On Thursday, I had an opportunity to visit with young students solving problems, sharing ideas and diligently working on a science project together with their teachers. The students were doing this during an after-school program, at Politi Elementary School, in the Pico Union neighborhood of Los Angeles. Politi Elementary is one of many elementary schools participating in LA's BEST, an after school education, enrichment and recreation program serving more than 28,000 children in economically challenged neighborhoods of Los Angeles. I was fortunate to see first hand the positive impact this type of program has on young students during a program tour, led by LA's BEST Executive Director Carla Sanger.
This tour highlighted the significance of engaging kids at an early age in academic, physical, and cultural activities that keep them off the streets and out of California's criminal justice system. The LA's BEST After School program at Politi Elementary School is a shining and innovative example of how young people can thrive in a constructive learning environment instead of turning to drugs, gang activity or other delinquent behaviors. To date, more than 212,000 children have gone through LA's BEST and many are now lawyers, police officers, educators, artists and small business owners.
Though they also haven't been spared from the state's budget cuts, after-school programs keep children occupied during the hours when violent juvenile crime is most likely to occur. Recent statewide and local evaluations of California's after-school programs found consistently positive results for students enrolled in these programs, including improved student achievement, increased school attendance and improved personal behavior. In fact, studies show that kids in LA's BEST are 30 % less likely to commit juvenile crime and 20% less likely to drop out of school. With public school funding being decimated statewide and many after-school programs being cut, I believe it is essential to preserve and expand programs like LA's BEST, in order to keep kids safe, engaged and off the streets.
As Attorney General, expanding educational and after-school programs for young people is a major component of my crime prevention plan. I will work to increase educational and economic opportunities for all Californians, reduce gang activity, strengthen effective rehabilitation programs, and improve community-police relations. By implementing these crime prevention initiatives, we can make California a safer and stronger place for our families and kids. When our children are actively engaged in school-through effective teachers, supportive administrations and afterschool programs-they do not turn to gangs and crime as a means to find a supportive community.
I will also work alongside educators and organizations like LA's BEST to help young people create a path to success. I will work to improve educational opportunities and expand after-school programs that result in greater productivity and reduced crime in our communities. I will also work to prevent crime through smart, effective policies that address the roots of criminal activity and help keep our communities safe. As the next Attorney General, I will bring an innovative and results-oriented approach to fighting crime and protecting the citizens of California.
For more information about my campaign, please visit www.kelly2010.com.
John Fensterwald has a great story in the Educated Guess about what the parents in Cupertino are facing for their children. The district is K-8 only, and as the area is pretty wealthy, and fairly progressive, they've been able to pass a couple of parcel taxes for the district. In fact, last year they passed one for $4 million. But, that's not going to be enough:
But now this K-8 Silicon Valley district, home of Apple Computer and some of the highest performing schools in the state, is facing a $9 million deficit for next year. And that's putting in jeopardy many of the programs parents consider essential: small classes, summer school, the GATE program for gifted children, librarians.
*** *** ***
To that end, the Cupertino Educational Endowment Foundation is asking parents to help put an initiative on the November ballot that would lower the threshold for passing a parcel tax from two-thirds to 55 percent to make it easier to pass the next parcel tax. And organizers are asking every family to donate $375 toward a goal of $3 million to keep small classes in grades one to three while saving 105 teachers who've been told they'll otherwise lose their jobs.
Even in a place like Cupertino, where the district has always been able to find a way, there just aren't the answers that there used to be. Sacramento has cut them out at the knees, and they're trying to recover the best they can. Will Cupertino still have decent schools come next year? Probably, but if even the so-called "rich districts" are struggling to make ends meet, what does that say for the districts that are dependent upon the state?
If Meg Whitman wants to talk about too much state spending, how about she actually takes a look at our schools? You know, because hers went to private school, she's not so familiar. And with each cut, with each lost resource, times become harder.
