Governor Schwarzenegger's veto of almost a billion of spending, primarily for the neediest Californians couldn't have come at a worse time. To recap, now is a good time to allow the needy to starve, the sick to suffer, and the elderly to go unassisted, but a bad time to increase taxes a single penny on the wealthiest Californians. Sen. Steinberg has indicated that he will attempt to reverse the cuts under a new governor, but that is still a ways away.
Anyway, some legislators and child care activists held a press conference in the East Bay yesterday, and managed to get a few members of the press there. It is still pretty big news that over a quarter of a billion for working parents on CalWORKS was cut, at least for non-insiders.
Meanwhile, Arnold Schwarzenegger's team has moved on. Any discussion of that news is just rehashing battles already fought. That the cuts are about to take effect, and the devestation about to be wreaked on families across the state, well, pay no mind to that. It just isn't news. Reporters spilling ink on the subject are basically historians wasting their time...or so says Aaron McLear, the governor's spokesman.
Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear this afternoon questioned why, despite today's news conference and the veto's impending effects, I'm bothering to report about a veto that happened weeks ago - "We're having a presser tomorrow to overturn Prohibition. Hope you can make it." - and referred questions to state Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer.
(Asked if he really wanted to be so cavalier about a veto that will impact so many families, McLear responded by e-mail, "Sounds like you're writing from a particular point of view - interesting reporting. Just making sure u know this story is weeks old.") (InsideBayArea)
I suppose when you are walking through Brentwood, admiring the scenery, you don't really see the people suffering from the cuts. But they are real, and their stories worth telling. That the Governor's staff is that heartless should be no surprise at this point, though.
We can get a portion of the way to meeting our future water needs with a bit more storage. But, quite simply, we can't build our way out of the water crisis. No matter how much we build, we will not create additional rain or mitigate the effects that climate change will have upon the state.
So, conservation is where the rubber meets the road. Consider this:
New dams would produce up to 1 million acre-feet of water annually, compared with up to 3.1 million acre-feet freed up each year by new water efficiency programs, according to the delta task force, which cited state Department of Water Resources statistics. (Fresno Bee 10/21/09)
The question then is how we create some of the efficiencies to actually conserve the water. Some conservations are fairly straightforward. For example, many cities do not yet have water meters, installing them will rapidly reduce water usage as people get an idea of how much they are using and start paying for excessive use.
The bigger question is where these conservation gains will come from, and how do hold users accountable. There are a number of questions to look at, and this Fresno Bee article does a pretty good job taking a look at some of the bigger issues.
One issue that seems to always pop up is the question of coastal vs non-coastal. In the current negotiations, Republicans are arguing that coastal cities aren't required to do enough for conservation. Much of that is because many coastal cities have already put in some pretty effective conservation measures. Under the current proposal, the targets for each city are generally a 20% reduction, but cities that have already made reductions have to do less.
The biggest question is enforcement. Republicans want to give the least possible teeth to this measure by assuring that their could not be any legal ramifications of failing to meet the requirements, which Democrats already say isn't in the bill. However, it isn't at all clear that without the possibility of legal challenges there will be enough teeth to actually enforce with only some grants as a carrot for compliance. In other words, the bill is all carrot, and no stick. If you meet the targets, you get some extra grants, if you miss them, you don't. But the water still gets pumped either way.
If this water package is going to last for more than 5 or 10 years, it is going to need to be able to require very strict water efficiency. However, the key is getting beyond short-term political gain to do what's best for the state. Whether that happens appears to be up to the Legislative Republicans...again.
Last week, Arnold threatened to veto every bill. Just like every other statement he has ever uttered, you have no idea whether it is just a line he is delivering, or if it actually means something. As Robert pointed out, he "released some of the hostages" yesterday morning, however, he has since decided that the whole vetoing everything was a waste of $@#^ing time.
Although he failed to win bipartisan accord on a sweeping, multibillion-dollar plan to address the state's water problems, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sunday night backed down on his threat to veto hundreds of bills as punishment for legislative leaders' inability to reach a deal.
As the midnight deadline for signing or rejecting 704 bills approached, Schwarzenegger said sufficient progress had been made in the water talks, and he planned to act on all of the bills. As negotiations concluded late Sunday, the governor had signed into law 230 bills and vetoed 221.(LAT 10/12/09)
But Torey Van Oot at CapAlert has the best catch. Last year, Arnold made fun of bills in the Legislature, including one that would ban the practice of tail docking of dairy cows. Yeah, you guessed it: he signed the bill.
"Well, it's obviously very sad that we are in the biggest financial crisis and we are way overdue to get the budget done and we face a $26 billion deficit and I ask over and over and over the legislators upstairs to just focus on the budget and here they are, they're debating over the definition of honey. And a week ago they debated over cow tails and, a few weeks before that, they debated over should we have a Blueberry Commission in the state of California and all those kinds of things," he said at the time.
Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear pointed out that the criticisms came in the midst of the budget negotiations -- when the "the Legislature should focus on the budget above all else."
"At the time he wanted them to focus on the budget, he thought that the budget was the most important issue," he said. "Obviously, the budget is done, and he believes these bills are worth signing." (CapAlert 10/12/09)
Yeah, he signed the bill to regulate honey labeling too. These are both good bills, but the real point is these ridiculous games of brinksmanship. It is like he simply can't resist pushing deadlines to the last possible minute, can't resist using them for every possible tactical advantage. He is using them to the detriment of the state and of all Californians, no matter the political stripes.
The words that emerge from his mouth might as well be totally ignored. You can't trust his words and you can't trust him.
So remember the last legislative year? Well, if Arnold follows through on his latest threat, you might as well forget it. He's threatening to veto every bill on his desk if he doesn't get a water deal by, um, tomorrow.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today affirmed a looming threat to veto a large bulk of the bills that have been sent to his desk unless lawmakers can strike a deal on a package of water bills.
