(What is Grover Norquist so afraid of? Somebody besides corporatists with a little bit of power. It tears him up inside to see the power of collective action of CalPERS. It’s not something that should be messed with. It’s too important to the state and the global financial community. – promoted by SFBrianCL)
On Janurary 5 of 2005, Arnold proposed privatizing California’s public pension funds. Referring to his proposal, Arnold said, “This is a national battle, like the recall was.” He also said there will be “national money coming in to help us fight the battle”….
Pension Plans
National business groups have been upset with California’s public pension funds. The presidents of both the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Rountable have criticized CalPERS. One of the reasons they are upset is that CalPERS (under the leadership of Harrigan and Angelides) has been a leader in the corporate reform movement. It sued the NYSE and several specialist firms for engaging in trading manipulations. It also sued WorldCom and Enron after their financial scandals, and it has withheld votes from directors for many businesses including Citigroup’s Sandy Weill (the banker who overturned the Glass-Steagall act). It has divested from Sudan due to the government-backed genocide, and has lobbied the SEC to allow shareholders to nominate directors (which was vigorously opposed by the chamber).
Grover Norquist, who was an economist and chief speechwriter for the US Chamber of Commerce, said, “Just 115 people control $1 trillion in these funds. We want to take that power and destroy it.”
So on January 5 of 2005, Arnold proposed privatizing California’s public pension funds. Referring to his proposal, Arnold said, “This is a national battle, like the recall was.” He also said there will be “national money coming in to help us fight the battle.”
Arnold even withdrew four of his own nominees to the CalSTRS pension board after they voted against his plan. They voted against it because the actuaries calculated that it would cost California taxpayers $5.9 billion over the next 10 years. One of the withdrawn nominees, Republican Jim Grey, said, “If you have to be in lock step, I guess I shouldn’t be one of his appointees.”
Grover Norquist praised Arnold saying, “The governor of California has provided a useful example of things a governor can do to earn ideal ratings from Americans for Tax Reform.” The San Francisco Chronicle reported,
“A group affiliated with Norquist sent out letters this week to Republican lawmakers across the country urging them to follow Schwarzenegger’s lead and call for pension reform in their states.”
Although Arnold backed off in 2005, Grover made it clear that they’re going after CalPERS again (similar to how Bush tried to privatize Social Security):
”Gov. Schwarzenegger has not backed away from the pressing need for a defined contribution system. He is merely responding to a small uncertainty concerning disability and survivor benefits within the current reform initiative. Gov. Schwarzenegger is slowing down, clarifying any misconceptions with his pension reform plan, and will resume his crucial push to save the retirement security of California state employees in 2006.”
Arnold has even started using Norquist’s rhetoric saying,
“Taking money out of the private sector is a no-no because we don’t want to feed the monster… We want to feed the private sector, and we want to starve the public sector.”
So Arnold cut state funding to colleges—causing tuition to rise. He also proposed to cut funding from programs for the disabled—an action that was protested by the disabled community— and for programs such as Medi-Cal.
Side note: To read more about Grover’s power go here, here, and here. Thirty-five state legislators and 19 congressmen from California have signed Grover’s tax pledge. California signatories include Brian Bilbray, Richard Pombo, Jerry Lewis (chairman of the powerful U.S. House Appropriations Committee who’s under investigation), Duke Cunningham, Tom McClintock (running for Lt. Governor), Dick Ackerman (California Senate Minority Leader), Howard Kaloogian (Chairman of Recall Gray Davis Committee), and Jim Gilchrist (founder of the minuteman project).
VETOES
SB 698 – Media access to prisoners
1) Current law allows the media to tour prisons and to conduct random interviews with inmates, but forbids interviews with specifically requested inmates (for more details see CDC regulations, Title 15, Section 3261.5 on page 88 of the document).
The bill Arnold vetoed would have allowed the media to conduct interviews with specifically requested inmates (with prior agreement of the inmate). The bill was authored because
“denying prisoners access to the media (and vice-versa) encourages increasing isolation of a prison system where human rights abuses can multiply freely free of public oversight.”
