The public library is an American institution – but right now, it’s under threat of being transformed from a public service to a for-profit venture. AB 438 is a result of a year-long effort by community residents, local organizations, librarians and labor organizations to save public libraries from widespread privatization efforts. Recently, the city of Santa Clarita privatized their library services and instead of saving money (as the private stated) it will cost the local taxpayers $12 million, and AB 438 addresses these types of hidden costs.
Currently, Library Systems and Services (LSSI) is the only private company that offers turnkey private library management in the United States and is often the only company in line to take over a local library system. LSSI has taken over libraries in Oregon, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Kansas and California, and has diminished services and staff while relying on more volunteers to make a profit. Privatization threatens America’s public libraries and library services and community residents are upset that they do no not have a voice in the matter. Read the New York Times article about the struggle in Santa Clarita.
SEIU launched the www.privatizationbeast.org campaign earlier this year to support and coordinate local community efforts to preserve quality public library services, and now there is legislation -- AB 438 (Williams) waiting on Governor Brown’s desk -- that will establish standards for transparency and provide protections for taxpayers through audits and accountability. There will also be safeguards protecting quality jobs and that communities will also have the opportunity to express their concerns.
As a public librarian, I believe that library services should be available to everyone, and this can best be done through a strong public library system. The residents of Santa Clarita did not have a choice or a voice in their City Council’s decision to privatize their libraries and how their tax dollars are spent but AB 438 will change that for other communities. With the help of CREDO and change.org more than 71,000 Californians signed petitions in support of AB 438 and librarians along with public library supporters across the country joined them.
With the election over, it's time to move on to new things, and the folks at the Campaign for America's Future have asked me to do some writing about Social Security, which sounds like some big fun, so here we are.
We're going to start with some reasonably simple stuff today, just to get your feet wet; by the time we get a few stories down the road there will be some complicated economic analysis to work through-but let's begin today by looking a bit south.
Those who support privatizing Social Security in this country often point to Chile as an example we could follow, and that seems like a good place to get the conversation going...so set your personal WayBack Machine to Santiago, May, 1981, and let's see what we can learn.
According to an audit by Controller Wendy Greuel, the City Department of Transportation (LADOT) "wasted at least $855,000 of taxpayer dollars" on GPS devices for parking enforcement vehicles. (The devices are known as Automated Vehicle Locator Systems, or AVLS.)
Today, Governor Schwarzenegger has come out with his revised state budget. It, quite predictably, calls for more massive program cuts, including the wholesale elimination of programs that serve the most vulnerable in the state. He refuses to even put on the table for discussion any tax increases or the development of other revenue sources. As always, the Republican legislators bob their heads as a block in agreement.
For those of us working in non-profits or the public sector in California, there are absolutely no surprises here. We've easily recognized Arnold and the Republican legislators' agenda all along because it mirrors a national plan that is based on a cold, neoliberal, Darwinian philosophy.
We've perceived that the long-term goal all along has been to completely dismantle government and empower corporate America and the financial elite. These are the individuals who have, framed on the walls of their posh offices, the words of Grover Nordquist to "reduce government to the level where it can be drowned in a bathtub."
Essentially, they want us to return to a feudal society, with a ruling elite and cowed masses worried about keeping their jobs, their homes, their chance at an education, their dwindling hopes for any improvement of their lives. They'll continually utilize fear and anger to maintain their power. The only money spent will be on national defense, while they regularly stoke fears about terrorists or illegal immigrants (Viking raiders, Attila the Hun, displaced native tribes, your great-grandparents from Sweden, Italy and Ireland...or Mexico) in the peasants, while really using those armed forces to ensure their status quo at home. Ironically, much will be similar to the times when the monopoly British East India Company ruled the American colonies or when many western towns were company towns.