"I made it very clear to the legislators and to the leaders that if this does not get done then I will veto a lot of their legislation, a lot of their bills, so that should inspire them to go and get the job done," he said at the end of remarks to the Association of Community College Trustees' Leadership Congress, which is meeting in San Francisco today. (CapAlert 10/08/2009)
We've mentioned the water issue for a long time, but there is no way to overemphasize one critical point: No matter how many projects you build, you do not get any additional water. The rush about getting water for the West Central Valley is toxic to the state government and to the environment.
The West Central Valley is a relatively dry area. The soil is fairly fertile, but right underneath it lies a layer of clay that sucks water away from the topsoil. That means lots of tilling and lots of water. But in order for these farmers, most of which are big corporate operations, to make any real money, water has to be very, very cheap. Unnaturally cheap.
This, of course, is why there wasn't much agriculture done in the area by the native peoples. It was too inefficient to bring water there. But once we built a slew of pumps, it could be done. The problem is that pumps are expensive, and the farmers of the Western Central Valley don't want to pay for it.
The Westlands Water District has been getting cheap water for a long time, but they are the bottom rung on the water priority list. They are trying to use the crisis in Sacramento and the drought to get around the contracts that they signed last year putting them at a lower priority in exchange for a lower price.
And Arnold is trying to help them to do just that by threatening, intimidating, and generally being a jerk. And of course, Susan Kennedy, his "Democratic" Chief of Staff, is right there with him. Putting a gun to the head of not only the legislature, but some very important measures.
It's ugly. But it's an available political tool that the governor would be derelict not to use when an issue as critical as water is at stake.
This isn't about some narrow scheme important only to a narrow interest. Nor is it merely about a governor's pet project -- other than his legacy-building, which should be encouraged as long as it helps the state. It's about finally resolving an acute, decades-old problem that is worsening and affects practically all Californians.
Here's another old white man with health insurance who could give a crap if women get maternity care in their health insurance plans, to just pick one bill at random. Or who could care less if people who have insurance get dropped from it when they want to use it, to pick another. George Skelton would actively make the lives of Californians worse because he thinks it's sporting to see the Governor "use his power." That the power is illegal is of no consequence.
Then there's this whopper:
These and other arguments -- such as details of a new governing system for the delta -- have raged for years. Schwarzenegger apparently doesn't much care what the Legislature decides. He just wants it to compromise and send him a bill.
Yeah, he doesn't care at all. He actually invented the Latino Water Coalition, the fake-grassroots group pushing all the Republican solutions in water negotiations, but he's really just an innocent bystander. An innocent bystander who would destroy women's health and allow insurance companies to kill people for profit and a host of other things, all with an asshole like George Skelton cheering him on.
In the Assembly, Democrats are employing tactics that seem designed to pressure the governor into signing bills. Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico, D-Newark, sent a letter to Attorney General Jerry Brown asking him to investigate whether the governor's strategy is illegal. He cited a part of the state constitution that says it is a felony to seek to influence a legislative vote by means of "bribery, promise of reward, intimidation or other dishonest means."
"While politicians are certainly allowed to express their disagreements in any way they find productive, they are not allowed to refuse to perform their sworn duties in order to force the legislature to accept policy positions," Torrico wrote. "And public officials are specifically prohibited from the kind of direct 'horse trading' in which a government official agrees to take, or not take, a certain action in exchange for a specific vote."
Assembly sources said some Assembly Democrats even suggested on a conference call last week that the lower house should impeach the governor if he imposes a mass veto. The constitution says the Assembly has the "sole power of impeachment" and that it can pursue it on a majority vote for unspecified "misconduct in office." The Senate would then conduct a trial.
The idea seems to crop up every time lawmakers are frustrated with the governor, said Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco. It appears to be mostly talk for now.
"I know some members have mentioned the possibility of impeaching the governor," Torrico said, adding, "There's certainly a growing number of members who consider the governor's extortion tactics to be illegal and a dereliction of duty. But (impeachment) has not been discussed formally in the caucus as an option."
This sounds like a bluff on all counts, although the Governor's actions certainly violate the spirit and (depending on your reading) the letter of the law about using "bribery, promise of reward, intimidation or other dishonest means" to influence a legislative vote. I don't expect Jerry Brown to act on it, however, because he'd probably welcome the ability to threaten the legislature in this manner were he the Governor.
And yet, if the Governor were to veto the entire legislative session because he couldn't get his way on water (and doesn't that represent a failure of HIS leadership, not the legislature's?), I would say a case could be made that using extortion and running the state like a Hollywood negotiation is grounds for removal. What's more, while a two-thirds vote for removal in the Senate would be unlikely (though, given Schwarzenegger's standing in the Republican Party, not completely out of the question), just saddling him with the legacy of impeachment would be a crushing blow to his ego, not to mention his efforts at putting a happy face on his astonishingly awful leadership.
I don't think this is much more than a parlor game. But just so we know the rules, a Governor can be impeached for "misconduct in office" by a simple majority in the Assembly. According to Article 5 of the Constitution, it seems that during impeachment - not removal but impeachment - the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor. ("The Lieutenant Governor shall act as Governor during the impeachment, absence from the State, or other temporary disability of the Governor or of a Governor-elect who fails to take office.") Given that John Garamendi could be elected to Congress in four weeks, the line of succession appears to show that the President Pro Tem of the Senate would be next in line. So if the unthinkable happens, by November 3 we could be looking at Governor Darrell Steinberg.
As I scroll through my inbox, I'm looking at a series of emails from legislators and their various staff members. Lots of them. Every one tells me a story of a pretty good bill. I'll pluck a few out randomly: Nancy Skinner's AB 758 is a win-win with both labor and business supporting it. It would facilitate the greening of California's businesses. And Asm. Evans' AB 154 would conform California's foster care system to some relatively minor federal requirements for matching dollars. The bill could result in $50 mil in federal dollars by 2018.