I have a friend who teaches at a public school in San Leandro. It's a working class area these days, and the economy has hit the community pretty hard. Students are coming to school completely without supplies, and the districts simply don't have the money to pay for everything. But, the teachers aren't going to let the kids sit there with no pencil, and they end up footing the bill. While the Right wants to talk about how teachers are so spoiled, the fact is that they aren't exactly making Kingly ransoms. And honestly, I can't think of a profession that deserves every cent they earn more than teachers. But, even with that being said, teachers are being forced into spending hundreds of dollars each semester to provide simple school supplies for their classrooms.
In order to further the lively discussion of funding of the California College and University system I have posted the exact text of Senate Bill 969 which was INTRODUCED by California State Senator Dean Florez on February 5, 2010.
The bill is to be known as: The California College and University Fee Stabilization Act of 2010
Florez, a former UCLA Student Body President and Candidate for California Lt. Governor, by introduction of this bill, provides for the stabilization of fees and allows those paying for an eduction in the CA College and University system some reasonable idea of what the tuition/fees for a four year degree will cost--The Cost The First Year Remains The Same Through Ones Senior Year.
It should be pointed out to those reading the text of this bill, or any bill, proposed legislation goes through a process in which modifications are proposed and/or made to a bill, and in a prefect world, make the proposed law "better." Senator Florez, by introducing the bill has started the process in which interested/effected parties provide input to CA State Legislators to, as necessary, strengthen the bill and let them know of YOUR SUPPORT of the goal of the Legislation introduced. It is more common than not that a bill of any size or significance does not becomes law with the exact language and provisions that are present when a bill is introduced.
Another way of saying this is: Former UCLA Student Body President Florez has "opened the door for the public to provide input and support." Just getting a bill introduced is often the biggest hurdle to new laws! Senator Florez has "thrown the ball" and it is up to the public to "catch the ball and run with it." The introduction of the California College and University Fee Stabilization Act of 2010 is OUR TIME, OUR OPPORTUNITY. We have the opportunity to, to paraphrase President Obama: BE THE CHANGE WE ARE LOOKING FOR WHEN IT COMES TO HIGHER EDUCATION COSTS.
BILL NUMBER: SB 969 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Senator Florez
(Principal coauthor: Senator Price)
FEBRUARY 5, 2010
An act to add Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 66150) to Part
40 of Division 5 of Title 3 of the Education Code, relating to public
postsecondary education.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 969, as introduced, Florez. Public postsecondary education:
California College and University Fee Stabilization Act of 2010.
Existing law, known as the Donahoe Higher Education Act, provides
for a public postsecondary education system in this state. The 3
segments of the public postsecondary education system are the
University of California, which is administered by the Regents of the
University of California, the California State University, which is
administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and
the California Community Colleges, which are administered by the
Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges and the
community college district governing boards. The provisions of the
Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California
only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California
act by resolution to make them applicable.
Existing law authorizes the Trustees of the California State
University to require that fees, among other charges, be paid by
students at that institution. Existing law requires the governing
board of each community college district to charge each student a fee
of $26 per unit per semester, effective with the fall term of the
2009-10 academic year. Existing provisions of the California
Constitution require the Regents of the University of California to
have all powers necessary or convenient for the effective
administration of the university.
This bill would enact the California College and University Fee
Stabilization Act of 2010, which would place limits on increases in
mandatory systemwide fees, as defined, charged to students enrolled
in the 3 segments of public postsecondary education. The bill would
limit mandatory systemwide fees that are charged to resident
undergraduate students enrolled in the University of California, the
California State University, or the California Community Colleges to
a specified amount, based on the average total cost of education, as
defined, at the respective segment. The bill would prohibit each of
the 3 segments from charging a resident undergraduate student who
commences enrollment in an undergraduate degree program at that
segment for the fall term of the 2011-12 academic year, or any
academic term thereafter, mandatory systemwide fees in an amount that
is greater than the amount of the fees in effect at the time the
student commenced enrollment in the undergraduate degree program. The
bill would prohibit mandatory systemwide fees charged to resident
undergraduate students enrolled in the University of California and
the California State University from being increased, in any academic
year, by an amount exceeding 5% of the fees charged for the
immediately preceding academic year. With respect to the per unit per
semester fees that community college districts are required to
charge to students enrolled in the California Community Colleges, the
bill would declare legislative intent that those fees not be
increased by an amount exceeding 5% of the fees charged for the
immediately preceding academic year. The bill would prohibit an
increase in mandatory systemwide fees charged to resident
undergraduate students enrolled in any of the 3 segments that is
adopted on or after January 1, 2011, from becoming effective before 6
months have elapsed after the date on which fee increase is adopted.