Arnold et. al. have been quietly laying this foundation for his entire term: to culminate in the privatization of all public services and destruction of government "by the people, for the people.." in favor of domination by corporations, their lobbyists and the elite. They've repeated the mantra that the private sector can always do so much better than the public sector. They've thrown out the whole concept of checks and balances in our system. They've rewritten history in terms of the "Founding Fathers," who perceived the dangers of concentrated power in the private sector and in the merging of government with business (including mainstream media). They've conveniently ignored the blatant examples of how blind trust in, and lack of oversight over, the private sector always leads to disaster (Enron, bank failures, oil spills, Halliburton, corporate-sponsored initiatives). They claim concern for small businesses while their unchecked brand of rule trends that private sector towards uncompetitive, corporate monopolies in all sectors. They talk about democracy, while regularly seeking to undermine it and impose the will of a minority. They rail against big government, but enable big corporation in its place.
But for those of us who work in public schools, non-profit health agencies, state agencies, local fire and police departments, etc., the biggest conflict is their attitude that everything will be solved by an unfettered, free market and that everything should be addressed by "the wonders of the marketplace." They worship competition and eschew cooperation. They feel everyone is motivated solely by material gain and deny, or have contempt for, those of us who believe in public service, in caring for others, in the common good, that we're all in this together and that we need to cooperate in order to make better communities, a better state, a better world.
They are also, quite clearly, willing to bet the whole house (meaning the house serving the common good) on their battle plan because they won't be the ones killed as the house is burned down. They'll watch from their gated communities on the hillside, like the "Stratus Dwellers" in an old Star Trek episode, with their millions from tax breaks safely ensconced in overseas tax shelters.
As the past few years have indicated, Arnold and the Republicans will not even discuss any options that don't fit with their philosophy. Never mind that their job, as elected officials, is to PUT ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE, especially in "crisis" times!!! They will stonewall to the point where the state is paralyzed or on the verge of collapse because they demand we take their way or the highway. They will cynically bet that the other side will always blink first, due to that side's actually caring for the real people hurt by their drowning of government/enthrone the plutocracy strategy. After all, we're the ones who see and feel the human costs of their death by a thousand cuts approach and we always want to minimize the pain. Of course, this slow-bleed of government achieves all of their goals in the end.
And here we are. We're right where they've wanted us since the implementation of FDR's New Deal, the rise of the middle class in the 1950's, and the enactment of various civil rights legislation in the 1960's.
California, since 1978, has been the test case for their destruction of that New Deal and its more egalitarian benefits, through the promotion of a neoliberal agenda at the state level. If they destroy safety nets, privatize social services, education, transportation, and more, and drown the last vestiges of state government, they will be emboldened to do so across the rest of the country. The end result will most certainly be states and a nation about as far from the ideals of a true democracy as you can imagine. It will be a complete failure of Gandhi's test of a society being ultimately being judged by how it treats its most vulnerable.
The big question now is, are those of us who believe in another vision willing to make our stand? Even if it does cause a lot of short-term pain? Are those in Sacramento who truly believe in something besides a monopoly dominated "free" market/emasculated puppet government world willing to draw a line in the sand? Are we willing to go beyond rallies that are ignored, letters and petitions that are stuck with contempt in a back drawer, and raise the ante? Are we willing to fight for the most vulnerable who, quite literally, have nothing else to lose at this point and will suffer and die from this destruction of state government? Are we willing to get out of our special interest silos and work together for a society that values cooperation, the common good, and basic caring and that can function (as other countries have clearly shown) quite well with a vibrant free market economy, representative government, active non-government organizations, and independent media-each serving to keep the excesses of the other in check through constant vigilance and citizen participation?
I know I am because as one proud, "bleeding heart liberal," (as they so like to label us) I'm sick to hell of this crap.
Glenn Reed, Eureka
Heads up, fellow Dems: Republicans love to talk about "revolution" when they're out of power -- and they exploit it to leverage discontent at every opportunity.
Privatizing public schools is a great opportunity.
Today I got an invitation to join a new front group, "Parent Revolution," asking me to grab a torch and pitchfork and get busy on Los Angeles schools:
Together, we will seize this moment, drag the LAUSD kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, and make our public schools work once again for the parents and kids of Los Angeles.
You'd never guess that this is bankrolled by Republicans, would you?
