Lands Commission - which has approved or rejected oil leases for the past 150 years - of this power and gives it to a commission controlled by the governor's administration. This commission would have unlimited authority to rewrite the lease to benefit the oil company.
The offshore drilling plan does not solve either this year's budget problems or systemic problems. That's because its promises of future revenue are not actually written into law.
This Republican offshore drilling scheme endangers California's environment. It would further pad the pockets of oil executives. And it does virtually nothing to solve the state's current or future budget problems.
Ironically, the same Republican legislators who support this sweetheart deal are the ones who refused to vote for our Democratic leaders' proposal for an oil-severance tax like the one levied in every other oil-producing state.
Please call your local lawmaker and urge him or her to say NO to new offshore drilling. Say NO to jeopardizing our coastline for minimal budget help this year or in the future.
At the end of the email, Burton reminds readers that these kind of backroom deals are part of why "it's so important to have a majority-vote budget in California so Republicans cannot hijack the budget process to make bad policy changes that are extraneous to the state budget." A-men to that, but tell it to the Democratic leaders who helped negotiate this.
Karen Bass was asked today by reporters why the offshore drilling bill was included in the budget agreement, and she replied, "It comes down to $100 million dollars." Apparently you can put a price on despoiling the coastline and destroying the environment. Turns out it's 1/880th of total budgetary spending.
It's good to see the Chairman of the CDP picking up on a campaign by the Courage Campaign and amplifying it. The offshore drilling plan will be considered in a separate trailer bill. It can be defeated.
Karen Bass, on a budget deal that closes a $26 billion dollar deficit with deep cuts, local government raids, gimmicks and offshore drilling, without any new revenues:
"I would characterize this budget as shared pain and shared sacrifice"
Yes, it sounds shared to me.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, talking about a budget that will bankrupt localities, treat the elderly, disabled and blind like common criminals, throw millions off of children's health care and temporary assistance and ensure public education's status as the worst-funded in the nation:
"We accomplished a lot in this budget agreement," said Schwarzenegger, adding that negotiations at times were "like a suspense movie."
Fun!
This flag was seen in Southern California yesterday. That's a distress signal. I share the sentiment.
"This is the biggest step back from protecting and investing in vulnerable Californians in a generation," said Frank Mecca, executive director of the California Welfare Directors Association.
You may have heard this by now, but we have a deal. The #cabudget hashtag should get you your fix. The topline stats:
$15 billion in cuts, no new taxes, $11 billion in gimmicks and borrowing
$4-5 billion in local government raids
only an $800 million reserve (initially the talks were for a $4 billion one)
$6 billion in reductions to public schools, but an $11 billion dollar payment somewhere down the road though not in writing
yes, there's new offshore drilling in this deal, going around the Lands Commission, and without an oil severance tax for the producers
$1 billion assumed for the sale of the State Compensation Insurance Fund, which is not only unlikely but would really crush small businesses if sold
no suspension of Prop. 98
basically a reinvention of state government, more austere, and precisely when folks need the opposite.
...three furlough days a month for some state employees still in place for the rest of the year
$500 million in cuts to Cal Works
smiles all around from Dem leg. leaders as they cheer that "we did not eliminate the safety net for California." Poking a big hole in it, apparently, qualifies as A-OK.
...we're also cutting $1.2 billion to corrections without releasing any prisoners, as per the actual politics as usual. The only way you can do that is by cutting every treatment or rehabilitation program in the prisons, or eliminating overtime for corrections officers. In other words, we're turning prisons into Public Storage units.
UPDATE by Robert: The main takeaways here:
• Arnold and the Republicans got everything they wanted - a cuts-only budget that protects their wealthy allies and the big corporations from having to pay their share and that makes everyone else suffer.
• California's government is functioning as intended - producing right-wing outcomes despite large Democratic majorities. I will continue to blame specific legislators for agreeing to this shit, but lasting change will only happen when we press the reset button on state government.
UPDATE by Dave: Just to state the obvious, only the Republican leaders have agreed to this. We still aren't through the process where individual Yacht Party members have to be bribed for their votes.
Of course, we aren't through the process where progressives just say "no we're not voting for that, try again," but I've never seen that process come into play.
• Background checks for IHSS providers
• Fingerprinting of workers and clients (so if you are disabled and cared for at home, you will be treated like a common criminal merely because you need assistance)
• "Some state parks will close" even though parks generate more tax revenue than they cost
• OC Fairgrounds to be sold
• Integrated Waste Management Board to be abolished, despite the fact that its annual cost is statistically negligible
The February deal was bad, but this is far worse.
...CalPERS reports $56 billion loss. Local governments are going to have to make up part of this shortfall - but with what money? The legislature has guaranteed mass bankruptcies for local governments with their raid on local funding, which was probably the point of Arnold's insistence on such raids.