Why do I bring this up? Because Arnold hasn't signed any of the bills yet. Dan Walters thinks it might have something to do with a lack of a deal on water, but at this point it is all just reading tea leaves. He hasn't said that he's going to veto everything, as he frequently does when he's throwing a temper tantrum.
But this is Arnold's MO. Come out in the national press for the Mom and apple pie, and then proceed to slam the apple pie in the face of mommy dearest when he gets back to Sacramento.
So, perhaps the Mr. Freeze character wasn't the right one for Arnold in the Batman story. It seems he would have been perfect for Harvey Dent.
One of the enduring takeaways of the Schwarzenegger era is just how much latitude he is given on the national level as some kind of transformative post-partisan leader, when those same reporters know that California is crumbling into dust under, and in many cases because of, his leadership. We witnessed this again today as national media types heaped praise on the Governor issuing a letter about the Obama health care reform plan:
"As Governor, I have made significant efforts to advance health reform in California. As the Obama Administration was launching the current debate on health care reform, I hosted a bipartisan forum in our state because I believe in the vital importance of this issue, and that it should be addressed through bipartisan cooperation.
"Our principal goals, slowing the growth in costs, enhancing the quality of care delivered, improving the lives of individuals, and helping to ensure a strong economic recovery, are the same goals that the president is trying to achieve. I appreciate his partnership with the states and encourage our colleagues on both sides of the political aisle at the national level to move forward and accomplish these vital goals for the American people."
I love the phrase "significant efforts," by the way. Others might call them "failed efforts," but YMMV.
But this "praise" for health care reform is just a piece of paper. One would think that the national media would seek to know the actions of the Governor on health care - one would be wrong, but one would still think that. And it would take about 10 seconds of Googling to figure out that the Governor has vetoed key elements of the legislation working through Congress. Last year he vetoed AB1945, which would have banned rescission, the insurance industry practice of dumping sick customers for technical violations on their applications like typos the moment that they try to use their policies for treatment. He vetoed SB840, the universal health care bill, on multiple occasions in the past. He vetoed SB1440, which would have mandated that insurance companies spend 85% of premiums on medical care. He vetoed SB973, which would have created a public insurance option by linking local and regional measures. He vetoed AB2, expanding the state's high-risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions.
He basically has vetoed many of the same provisions to be found in the current health care bill. And he is threatening to veto every bill on his desk this year, including another bill to ban rescissions so that customers who have paid insurance premiums for years aren't left to die when they want to use their policies. Anthony Wright notes some of the other bills:
* AB 119 (Jones): GENDER RATING, to prohibit insurers from charging different premium rates based on gender.
* AB 2 (De La Torre): INDEPENDENT REVIEW, to create an independent review process when an insurer wishes to rescind a consumer's health policy, create new standards and requirements for medical underwriting, and requires state review before plan approval. Also raises the standard in existing law so that coverage can only be rescinded if a consumer willfully misrepresents his health history.
* AB 98 (De La Torre): MATERNITY COVERAGE, to require all individual insurance policies to cover maternity services.
* AB 244 (Beall): MENTAL HEALTH PARITY, to require most health plans to provide coverage for all diagnosable mental illnesses.
Dan Walters calls these bills "nothing of cosmic importance". Well sure, he's not going to have a kid, and women are charged more than men by insurance companies anyway! To an entitled white man with a good-paying job, he doesn't have to worry about losing his policy or not getting comprehensive medical coverage. But to a woman who can't afford to lose her job to have a baby, or someone with a mental health problem who can't get relief for his suffering, or someone with an individual policy living constantly in fear that his or her insurance will get revoked precisely when they need it, these are issues of "cosmic importance." Anyone saying otherwise is ignorant.
And yet the Governor will have no problem holding these bills, and these people, hostage. His buddies at the Chamber of Commerce probably don't want him to sign them at all. So he writes a pretty letter supporting health care reform, while denying the very same measures to his own constituents. And national media types call him a "bold leader."
One reason why I didn't particularly care for the Guardian's Failifornia article was that it was really a human interest piece masquerading as a serious argument. It's not because its data was flawed or its tone insincere - though there's some of that; the long section on Mendota neglects to mention that the city hinges entirely on agriculture and features 30% unemployment or more ANYTIME there's a drought, unconnected to the larger structural problems in the state - but because it didn't even try to assess the root causes of the crisis or the steps for resolution.
For example, it would be beneficial to take a look at the culture of blackmail we have here in state government (as an aside, did the writer even visit Sacramento?). Politicians have learned over 30-plus years of dealing with onerous budget requirements that threatening blackmail is really the best way to get anything done. Witness Arnold Schwarzenegger, threatening to veto nearly 700 bills that have passed both houses of the Legislature unless he gets his way on a water bill.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, apparently standing by a threat to veto hundreds of bills on his desk unless a deal can be reached on the state's water problems, has suggested to Senate leader Darrell Steinberg that all legislation before the governor should be withdrawn to avoid a veto. About 700 bills are awaiting action.
Schwarzenegger did not formally request that the bills be yanked, but that was the implicit suggestion in his proposal, Capitol sources said.
The communications between Steinberg and the governor were referenced in an e-mail sent from Steinberg to Senate Democrats this week. In the internal e-mail, which was reviewed by Capitol Weekly, Steinberg said Schwarzenegger "even mentioned coming back this week to withdraw bills from his desk and hold them until after water is done."
Arnold is absolutely ballsy enough to do this. He has only signed 3 bills in the past four weeks since the Legislature adjourned September 11, and with six days to go and the Legislature not scheduled to return until after the deadline on October 11, I'm convinced of his sincerity to basically flush the entire legislative session down the toilet.