Well, look out. Underneath the Orwellian front groups that are out to trick parents into supporting their "revolution," this is all about privatization via charter schools. There are untold billions of dollars at stake.
Right now, the number one job of every public official, including state legislators and the governor, our representatives in Congress and our new President, is to revitalize our economy and put our people to work. Here in California, that means promptly passing a budget that solves our state's budget crisis, stimulates the economy and creates jobs. We're facing a $40 billion budget shortfall and the real possibility of insolvency within a month or two if we don't get a budget in place. With 9.3% of Californians unemployed and many more struggling, nothing should get in the way of helping get California's economy back on track. Any distraction from solving our budget crisis is a dereliction of duty.
Unfortunately, the Governor Schwarzenegger is stalling a solution to the budget crisis by pushing legislative leaders to accept unrelated and potentially dangerous measures to privatize vital infrastructure projects. For instance, California, like most states, funds infrastructure through the low-cost, tax-exempt municipal bond market, where private investors' money helps build schools, roads, flood-control and other necessary projects while paying those investors a fair rate of return.
Now the governor wants to force the Legislature to experiment with a dangerous scheme for private firms to raise the money for transportation projects, only to be paid back later by Californians, undoubtedly with quite a bit of profit. So instead of a low-cost, tax-exempt way of raising the money, the governor is pushing to spend more of your money to profit of private investors. Doesn't make sense, does it? The U.S. Government Accountability office recently reviewed the deceptively-named public-private partnerships and concluded: "While private investors can make billions of dollars available for critical infrastructure, these funds are largely a new source of borrowed funds, repaid by road users over what potentially could be a period of several generations. There is no "free" money in highway public-private partnerships."
The fourth installment of a six part series on the Orange County toll roads is now up at Orange County Progressive. Here's the intro on the story of the ill-fated extension of the 241, where the OC Power Structure met their Waterloo at the hands of DFH's, Surfers, and a motley crew of environmental activists.
Opponents of the extension of the 241 were waiting anxiously for TCA Directors to emerge from their January closed session meeting with their attorneys. "We were looking at the body language, and when they slumped into the room with a beaten look and hang-dog expressions, we knew that their lawyers had given them glum news." The agency attorneys had apparently advised that further legal action would add additional waste to the 40 million plus that had been expended in an attempt to build the final 16 miles of the 241 Toll Road.
Although some directors continued to bluster, for the first time there was talk of reaching out to all stakeholders to put together a new plan. The arguments and logic developed and articulated by toll road opponents had prevailed with the coastal commission, and even the Bush cronies in the waning lame-duck days of the Commerce Department wouldn't buy the cart-load of preposterous arguments concocted by the TCA flacks.
But their willingness to compromise is too little, too late. It's like a late stage alcoholic abusive husband, still unable to face the fundamental addiction. The disease is pathetically obvious to close observers, and in moments of sobriety or remorse, the abuser promises to do better. Until the board members of TCA hit bottom and start working a new program, they'll continue with a pattern of denial, victimhood, and relapse.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gave Democrats the cold shoulder as he grew convinced he can somehow win Republican support for a midyear budget deal that includes tax hikes, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said Wednesday [...]
"He believes that he can convince the Republicans to vote for revenue increases given that we're now pretty much at the brink," Steinberg told The Bee's Capitol Bureau. "And if that's the case, great. Then we'll resume a different kind of negotiation. If it's not true, then I expect we'll be right back to our $17 billion-plus proposal and try to close that out."
Steinberg said he thinks lawmakers can still avert a cash shortage if they pass midyear changes by February. While the changes alone may not be swift enough to provide California with enough cash to pay its bills, he suggested that passage of a credible budget solution would enable the state to take out sufficient loans.
It's important to remember how stunningly ineffective Schwarzenegger has been at governing for five years. He hasn't brought one Republican along on ANYTHING he has sought. All of the policies he'll be talking about as part of his "legacy" were passed without any Republican votes. He has no chance whatsoever to attract anyone from his own party, and he never has. That is the epitome of failure as a leader.