Arnold vetoed it saying, “it is important to avoid treating inmates as celebrities.” In comparison, the Bush administration worries about PR moves while human rights abuses occur in their Guatanamo.
Did you know that California is the only state in the nation that allows segregation in its prisons? The prison system is so bad that in 2005, a judge put the California Department of Corrections under federal receivership.
AB 561-Prison Education Assessment
2) Arnold vetoed a law requiring educational assessments of prisoners and the implementation of programs to satisfy those needs.
SB 1050- Counting write in votes
3) In San Diego, a judge ruled that 5,500 ballots were invalid because voters had forgotten to fill in the oval after they had written in the name of Donna Frye (a write-in candidate). Although Frye would have won, the judge gave the election to Republican Dick Murphy.
The California Legislature passed a bill in response to “Bubblegate.” It would’ve required that all write-in-votes be counted (even if the voter forgets to fill the oval). Arnold vetoed the bill explaining that it “will lead to an unnecessary delay in completing the canvass and certifying election results.”
Debra Bowen, who authored the bill, said,
“What ought to be apparent to everyone is that people who take the time to actually write in a candidate’s name deserve to have their votes counted…”
Sadly, in June 2006, San Diego passed a law barring write-in candidates from running in general elections.
SB 469 (Bowen)- Petitioner Disclosure
4) Arnold vetoed another bill authored by Debra Bowen. The bill would have required proposition signature gatherers to disclose the top five contributors to the effort and to disclose whether or not they are paid to collect signatures.
SB 455 –Enforcement of Pesticide Laws
5) Current law gives county agricultural commissioners discretion to enforce pesticide laws. Arnold vetoed SB 455, which would have required “enforcement actions” to be taken for failure to protect people, animals, and property from pesticide drift contact, or for failure to provide workers with training and protective equipment.
According to coalitionforcleanair.org,
“In the year 2002, some 172 million pounds of pesticides – many highly toxic to humans – were used in the state, reports Californians for Pesticide Reform. More than 90% of pesticides used in the state of California are prone to drift away from where they are applied and can become airborne toxins causing severe effects, including coughing, vomiting, and skin rashes, especially in children. Long-term exposure to pesticides is linked with cancer, birth defects, spontaneous abortions, infertility, neurological illnesses and asthma. Too often, when inspectors find violations of pesticide safety regulations they simply issue a warning and no fine… In over 40% of DPR’s 2002-03 inspections, washing supplies and protective gear were not provided for pesticide applicators and in 60% of inspections, fieldworker pesticide safety information was not provided. Also, many violations are found, but few penalties are assessed. In fiscal year 2000-01, counties issued fines in fewer than 20% of cases where violations were confirmed. In fiscal year 2003-04 counties found over 8,000 violations but only 582 fines for agricultural pesticide use violations and 370 fines for structural pesticide use violations were issued statewide. “
According to an article from Monteray County Weekly,
In fiscal year 2003-2004, the last year for which numbers are available, there were 112 documented pesticide-use violations in the county. Only one resulted in a civil penalty… Mendoza says it’s a simple change but one that can give a voice to fieldworkers who are afraid to come forward for fear of losing their jobs, despite the illegality of any such retaliation… She tells the story of a group of 30 workers, employed by Mesa Packing, who entered a broccoli field May 28 of last year and were exposed to a host of pesticides.“The workers shouldn’t have been in that field; they’d just sprayed it. But the employer sent them there anyway”… On another incident in August of 2004 involving a harvesting crew in Salinas working for Smith Packing, workers were exposed to pesticide drift. “Two violations were found: lack of fieldworker training and failure to provide prompt medical attention,” Mendoza says. No fines were issued. “Two months later, the same crew was exposed again. At that time, they still hadn’t received any training. Again, no fines were issued.” Ramos just wants something done to protect workers like herself. The 41-year-old single mother of four makes just over $8 an hour and has been working the fields in and around the Salinas Valley for 30 years. She’s concerned about what a lifetime of pesticide exposure will mean to her long-term health.“I am not the same since it happened,” she says of her exposure. “I have allergies now, with sneezing problems and itching. I’m different.”
Recommended Article: The New Colossus