You just don't see headlines like this in other states. And that's because the process here rewards blackmail. Arnold knows that there are no repercussions for vetoing 700 bills. There's no media willing to call him out, there's no possibility of a veto override because of some unwritten rule whereby that function doesn't exist anymore, and there's a high possibility of legislative Democrats simply capitulating to whatever shrieking Republican demands in order to appear "reasonable" or just move along the machinery of government. Arnold's just using good tactical sense because the system is set up to reward the most outlandish actions. So he'll probably get what amounts to a bailout of wealthy agribusiness interests at the expense of the environment and the working class.
This is truly the portrait of failure in California. Right-wing interests have learned how to hijack so well you'd think they attended one of those Al Qaeda training camps where they practice on the monkey bars. And the entire political class walks around as if this is perfectly normal. It's actually appalling.
If you want to drill down to why California is in crisis, it's because we routinely see political leaders walk into the capital strapped with dynamite across their chests, only to be given the key to the city and a milkshake as a reward for such behavior.
...The Merced Sun-Star editorialized on this today, bashing the Governor for his inflexibility and willingness to toss out important bills on mortgage reform and health care for his own personal vanity, but also saying, "Lawmakers rarely reach closure on state budgets and complex, controversial policies unless they have a gun pointed at their heads." Yes, and that's the PROBLEM, not a one-off sentence to be seen as an inexorable truism.
The establishment in Sacramento has manned the barricades, battened down the hatches and gone on the offensive to prove their own worth. They sent their best man in the media, George Skelton, out to prove that no, despite your lying eyes, the California Legislature had a real banner year. After all, they managed to bring suffering to the lives of hundreds of thousands of state residents with consensus and bipartisan elan!
The current Legislature, regardless of Duvall and despite ideological polarization, has had a better year than it's getting credit for.
Its main accomplishment was keeping the state afloat amid a flood of red ink, created primarily by the toughest economic times since the Great Depression. OK, so it did use some bailing wire and chewing gum! The bills got paid, even if briefly with IOUs.
With great difficulty and pain -- at least for Democrats -- the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger slashed programs by roughly $30 billion. They also struck a major blow against "auto-pilot" spending by permanently eliminating all automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments, except for K-12 schools. And they summoned enough courage to temporarily increase taxes by $12.5 billion.
In the end, they found a way to restore health insurance for 660,000 low-income kids.
The tax increases hit the more vulnerable elements of society disproportionately, of course. They actually found that way to restore children's health insurance by lowering industry taxes and increasing the co-pay and deductible burden on the low-income families themselves, while reducing the covered care. And anyone who adds cutting $30 billion in programs and eliminating COLA as an accomplishment is a bit of a social deviant. But there are probably no lengths to which Skelton will go to defend the palace walls from the rabble who think, based on the evidence, that the system is horribly broken.
Steve Maviglio wisely steers clear of the more horrific achievements of this year's Legislature, and offers a slightly more defensible outlook of the '09 Legislative session. Still, there's a lot unsaid:
Looking back, getting the measures on the May ballot was a significant early success that required 2/3 votes. And toward the end of the session, in addition to the renewable energy bill, Speaker Bass pushed through measures on childrens health and domestic violence that won broad bipartisan support. (The Speaker also got a standing ovation, and she appears to have strengthened her support in Caucus. Compare that to the ouster of the two Republican leaders).
Okay, so the grand water deal didn't get done. Big deal. Nothing like that has been done for a generation. Perhaps Senate President pro Tem Steinberg set the bar too high when he said he'd get it done. In any case, all parties agree that they got close and can pick up the pieces and get it finished in short order.
So for all those crying for major reforms, put it all into perspective. Sure, improvements could be made, and things could have been better, but this is not reason for drastic action. Far from it.
Of course, the renewable bill is veto bait, as are many of the other major bills pending the Governor's signature. And the domestic violence bill didn't pass the Senate, so, um, that doesn't count. The prison bill offered decent parole reforms but stopped well short of a real solution. Everyone keeps saying the water bill will happen but the two sides remain far apart, and the fact that they'll have to go into overtime to reconcile it kind of proves the point, no?
But Maviglio tips his hand with the line "this is not reason for drastic action." Of course he would say that. He's profited well from the status quo. Anything that messes with it could hurt him professionally, and what's more, could stop the endless blaming of outside factors to account for stunning failure.
There is no shame in stating that this was a failed legislative session. Just about everyone in California would agree with you, particularly the ones who are suffering the most from the destruction of social insurance caused by the most heartless cuts. Simply put, the Great Recession dominated legislative activity, and the conservative veto from various 2/3 requirements restricts the Legislature from fulfilling the expressed will of the people through their votes (NOTE: This does not only come into play with the budget; late last Friday Republicans blocked over 20 bills that required 2/3 votes for one reason or another, probably because they knew they could get away with it). That's not something to explain away, it's actually something to fight, every single day until the problem is rectified.
Skelton and Maviglio may want to tell themselves all is well, but the public knows better, and they're going to demand major structural change. Those who think that the Legislature can still be a force for good in the state can get aboard and provide the best ideas to break the supermajority gridlock and get the state moving again. Or they can defend their narrow interests. Their defense will fail, and it would be a shame not to see them on the right side of history.
As Jim Evans, Communications Director for Sen. Steinberg, notes, the Governor is poised to veto a bill he championed, which would mandate the highest renewable energy standard in the nation, requiring utilities to get 33% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020. But it's far worse than just a veto. Schwarzenegger wants to then set the standard himself by executive order. You can see why this would please him - he would be able to say that he boldly moved the state forward in the renewable energy space, while vetoing the bill from the Legislature that would do the same thing. And he wold significantly weaken the standard in a variety of ways.
The order presumably would set no limit on how much of the green power could be imported from other states.
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.