Of course, you have to question whether he really wants to solve the problem at this point. It's probably more about political posturing at this point. Democrats wouldn't privatize the state, so Arnold will fall back on the same tired tactic of demonization while California goes up in flames.
"We all know how this movie goes," Steinberg said. "The governor will be out again in some community in California attacking the Legislature and elected representatives for failing to act. It's frankly a tired, old movie."
In the end, the Democrats couldn't -- or wouldn't -- meet Schwarzenegger's demands (more cuts, additional public-private partnerships and easing of environmental regulations for at least 10 projects) for him to sign the budget.
"The Legislature has been more than willing to meet the Governor halfway on his proposals, but we cannot in good conscience back an 'anything goes' approach to California's environment and a privatization scheme that would make George W. Bush blush," the Democratic leaders write in an op-ed in today's Bee.
Arnold was never interested in "creating jobs," he was interested in breaking his old nemesis, the unions. And when it didn't happen, he used the ridiculous excuse that now, when the Republican project to bankrupt government is almost realized, NOW they'll see the light. And in the end, even his "comprehensive" budget solution would only solve the problem until he could leave office, sticking his successor with another crisis.
Fail, fail, FAIL.
UPDATE by Brian: The Republican Senate Caucus just sent out a quite humourous email. I'll summarize: You try to kick the ball Charlie Brown, we'll definitely leave it there. A snip:
We should start by immediately enacting the $6 billion in budget solutions that have already been agreed upon by both Republicans and Democrats. This would be a responsible first step to avert the looming cash crisis and put Californians back to work."
"Republicans continue to stand ready to work with the Governor and Democrats. Too much time has been wasted on schemes to make an end-run around Prop. 13 and the will of the voters. It's time to adopt a fiscally responsible budget plan, which is what voters rightfully expect from their elected leaders."
Just so we're clear here, well over 60% of the California voters agrees that we need to increase taxes, according to recent polling data. In some polls, that even exceeds the 2/3 figure. The will of the voters is to have a viable K-12 system, higher education, decent transportation options and human services.
Apparently, the Democrats should compromise on the parts they are willing to give, but the Republicans don't have to give anything. That's not compromise, that's unconditional surrender. Surrender to a theory of market economics that is crumbling around us as we speak, yet that's where the GOP leads us. Compromise indeed.
We know that Arnold holds a grudge against unions, which he believes caused him that stinging defeat in 2005, and much of his goals on the budget lately have taken their aim at those unions. In particular, Arnold is seeking to privatize major infrastructure projects, ostensibly for the sake of "efficiency" but as a practical matter to get the jobs out of union hands. I thought that much of this was just a sop to Arnold's friends on the Chamber of Commerce and just more of the conservative mantras of animosity toward unions and privatization equaling a universal good. But there's also a quid pro quo angle involved here in the form of David Crane, a top economic advisor to the Governor, who would stand to benefit financially from any public-private projects put forward by his current boss.
As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger demands that lawmakers allow private interests into California's huge market for public works projects, a company with close personal and financial ties to the governor's economic advisor is positioned to benefit.
The advisor, David Crane, has spent years promoting private-sector involvement in public construction projects -- one of a few issues holding up a deal between Schwarzenegger and legislative Democrats to ease the state's worsening fiscal crisis.
Babcock & Brown, the financial services firm where Crane worked for a quarter of a century, hired a Sacramento lobbyist last year to influence the governor's office on so-called public-private partnerships, records show. Since joining the governor's team in 2004, Crane has received hundreds of thousands of dollars of income from deals he made while at Babcock, a firm founded in San Francisco and based in Australia, according to financial disclosure reports.
Those deals included projects in areas such as telecommunications, in which he served as a financial advisor; personal investments in real estate from Babcock's public-private partnership projects in England; and partnerships he formed with other Babcock executives to invest in oil wells and an Italian restaurant chain.
Crane is claiming that he cannot possibly benefit financially from any future deals, but one wonders whether, even if Crane is telling the truth, it really matters. The network of friends and former business associates to which Crane's advice could directly or indirectly steer business is vast. This is how government-by-profit-taking typically works, rewarding friends and punishing enemies. Whether or not Crane gets his profit now, as an economic adviser, or later, when he returns to Babcock & Brown or some other destination, is in many ways besides the point, just a clever way to avoid violating the letter of the law.