The bill would provide that the act does not apply to the
University of California, except to the extent that the Regents of
the University of California adopt a resolution making it applicable.
The bill would request the regents to adopt policies that are
consistent with the act.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
AB 656, authored by Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico, would have established an oil and gas severance tax (California being the only oil and gas producing state in the union not having one) and earmarked the proceeds for puiblic higher education, giving our universities a financial base upon which to operate and easing the burden on the general fund.
On Thursday, the Assembly Appropriations Committee took action on it that essentially defeats the bill for this legislative cycle. The committee deleted the oil and gas severance tax portion of the bill and replaced it with a simple reporting requirement. The amendments require the state Board of Equalization to annually report to the legislature the amount of revenue that would be generated for public higher education if the oil and gas tax was implemented.
Maybe it can be resurrected as we get closer to trying to deal with this year's budget problems, especially since the Governor has placed a high priority on helping the CSU's and UC's recoup some of their cuts. This could be the way top offset the Governor's political shenanigans of trying to play off higher education unions against the prison unions.
One of the main differences between the Senate's "Race to the Top" plan and the Assembly's plan, both of which are better described as Race to the Bottom, is the subject of charter schools. Despite both plans probably doing more harm than good to our schools, the Assembly plan finally tries to rein back some of the faulty logic and excesses of the charter school movement.
Charter schools aren't inherently better or worse than the public schools, they just exist in very different worlds. Charter schools in California are required to hire certified teachers, unlike in many other states, but they needn't provide the same level of benefits and pay, clearly stated requirements and teacher protections. Quality varies wildly from charter school to charter school. Some do an excellent job of preparing children for their next step, others, well, don't.
Given the Right's love of "accountability" for public schools, measuring everything, testing everything, you'd figure they would love all those tests being inserted into the heart of all that is charter schools. You'd be wrong. You see, they want to measure public schools, but charter schools, those are market based, and the market will apparently sort that all out.
The Assembly legislation, passed out of Committee last week over Arnold's strong objections, puts new accountability standards on charter schools. It is a good first step towards figuring out what is actually going on in charter schools. Arnold's Senate bill, doesn't add any accountability standards, and does a pretty good job of sending love notes to the charter school business.
Supported by most public school educators, the Assembly legislation includes tighter auditing requirements on charter schools than current law, stronger tools for measuring academic progress, and prohibitions against renewing continually failing charter schools.
"We believe charters should be held to the same accountability standards as public schools since they're on the public dime," said Dean Vogel, vice president of the California Teachers Association. "If I believe my charter school is high-performing, I should have a measure to prove it. You've got to demonstrate that high achievement and they don't want to do that."
Schwarzenegger's own plan, SBX5-1, shepherded through the Senate last month by Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, seeks to streamline the authorizing or renewal of charter schools, bolster their ability to obtain state funding, and codify their own standards of auditing. (CoCo Times)
Apparently, in childhood education, what is good for the goose is not so good for the gander. However, we shouldn't let Arnold's campaign cash connections to charter schools dictate our education policy. If accountability is good for public schools, it should be good for the publicly-funded charter schools as well.