Critics questioned whether Schwarzenegger's order would be binding once he leaves office at the end of 2010. The validity of the order would be subject to a variety of potential legal challenges, they predicted.
So Schwarzenegger would allow utilities to outsource all the green jobs that would be created if power needed to be created on California soil, ruining the one area of potential economic recovery in the bill. He would put the standard on shaky legal ground, open to litigation and an unclear mandate. And he would hand a gift to the nuclear power industry by twisting arms at the Air Resources Board to change their definition of renewable energy.
This isn't just short-sighted, it's downright criminal. A high renewable standard could spurn all kinds of economic activity, but without a limit on importation, that activity will just go elsewhere instead of California. This is an effort of questionable legality for Schwarzenegger to reward corporate cronies with lower purchasing prices for green energy at the expense of California jobs.
SB14, which would set a first-in-the-nation standard that utilities must receive 33% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020, passed the Legislature late last night.
"Increased development of renewable energy in California has tremendous potential as an economic development tool. These are clean, green jobs that belong in California. SB 14 sets a clear target with a real deadline, and then makes it as easy as possible to bring renewable energy on line.
In light of the state's ambitious new carbon emission targets, SB 14 will give energy agencies the flexibility they need in order to meet those goals. Current law "caps" the amount of renewable energy that the Public Utilities Commission may order utilities to buy or build at 20 percent. This bill would remove this cap and require utilities to acquire 33 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020."
This would make California's renewable energy standard one of the most aggressive in the world. The Governor, feted in magazines and national media as an environmental leader, has vocally backed the 33% standard in the past. But power plant generators have pressured Schwarzenegger to veto the bill. And according to the LA Times, he will.
The Senate did manage to pass the energy bill, which would raise to 33% the amount of energy the utilities must get from renewable sources. Final approval by the Assembly of some minor amendments was expected.
However, a high-ranking administration official said late Friday that the governor may not sign the bill, SB 14 by Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), because of provisions limiting the amount of energy that could come from outside California. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the bills were not yet on the governor's desk.
That would really be the icing on the cake to the worst Governorship in California history. The one issue on which he staked his legacy, and he is likely to veto the bill most likely to drive the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions, mainly because it would keep too many jobs in the state. Adding a renewable energy standard and mandating a majority of that energy be generated in state, is probably the only bill passed this year that looks to expand the local economy. And because of that, Schwarzenegger will veto it.
And the same magazines will put him on the cover with the slogan "The Greenenator" and talk up his environmental credentials.
• CapAlert reports that Karen Bass will try again to get some of the more spineless members of her caucus to support a prison reform bill better than the scaled-back effort it already passed. Bass talked about adding the "alternative custody" provisions into the bill, which would get it to the proper level of cuts, but not the sentencing commission, which still looks dead, sadly.
• One bill we know to be dead is SB88, which would have forced localities to get permission from the state before going into bankruptcy. This was a union-backed bill to protect their local contracts, but city governments balked. Sen. Mark DeSaulnier says he'll try to broker a compromise for next year. Those bankruptcies are probably right down the pike, so he'd better hurry.
• The bill that the Governor arrogantly vetoed earlier in the week, in a hissy fit because he wasn't getting his way on water or prisons, was a bill to initiate a Vietnam Veteran's memorial day. It was authored by Republican Assemblyman Paul Cook, and he's whipping support to undergo the first legislative veto override in Sacramento in about 30 years, which is truly a sad legacy. Only in California could securing an override on an uncontroversial bill be something that could end a political career, as Cook acknowledged today. An override would be at least a sign of life in the Legislature.
UPDATE: And that's going to fizzle, because the Yacht Party in the Senate won't go along with an override. What point is there having the law on the books? Paul Cook is going to us a gut-and-amend to put the same bill up tonight, anyway.
• A lot of rumbling about the water bill, which is being written completely in secrecy, and without the input of politicians who represent the Sacramento Delta. Bass hinted at a bond issue to finance whatever comes out of conference, which would cost $600 $800 million in debt service annually without any consequent gains in revenue to pay for it.
UPDATE: The Fresno Bee has more. The bond issue seems to be the sticking point.
Could be another long night...
UPDATE: Here's some actual good news. SB13, the bill to fund $16.3 million for domestic violence shelters by shifting some budget accounts, passed the Assembly on a bipartisan vote of 63-1. I wrote yesterday about how the loss of this funding was simply devastating and indeed, a death warrant, to domestic violence victims across the state. It moves to the Senate for concurrence.
One of the better tangible policy changes during the first 6 months of the Obama Administration is the expansion of SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Starting from the premise that all children deserve access to health insurance, SCHIP is a state/federal partnership that seeks to cover children who fall between the gaps, whose families make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough money to afford health insurance. The program has been wildly successful since its introduction under the Clinton Administration, and virtually every state has expanded their state-based SCHIP budgets to cover the maximum amounts of children.
Every state except California, that is. As part of the budget revision, the Legislature cut Healthy Families, causing between a $128 and $144 million shortfall in the program's current budget. With his veto pen, the Governor (illegally?) slashed $50 million more. The total, as much as a $194 million shortfall, is over 50% of its budget. This has led to the only waitlisting in the country for an SCHIP program.
The program already froze enrollment earlier this month, quickly amassing a waiting list of some 22,000 kids in need of health care, and swapped its application payment assistance program for $4.6 million in savings. Now, to cope with the cuts, it's expecting to disenroll hundreds of thousands of participants starting later this fall [...]
No talk of preserving a safety net for the neediest here. Disenrollment will be based on when participants entered the program. Children who hit their one-year coverage anniversary will not be eligible to renew their enrollment, and will instead be moved to that growing waiting list.
"At this point, it is strictly based on eligibility renewal dates," Puddefoot said. "Those children who were enrolled in July or August, and those children who were first enrolled in September will be the first to be disenrolled.