Jessica Levinson, the director of political reform at the nonprofit Center for Governmental Reform in Los Angeles, said Crane appears to be operating within the letter, though perhaps not the spirit, of the law.
"It starts to have the appearance of doing political favors for old friends, and that is not something that I think is illegal, but it still may not be fully ethical," Levinson said. "I think it all comes down to, is he making this decision for public good or is he making it to help his old business friends?"
By the way, Crane is a Democrat, or at least that's what it says on his voter registration card. The issues are the same. He's a free market fundamentalist who probably thinks he's advocating on behalf of a good solution for California. After a while, the theft becomes so commonplace that the thieves don't even see it as stealing anymore.
As my recent diaries have shown there is a shortage of firefighters to meet the unprecedented amount of fires burning across our state. As I began digging into this yesterday I came across the same report highlighted in today's Monterey Herald - that US Forest Service firefighting efforts have been cut to the bone and left the nation vulnerable to massive fires. Deliberate staffing shortages have left the USFS unable to do vital off-season brush clearance, and left them without the staffing to get a quick jump on fires in their crucial initial stages.
The federal firefighting system is "imploding" in California, due to poor spending decisions and high job vacancy rates, as the region struggles to keep pace with what looks to be a historic fire season, a firefighters' advocacy group charges.
As a result, the firefighters say, small fires have exploded into extended, multimillion-dollar conflagrations because the U.S. Forest Service has been unable to contain them during the early "initial attack" stage...
As the "sheer number" of California wildfires pushed the nation to its worst measurable level of wildland-fire preparedness last week - Level 5 - a national multiagency coordinating group announced in a memo Monday that firefighter staffing levels in Northern California "cannot be maintained."
The report, by the FWFSA, has been around for a few months now. Wildland firefighters have been screaming about the issue to anyone who would listen, including Dianne Feinstein:
After facing pressure from California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and other lawmakers last spring, the Forest Service promised it would immediately fill its vacancies and launched a "Fire Hire" campaign to attract firefighters in Sacramento that concluded two weeks ago.
"I believe the agency should have been able to muster a stronger force," Feinstein said. "All signs indicate that things will only get worse."
Feinstein said that despite promises of full staffing from [USFS Administrator Mark] Rey, only 186 of the agency's 276 engines were manned at the start of the 2008 fire season.
Ron Thatcher, president of the union that represents 20,000 Forest Service employees, has estimated that attrition has left the service at 70 percent to 80 percent of its authorized staffing levels, and that up to 39 percent of fire crew leader positions were vacant as the 2008 fire season kicked off.
Rey, Bush's USFS administrator, has a long background in the timber industry. He blames environmentalists for the problems, but firefighters and those who know the issue are having none of it.
In a little noticed vote yesterday, the Merida Initiative passed easily through the House of Representatives 311-106. It provides $1.6 billion with an emphasis on training and equipment to fight drug cartels in Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America, because as Rep. Brian Bilbray explained:
"Either we can go after these cartels in Ensenada, or we can fight them in Escondido," said Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Carlsbad), who voted for the plan. "I'd prefer that we move now and take care of this problem south of the border. The drug wars in Mexico and in other regions have grown horrendously violent, and their destructive ways must be quashed."
The auditorium was packed; the mood somber. About 200 parents had come to hear what everyone knew would be disturbing news. An anticipated $180,000 budget shortfall might well cost three critically important Ivanhoe educators their positions at the school, though they might be transferred elsewhere.
The parents group at the school had summoned families to tell them the news. And to present an alternative: a public education that would no longer be free.
Get out your checkbooks, parents were told. All those wrapping-paper sales and pancake fundraisers wouldn't be enough. We could either pony up some hard cash, or see Ivanhoe's standing as one of L.A. Unified's best schools threatened....