Those damnable, pesky public employee unions! If it weren't for them and their cushy, decadent benefits packages, California's sterling government would surely be nowhere near the level of crushing idiocy that currently pervades the hallowed halls of Sacramento. And now, now those ungrateful teachers and their annoying elitist union have the temerity to continue to take no shit from a district beset by its own rampant corrupt stupidity, and have chosen to express their collective feelings via three hundred middle fingers:
The Town Hall budget forum in San Diego High's Library drew over 100 concerned parents on Thursday Night. School Board interim Superintendent Bill Kowba and Board member Richard Barrera made a power point presentation that outlined the funding shortfalls faced by local educators with expected State contributions for the 2010 fiscal year.
The bottom line, as presented in this meeting, is that ALL of the cuts in programs that have been bandied about in the news media and various on-line discussions will not cover the expected deficit.
Why can a sixth grader lay out a message that's somehow more compelling than anything we hear from the talking heads on television.
Ethan Matsuda is a precocious young man, author of two books, The North Pole is Sinking about Clmate change and "The Easter Bunny Breaks His Leg (and has no health insurance)".
If anybody doubted that the tombstone on the Master Plan has been thoroughly and completely written, here's one more (unnecessary) piece of evidence:
A University of California Board of Regents committee today approved a series of controversial increases in student fees that, if passed by the full board, will raise UC undergraduate education costs by more than $2,500, or 32%, in two steps by fall 2010.
The finance committee vote is expected to be endorsed by the full Board of Regents on Thursday. The two-day meeting is being held at UCLA, where today's session has been marked by raucous protests with at least 14 arrests.
The first step of the fee hike, costing undergraduates an additional $585, will take effect in January. Next fall, students will see another $1,344 increase, bringing the UC education fees to $10,302, along with about $1,000 in campus-based charges. That does not include room, board and books, which can add another $16,000. (LAT 11/18/09)
Add this on top of the fact that CalGrants was substantially cut in the last round of budget negotiations and might be outright eliminated to solve the next budget crisis, and you have a system that is only accessible to all but the wealthiest students.
It is just one more sad day on our well-worn road to mediocrity.
Wow, this is a doozy. The LA Times got the scoop that LA Schools Superintendent is considering shortening the school year.
Los Angeles schools Supt. Ramon C. Cortines has asked his chief financial officer to study the possibility of shortening the school year to offset part of an expected shortfall of at least $500 million, The Times has learned.
The strategy, if adopted for the 2010-11 school year, would run counter both to the direction of national reform efforts and to the wishes of Cortines, who agrees with research touting the benefits of an extended academic calendar. (LA Now 10/29/09)
In an ideal world, we wouldn't even be discussing shortening. We would be talking about moving to year-round schooling. Instead of loading down our students with ridiculous amonunts of homework, we would increase the number of school days, scatter the vacation weeks, and do what is most effective, not what is cheapest.
But, we're settling. We're settling for a dimmer future where our children our lest educated and less prepared for the future.
Education, public safety, and the economy: three vastly complex issue areas that time and again are proven to be inextricably linked.
By doing what it takes to keep kids in school in every corner of our state, we can save literally billions of dollars in public resources and greatly improve public safety.
Most of us in law enforcement have known this for many years. As San Francisco's District Attorney, I see the direct impact of what happens when kids don't stay in school; young lives are lost to street violence or prison at an appalling rate, our state loses more resources and our communities are less safe.
You know how we keep cutting teachers from districts all over the state? Well, some folks are thinking that maybe you can't do that without consequence. You know, maybe people would want to avoid a job that carries big risk of layoffs without the big salaries you see in other risky professions.
As thousands of laid off California teachers sit out the school year, educators are worried about the long-term effect of losing so many teachers. Some instructors are considering leaving the state or even the profession, and if history is any indication, fewer young people will pursue careers in teaching.
"The pipeline issue is one of the most significant challenges that we're dealing with, with the layoff situation or the pink-slipping," said Margaret Gaston, executive director of the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, a Santa Cruz-based nonprofit focused on strengthening California's teacher workforce. (LA Times 10/3/09)
At various times in the last few years, some California districts have had to hunt desperately to find teachers, and then only to lay them off a few years later. This constant state of flux is bad for the teachers, bad for the districts, and certainly bad for the students.