This could impact as many as 900,000 children.
Officials with the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board met in Sacramento today to figure out the policy for waitlisting or disenrollment, and to explore additional avenues of support to fill the program gap. Many have speculated that First Five, the successful voter-approved program to support young children, could provide some funding, but they cannot cover a $194 million dollar hole, and their mandate allows them only to support children between 0-5. At the meeting, the board basically punted.
The task of shedding hundreds of thousands of children from the public Healthy Families health insurance program - or finding ways to keep some enrolled - was put off Thursday until Aug. 13 by the board managing the program.
The Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board must come up with a plan to respond to deep cuts in California's budget, including Healthy Families [...]
Disenrolling children from Healthy Families "is something we do not relish doing," said Cliff Allenby, the board's chairman, as members listened to a number of speakers anticipating harm that will come from cutting so many children from insurance. Allenby said the board "may have no choice," but is looking at ways to restructure the program to reduce costs and raise money for premiums from other sources.
Among the options under consideration: eliminating vision benefits, increasing co-pays and changing reimbursement schedules.
First Five committed to help with some money, but failed to delineate the amount.
The Governor's shock-doctrine approach to the current budget crisis became very apparent this week, as he engineered rejections of bipartisan stop-gap measures and solutions that would cover $21.5 billion of a $24 billion dollar deficit. He clearly would rather essentially shut down the state government than participate in the normal political process of compromise and negotiation. This is his chance to be a dictator, and he is banking on the desire of Democrats not to watch the lights go out in Sacramento to push through his agenda.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, seeking to conquer what could be the last budget crisis of his tenure, is engaged in a high-stakes negotiating strategy with lawmakers that could force him to preside over a meltdown of state government.
As legislators have scrambled to stop the state from postponing payment of its bills and issuing IOUs starting next week, the governor has vowed to veto any measure that fails to close the state's entire $24-billion deficit [...]
The governor readily admits that he sees the crisis as a chance to make big changes to government -- to "reform the system," he said Friday -- with proposals he has struggled to advance in the past.
Among them: reorganizing state bureaucracy, eliminating patronage boards and curbing fraud in social services that Democrats have traditionally protected. The governor also would like to move past the budget crisis to reach a deal on California's water problems that has so far eluded him.
By agreeing to a partial budget solution such as one the Assembly approved Thursday, the governor would lose leverage to accomplish many of those things. Without the pressure of imminent insolvency, Democrats might be less likely to agree to his demands.
This is a dangerous strategy - not for Schwarzenegger himself, but for the hundreds of thousands of Californians who depend on a functioning state government every day. Contrary to popular belief, the recipients of these IOUs would not be debtholders or vendors, but the most vulnerable people in society - families on welfare, the elderly, the blind, the disabled, and poor college students with state aid grants. These are the pawns in the game Arnold has been playing.
The Governor has brought back to the table long-sought goals that he wishes to implement over the protests of a majority of the legislature. Some of them are described in his weekly radio address. The LA Times has a good synopsis here:
Back on the governor's demand list is a plan to cut the pensions received by state workers, which unions have stymied before but which he thinks may gain traction with a cash-strapped public. Schwarzenegger also views this as an ideal time to once again target growth and fraud in the state's multibillion-dollar in-home healthcare program, which employs 300,000 unionized workers.
His agenda includes anti-fraud efforts and tougher enrollment requirements for the state's food stamp programs, efforts that advocates for the poor say are designed to discourage people from participating. In his radio address, he said the state and counties could get by with a "fraction" of the 27,000 workers now handling eligibility for Medi-Cal and food stamps by using Web-based enrollment.
Schwarzenegger has revived plans to allow local school districts to contract out for services like school bus transportation and lawn maintenance, a proposal favored by the GOP but despised by school employee unions.
Arnold has basically taken the lesson of the GOP, holding the budget hostage for pet projects like privatization and purging state services rolls of the dependent (I'm sure a lot of the desperately poor have Web access to fill out their forms).
One wonders if this will finally color the local coverage of the Governor, which throughout his tenure has been fawning, even in the face of near-historic unpopularity. Some reporters seem to be coming around.
The plot thickens. The Governor today threatened to veto the work of the bipartisan Budget Conference Committee and reject any bill that, essentially, doesn't hew to his desire to destroy the social safety net of the state. The Democratic leadership countered that they'll pass the bill anyway.
Democratic legislative leaders vowed today that the Legislature will pass a "share the pain" budget-balancing plan early next week - with or without tax increases -- that will close the state's spending deficit without completely shredding California's social services safety net.
The vows by Senate President Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, came about an hour after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wouldn't sign a plan that was balanced with tax increases.
The rhetorical staking out of ground by the key figures in the current version of the state's ongoing fiscal melodrama came a day after 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.
Let's take a brief look at what else the conference committee has done. They resisted some of the worst health care cuts, including the total elimination of Healthy Families (the SCHIP program). They reduced education spending significantly in both K-12 and higher ed. They reduced corrections spending by a fairly large amount. Despite the fact that state parks pay for themselves, Democrats agreed to cut state participation in park funding, replacing it with additional fees on park admissions. They agreed to increasing withholding by 10%, which amounts to an interest-free loans from citizens to the state. According to Karen Bass, they agreed to 45% of the Governor's proposals in full, and 93% in part.
So the idea that Democrats are not cutting spending is simply unreasonable and wrong. At the same time, they rejected additional cuts to state worker salaries. They rejected the end of Cal Works or Cal Grants or In-Home Support Services. And some of the Governor's proposals, like borrowing from local governments, were rejected unanimously.
I don't even much like what the Democrats came up with. But they did not agree to completely wipe out the social safety net, calling for moderate increases in revenue on constituencies who have been getting away with murder, pretty much literally, for decades, to pay for the externalities in health care costs that they impose on the public. As Noreen Evans explains:
Californians expect their schools to be good, a safety net to be available to the needy, a college education to be affordable for working families, their air and water to be clean, and their parks to be open and kept up. In order to meet their expectations, we must to pursue new revenues. Today, for the greater good, we approved two new tax proposals that won't impact most Californians.