Pay $25, if that's all you can afford, Herman said. But he pointed up to a screen encouraging parents to dig a little deeper. Those three jobs can be saved, he said, if 80 parents contribute $250 apiece, 75 contribute $500, 50 fork over $1,000, 20 give $2,000 and six bust the bank with $5,000 contributions.
Four other L.A. Unified schools have already gone this route, Herman said, citing Canyon, Wonderland Avenue, Carpenter Avenue and Mar Vista.
We've heard of schools holding bake sales to pay for books and materials, but never have I heard of schools fundraising to retain teachers. It's a shocking sign of just how dire the situation facing public education has become in our state, where parents hoping that their children will receive a good education must now open their wallets to ensure it.
Lopez goes on to mention that LA Unified is expecting even worse budget problems in the coming years - $100 million this year, but perhaps as much as $350 million in the next two years. And Lopez rightly points out that not every school can fundraise:
At nearby Micheltorena Street School, where more than 90% of the students qualify for free or reduced-price meals, the principal told me that of course she can't match that kind of parental support. She's hoping that given the greater needs of her students, she'll be spared harsh cuts. But like other principals, she doesn't yet know how bad the news will be.
What is going on here is the slow and steady privatization of public education in California. Turning education from something provided to every child free of charge to something provided to those children whose parents are lucky enough to be able to afford the cost.
And if you can't afford the cost? The implication is clear - your child will sit in a classroom of 35 students, probably won't learn a whole lot, won't have a very bright future.
How is this any different from a tax increase? The Vehicle License Fee would, if restored to 1998 levels, eliminate the need for any education cuts at a cost of $150 per driver. Whereas the families at Lopez' Ivanhoe Elementary are being asked to contribute hundreds or even thousands of dollars to keep teachers in the classroom.
Lopez reports that most parents are willing to pony up for the fundraiser, for the sake of their kids. And that suggests public support for new taxes for education, instead of school-by-school fundraisers, would be popular with state voters. The alternative is the erosion of the critical promise of free education to all of our state's children. As Lopez so well points out:
when will we ever stop playing this shell game in which politicians rise to power promising prosperity without pain, even as working folks and retirees pay through the nose?
California High-Speed Rail Authority Executive Director Mehdi Morshed, joined Governor Schwarzenegger Tuesday in participating in a roundtable discussion at the State Capitol regarding the importance of investing in California's infrastructure and maintaining the state's economic growth through public private partnerships.
Mr. Morshed noted the California proposed system of high-speed trains offers a unique opportunity to develop a new model for "P3" or public private partnership financing....
Mr. Morshed noted that high-speed trains are attractive to private investors because California's proposed system will bring a $1 billion annual profit or surplus, once built.
Now it's not as if this is totally new. The 2002 Implementation Plan always envisioned that private financing would play some sort of role in the HSR project, although at the time it was expected to be limited to the bonds.
But what exactly is meant by "private financing" - and how bad might this really be for HSR?
The Authority's finance team anticipates public-private partnership opportunities will include project debt financing, vendor financing, system operations and private ownership.
I can live with private involvement in debt and vendor financing, even though government can always borrow more cheaply. System operations is iffy at best - government runs the French, Spanish, German, and Japanese lines quite well, and when system operations were privatized in Britain, the results were deadly. Private ownership, however, is a line we must not cross - public ownership of infrastructure is key to an effective, safe, and affordable transportation system for Californians. High speed rail is an economic catalyst and an environmental and sustainablity necessity. It needs to be held in public hands for public uses, and not hollowed out for private profit.
Back in November Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he was going to undertake a new initiative to privatize more of the building and management of public works projects here in California. Known as "public-private partnerships" or "P3," they've been employed around the world with poor results. At the time I denounced it as a dangerous giveaway, and Democratic candidate for AD-27 (should Prop 93 fail) Emily Reilly added her perspective on the failure of outsourcing design/build projects.
The Schwarzenegger administration is contemplating a plan, probably requiring state legislation, to create a California agency to oversee state and local public-private partnerships, aides said. Modeled after one in British Columbia, it would be staffed by professional financiers and other experts who could oversee the structuring of deals by both state and local governments.
But in reality, the BC model is NOT one we want to follow, as it instead proves that P3 is a costly waste that gives us nothing but higher costs and poorer quality services. So argues Bill Tieleman, one of the province's leading left-of-center voices. Tieleman claims BC Premier Gordon Campbell, a right-wing champion of P3, has "pulled the wool over the terminator's eyes" on these projects:
In the vast majority of examples here in B.C. and elsewhere, the costs are higher as the public gets hosed to provide private corporations with substantial profits.
The Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Centre was to cost $211 million under the original P3 budget and open in 2005 - the current estimated cost is $355 million, a 68 per cent jump, and it will open this year instead.
The William Bennett Bridge in Kelowna - priced at $100 million, now estimated at $170 million, up 70 per cent.
The rapid transit Canada Line to the airport was budgeted at $1.55 billion but will now cost $2 billion, or 29 per cent more.
Or look to Brampton, Ont., which was promised a new P3 hospital with 608 beds for $350 million. It now has a hospital with just 479 beds for $550 million.
Read on for more details and examples of how this is already being implemented, without a vote of the Legislature...
Meanwhile, Fabian Núñez is "so confident that we will be successful in reaching agreement that I have called for the Assembly to meet on Monday, December 17 in order to take up and pass AB 1X." So where are we actually heading on this?
Governor Schwarzenegger is calling for 10% spending cuts across the board in response to the budget shortfall that everyone knew was coming. And as Dave points out, this means everyone who can't afford to live without government gets screwed while the rich continue on their merry way. It also means that next year's budget fight will likely turn this year into the good ole days of budget wrangling. And if Perata is serious about not passing anything as long as there's a shortfall, then we ain't passing anything for a while cause the shortfall isn't going anywhere.
But before we even get to that, we find out whether all the extended sessions, coalition-shredding wars over an acceptable level of health-care (I'm looking at you Shum/Maviglio), time, money and both literal and cyber ink may end up coming to nothing because Don Perata can't see spending on an important mandate when the political leadership in Sacramento can't figure out how to balance a budget.
This is ultimately going to encapsulate most of the Calitics greatest hits from the past year; starting with health care, this runs through privatization, water usage, high speed rail and transportation, prison reform, Núñez pecadillos, labor relations, term limits, clean money, taxes, and the 2/3 rule. Because it all runs back to the ability of people to get elected and pass a budget.
Most of all, it's likely to reinforce the absurd lack of strong, public political leadership in this state. There are no advocates. Nobody has tried to convince me to sacrifice. Nobody has tried to convince me of the inherent wisdom in a program that I might not otherwise think was a good idea. The art of the possible is starting to discover that, as it turns out, not very much is possible with a $14 billion shortfall and no bold attempts at change.
Perata's statement closed by saying "The real issue now is the deficit and how this squares with everything else that we are going to do." Everything is back up for debate. Now that we're staring at the very real possibility of getting less than we started with, it might not be such a bad time for a return to the fundamental principles of budgeting and state spending. I'm not sure it could end up much worse.
At some point if we keep hearing of the so-called glory of privatization, they are going to have to show some results. Well, how about these results from Lawrence Livermore Labs:
With a new corporate manager at the helm, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory has entered a period of uncertainty unlike any other in its 55-year history with the University of California, putting employees on edge and threatening to erode the labs technical prowess.
The federal government predicted that adding private industry to the management mix would result in more science for the same money. Instead, higher costs led to 500 layoffs shortly after the new managements transition in October, confirming the worst suspicions of some and further roiling the labs once-comfortable culture.
That optimistic assessment stands in stark contrast to the reality on the ground at Livermore lab today. Eight weeks after the new company took the reins, the change from a public entity to a private company has resulted in $130 million in increased costs. And potential federal budget cuts to the tune of $150 million could necessitate as many as 300 more job cuts as soon as January.(TriValley Herald 12.9.07)
It seems the constant threat of layoffs and benefit cuts isn't really the kind of culture that sought-after scientists enjoy. I can't imagine why?