Establishing a 9.9 percent tax on oil extracted from California would generate $830 million in FY 2009-2010 and $1.1 billion in future years. This precise proposal was part of the governor's budget proposals last year. Increasing the excise tax on cigarettes by $1.50 per pack generates $1 billion in FY 2009-2010.
Tax increases require a 2/3 vote. Absent the pursuit of new revenues, wider and deeper cuts will be required. Getting new revenues requires a mere 6 Republican votes: 2 in the Senate and 4 in the Assembly. It is undemocratic that the votes of 6 Republicans can veto the votes of 75 Democrats.
But Arnold wants to destroy the state of California like a good little neo-Hooverist, so he said no.
The Dem leadership appears to want to have this fight for the moment, so they ought to realize one thing: Arnold will ultimately be responsible - and reviled - in a government shutdown situation. No question about it. Not 1 in 10 Californians can even NAME a Democrat in the legislature. If the ship sinks, Arnold will be perceived as the skipper. And so, if and when Arnold vetoes the bill, the Democrats should send it back - with MORE tax fairness solutions, daring Arnold to prolong the agony. That resets the battle and draws clear lines between those who want the richest companies in America to sacrifice along with ordinary Californians, and those who want to protect the rich completely. Unfortunately, the Dems are tipping their hand that this will not be the case.
But Bass and Steinberg seemed to be reconciled to the likelihood that the tax hike proposals would fail next week. Steinberg said that if they did, the package they sent the governor would have a reserve $2 billion smaller than he had sought.
We have a couple days to change this dynamic. The progressive movement around the budget has stiffened spines a bit so far. Time to make the calls and emails.
This is funny:
Schwarzenegger added that he wants a budget plan that will bridge the entire projected deficit of $24 billion, not a stopgap measure to "kick the can down the alley."
The plan must consist of permanent solutions to the state's fiscal problems, not one-time revenue that sparks ongoing spending commitments, Schwarzenegger said.
When Schwarzenegger was reminded that his own budget plan contains some one-time revenue proposals, such as acceleration of income tax payments, he smiled.
"Very good point," he said. "We don't want to add to the problem."
The cyborg is not running on all cylinders. He has a single-minded purpose to kill the California dream and even these extremely moderate revenue enhancements.
Today, the Vermont legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto and voted to allow same-sex couples to marry. They become the first state to legalize gay marriage through the legislative process rather than the courts. Of course, California passed a gay marriage bill twice, in 2005 and 2007, only to see the Governor veto the legislation both times. And then... nothing.
Now, the bill never passed by a margin approaching a 2/3 vote in either chamber, so you might question the efficacy of an override vote. However, that only makes sense if you aren't aware that the California legislature NEVER overrides vetoes. This actually came up last year, when the Governor vetoed the initial FY2009 budget and the legislature threatened to override. Instead they ceded to the Governor's demands. Indeed, California has never overridden a budget veto in the history of the legislature, and the legislature pretty much never overrides vetoes of any other kind, even if the measures pass both houses with overwhelming margins. The last override in California? THIRTY YEARS AGO.
Part of this is due to the unnecessary forced bottlenecks in the legislative process, where practically everything passes right at the end of a legislative session, and the Governor vetoes after the session ends, which means that the legislature is out of session at the time they could override a veto. But another part concerns an insidious professional courtesy mixed with threats, where the Governor in recent years has implicitly vowed to veto all kinds of bills if he's ever overridden on one.
The overall point is that California's government does not operate like a functioning political body. The veto override, a major tool for a legislature to impose their will on a Governor, doesn't exist. The majority vote, when a Governor agrees with the thrust of the legislation, with respect to the budget and taxes, doesn't exist. And so ordinary functions of political bodies are closed off to California, by self-imposed means. This highlights once again why we have an ungovernable political structure that needs to be radically changed.
(It was disappointing, but not particularly surprising, to see Arnold axe AB 2386. It should have been signed. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
We need to share some very disappointing news with you and then ask you to e-mail Gov. Schwarzenegger and let him know how you feel. Last week, the Governor vetoed AB 2386, a vital bill to reform secret ballot elections for farm workers. With this single stroke of his pen, the governor denied farm workers the tool they need to protect themselves. While we are disappointed with the Governor's veto, sadly we are not surprised.
When the governor vetoed a bill with similar goals last year, his veto message said:
"I am directing my Labor and Workforce Development Agency to work with the proponents of this bill to ensure that all labor laws and regulations are being vigorously enforced, and to make it absolutely clear to all concerned that my veto is premised on an expectation that agricultural workers receive the full protections of the law."
Tragically this has not happened. During the black summer of 2008, as many as six farm workers died due to heat-related causes.
So the Governor kicks sand in the face of the entire state Legislature, vetoing 130-odd bills with the same generic "Sorry, I couldn't persuade any Republicans on the budget so now you will pay" message, including some which were passed out unanimously, and the leadership's response is not "Time to override" but... "Oh yeah, well just try that again!"
Of course, the governor has always made it clear he prefers campaigning to governing. That has to change if we have any hope of solving California's challenges. The people of California deserve better than constant campaign mode. The people of California deserve better than staged fights for the cameras.
I'm willing to look past all this and hope we can see a new start. Part of that should involve the new bipartisan blue-ribbon commission I've been pursuing to look at tax modernization and two year budgeting and other potential solutions to California's chronic fiscal crises. The governor has been supportive of that effort, and it's a good place for us to move forward from.
I will also be asking Assembly members to reintroduce all the blanket-veto bills and will expedite their passage so the governor can have a second chance to act responsibly on them.