The federal government under the Bush administration, and to a lesser extent the Governator, have been doing just about everything possible to convince us that private industry will cure all that ails us. Yet where are the results of all of this grandiose talk?
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signaled a major push today to engage private companies in the construction and management of state and local infrastructure, adopting a strategy employed in Canada, Britain and elsewhere...
The Schwarzenegger administration is contemplating a plan, probably requiring state legislation, to create a California agency to oversee state and local public-private partnerships, aides said. Modeled after one in British Columbia, it would be staffed by professional financiers and other experts who could oversee the structuring of deals by both state and local governments.
As Brian explained in his excellent Pat Brown is Rolling Over In His Grave post last month, this push is part of a broader assault on the public ownership and operation of our basic infrastructure. The LA Times does not quote a single opponent of privatization, instead casting opponents as merely greedy special interests wanting to protect their fief:
opposition from labor unions and from legislators reluctant to give up too much control over big spending projects.
One of Arnold's financial advisors, David Crane, is allowed to declare that this is about innovation and progress:
Whereas we're a very innovative state in many ways, when it comes to infrastructure we are less innovative, and the governor intends to bring public-private partnerships into our portfolio.
In 1960, the Master Plan for Higher Education in California was adopted, with Democratic Governor Pat Brown having played the key role in brokering the deals that produced the remarkable document. Among its core principles were access - from the guarantees of UC or CSU acceptance for students in the top levels of their high school classes, to community college transfers - as well as affordability with an outright ban on tuition and the expectation that "student fees" would be limited, and used for things such as student activities and dorms. The state would provide the support for instruction.
But ever since Reagan took office in 1967, these promises have been under attack. In a political or especially an economic crisis, state politicians have repeatedly undermined the Master Plan, limiting access by reducing affordability. After a truce in the 1990s, the budget crisis of the 2000s saw another sustained attack on higher ed and the first acknowledged abrogations of the Master Plan's promises. Today, a UC or CSU education is no longer affordable, and reduced state support not only limits access, but is impoverishing those who work in its ranks.
All this is the subject of a fantastic LA Times article this morning titled "Less to Bank on at State Universities: Educators fear a 2004 funding deal has schools sliding toward mediocrity." But the article is about more than just the problems of reduced funding. Instead it outlines how this is a deliberate policy of the Schwarzenegger administration, an effort to privatize California colleges and put them out of the reach of those who have been promised access to them.
The story does not end there. An unstated, but equally important aspect of the piece also shows how this crisis is also the product of a stunning failure of public officials to protect the institutions and historic policies they have been charged with defending. Whether it is the UC Regents, the State Legislature, or the Democratic Party, these officials have done little to nothing to protect one of the most important projects in California history.
Some of these items may have been covered here, some not, but I didn't get to post a lot throughout the week, so here's some fresh meat (apologies to CMR) for those interested in Golden State politics:
For the first time in over 10 days the sun is out here in Monterey. But hey, after 6 years in the Emerald City, I'm used to the gray...
Is free speech being lost in privatized SF parks, asks a Fog City Journal guest op-ed? Given how little public assembly space that city actually has, and the corresponding need for free, accessible community organizing space, this is a major concern.
Also from FCJ: SF Supes defeat 6-5 a measure to protect the health of Bayview-Hunters Point residents who are certain they're falling ill from dust and possibly asbestos kicked up by Lennar's redevelopment project. This is especially ironic to me, as my dissertation is in part about the earlier fight against redevelopment in the Western Addition in the 1960s. Then, as now, the city leaders chose to defend redevelopment in spite of its harmful impacts on the residents it was ostensibly there to help.
From the Sightline Institute comes this graph of how various kinds of cars compare in their CO2 emissions. The difference between a Prius' emissions and those of an average passenger car are greater than the difference between that average car and an average SUV.
LAist is beating the drums for Ron Paul - and isn't about to apologize for it. Sigh. He's Barry Goldwater, Grover Norquist, and James Dobson all rolled into one. I dread the moment when the corporate powerbrokers see the opportunities inherent in Ron Paul's 1890s approach to political economy, and how it motivates many Republican netrooters.