That is weak from Karen Bass. There is absolutely no reason not to go back into a lame-duck session in November after the elections and get this done. Otherwise you are enabling a bully. At least some lawmakers get this:
Assembly Majority Floor Leader Alberto Torrico vowed today to push for a bipartisan legislative backlash against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger by overturning many of his recent vetoes.
"We're all very frustrated, both Democrats and Republicans," the Fremont Democrat said at a news conference this morning. "I don't think there's going to be any problem attaining the votes for an override." [...]
Torrico said that when the Legislature reconvenes in January, he will push for overriding vetoes of both Democratic and Republican bills that received two-thirds support in the Legislature. Dozens of bills could qualify, he said.
Torrico said that he had not yet discussed the idea at length with legislative leadership, but "I think that's going to be the first order of business upon our return."
Sadly, Torrico doesn't know what he's talking about. The bills expire at the end of the legislative session and cannot be taken up in January.
Just leaves you brimming with confidence, doesn't it?
Instead of just stamping your feet and talking tough, this is a perfect opportunity for action. Go back to work before November 30 and override these vetoes.
Robert made an oblique reference to it, but the Governor showed his true character with his series of vetoes this week. Yes, he did allow some valuable bills to pass into law, particularly SB 375, the land use bill. You will now be able to register to vote online thanks to the signing of SB 381, and your menus at restaurants will have calorie contact and nutritional information. He also signed two green chemistry bills that will crack down on hazardous industrial chemicals, and in the biggest surprise, he signed AB 583, the clean money bill which would establish a pilot program making the Secretary of State races in 2014 and 2018 publicly financed races. (It was a bit easier for Arnold to sign this one, because it also must be put before voters on the June 2010 ballot.)
So those are some of the success stories. But there are hundreds of failures, some of them absolutely inexplicable. We knew that Arnold would veto SB840, the single-payer bill, but he also vetoed health care provisions that were in his own legislation from last year's health care reform overhaul, including one that would end rescission (dropping patients after they put in a claim) and requiring that 85% of insurance premiums be spent on health care. He vetoed the California DREAM Act for the second year in a row, after it was altered to conform to the standards he set in last year's veto message. He vetoed a bill which would have done away with the archaic and authoritarian practice of requiring loyalty oaths for state employees, because it's "our responsibility to ensure that public resources are not used for purposes of overthrowing the U.S. or state government, or for communist activities." He vetoed sensible card check legislation for farm workers that would have allowed employees to unionize while resisting employer intimidation. He caved to Big Business - and Sarah Palin - and vetoed the groundbreaking port cleanup bill that essentially signs a death warrant for families living in and around that toxic stew.
All in all, he killed 35% of the bills sent to him this session, and 45% of those sent in the rush of the final week. Most of the vetoes I described above reflect the right-wing ideology and fealty to the Chamber of Commerce that I've come to expect from the Governor. But what's unusual is his contempt for the legislative process itself. Here's Frank Russo:
On many of the bills the Governor did not give a clue as to why he did not sign them, and instead employed a cryptic boilerplate veto message: "The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget has forced me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk at the end of the year's legislative session. Given the delay, I am only signing bills that are the highest priority for California. This bill does not meet that standard and I cannot sign it at this time." How will this look in the future-next year or when history is written? In the hundreds of bills that met this fate there are many that were trivial or could be seen in that light. Some were amended down to the point of a pilot project or study or some other pale shadow of their former selves and the original intention of the legislator that introduced them. Even in this form, to the people involved, some of these were very important.
Some of these bills were passed out of both chambers with UNANIMOUS support. And he rejected maybe 500 bills with that dismissive message.
It's not like these bills are foisted upon the Governor after being hidden away in secret. There is public information on all of them, and I'm assuming he has a staff to read the bill text. The excuse is not only lame, it's a final middle finger at the legislature, a disregard for the work that they do. As Dan Walters noted:
The budget imbroglio, the governor's threat to veto bills unless it was resolved, the Legislature's delay in sending him last-minute bills, the hundreds of vetoes, and his drive to change how legislative districts are redrawn every decade worsen his already acidic relationship with the Legislature. The relationship is now so bad that Schwarzenegger was unable to move a single vote from his fellow Republicans on the budget.
There's really only one thing to do. Veto overrides are incredibly rare in California, with the last one occurring I think 30 years ago. But it is incumbent upon California lawmakers to stand up for themselves and immediately move into a session where all unanimous bills are voted on in an effort to override the Governor. This is as much about checks and balances as anything else. Schwarzenegger showed his contempt for the process by hijacking the budget late in the game and threatening to veto. The "detente" against veto overrides should be dead and buried by now. I'm sure Democrats would welcome the maneuver, and Yacht Party Republicans aren't too pleased with the Governor in their own right.
This is about asserting the ability to carry out a core job function. If unanimous bills can be vetoed with no consequences the legislature just diminished greatly in stature. Stand up for yourselves. Stand up to this bully of a governor. Override.
Hector De La Torre's bill, AB 1945, which would have forced health plans to seek approval from a third party before rescinding health insurance - a VERY common practice, unfortunately - was vetoed by Arnold today. Interestingly, Arnold was for it before he was against it as De La Torre noted:
Having the governor not engage in any discussions or negotiations for months, and then just veto the bill is astonishing," he said. "The issue was good enough to use as an applause line in his State of the State Address in January, but not to sign a good piece of legislation that would protect insured people in the individual market.
It's another sop to the HMOs, whose business model relies on preventing people from getting the health care they need. This is especially true on the individual health insurance market (the one John McCain wants you to rely on) - if you get sick, the insurance company is going to comb over your application, your policy, and your life with a fine toothed comb to find a reason to cut you off and watch you suffer.
Arnold has vetoed a lot of bills this session, but few vetoes will hurt more Californians than this one.