With the upcoming University of California walkout, we asked our Facebook community recently how the impending UC and CSU cuts were affecting them. The response was overwhelming:
Stephanie from SF State needed only two classes to graduate with her bachelor's degree. But one of the courses was eliminated - graduation will have to wait until next year.
A mother from the East Bay worried that her daughter couldn't enroll in a single class she needs and is about to lose her student status, her financial aid, and health insurance.
Sarah from UC Davis saw her tuition increase almost ten percent, while her mother, a state employee, just took a 15 percent pay cut.
UC Berkeley will be eliminating approximately one out of every ten courses this coming year. UC San Francisco will potentially have to reduce their faculty by fourteen percent because of the recent cuts. UCLA has reduced support to research centers by fifty percent. UC Irvine has completely stopped admitting students into their education program.
All across the state, we are choking off opportunity for hundreds of thousands of young Californians to build a better life for themselves and a better future for California.
And it's our fault. We've allowed our system of governance to de-fund and de-prioritize higher education, putting our state's economic future in jeopardy.
Let me be clear: I favor fully funding the UC system. Cannibalizing our state's future through cuts to education is the exact opposite of the kind of reform and long-term thinking we need from our leaders in Sacramento.
But the current resource-constrained situation forces us to make difficult choices about our shared priorities. We must protect our environment, provide universal health care and invest in infrastructure development. And therein lies our statewide dilemma.
We have a system in California that discourages thoughtful budget and financial planning, requiring a two-thirds majority every year to pass a budget that paralyzes our state. We have a complex web of ballot initiatives that further complicates the process.
Walkouts like the one currently planned will become more frequent unless we undertake systemic reforms and truly take California in a new direction.
We need to convene a constitutional convention and get serious about changes to the system. Until we do, we're jeopardizing our ability to be competitive in the global economy. Preparing our children for success in the 21st century necessitates investment in higher education not cuts to it.
In San Francisco, we have a robust rainy day fund. We drew down on our reserves to make sure not a single teacher in San Francisco was laid off when the recession hit. We created a partnership between SFSU, the school district, and the city to guarantee a college education to every public school 6th grader who wants one. And if their families can't afford tuition, we help with that too.
We operate with a limited budget in San Francisco, just like the state. But we managed to keep teachers in the classroom and promise every student a chance to go to college. We didn't raise taxes - we reformed the budget process and used resources in a smarter way.
It's time to shake up the system that's put our state in this mess. We need come together to fundamentally rethink how we govern California.
In the world of right wing talk radio hosts, San Diego's Rick Roberts has to keep ahead of the curve. His daily show on KFMB-AM Radio ranks behind competitor KOGO-AM (Chip Franklin) and his audience is pretty much limited to the teabagger fringes of the Republican rank and file. Need to know what topics will be covered on his show this week? Just surf over to any of the Fox News discussion boards and look for the most inflammatory material: that's what you'll be hearing on the show this week.
Basking in the glory of helping out his buddy Congressman Darrell Issa (and regular recipient of Big Pharma/Healthcare PAC $$) fill a couple of "Town Halls" this past week, Rick wants you to know about the next big thing on the horizon: a boycott of schools on September 8th.
What a night! As you may have seen, last night I was the highest vote-getter in the 10th Congressional District special primary election and will now face Republican David Harmer in the November 3rd general election.
I want to thank our incredible team of hard working volunteers. They spent countless hours knocking on doors, making phone calls, and making their presence known at community events throughout the district. Our success would not have been possible without them, and they have my deepest gratitude. Because of their efforts, we won all four counties in the district.
I also want to take a moment to acknowledge my competitors in this election:
To David Harmer: Congratulations on your victory among Republicans. I look forward to two months of dialogue focused on the issues and solutions that matter to the people of the 10th Congressional District. I intend to make it clear that a radical right wing agenda that seeks to stop health care reform, starve the education of our children, fails to finance the transportation and infrastructure systems we need, and advocates more tax breaks for the most wealthy is not in the interests of the people of the 10th Congressional District, California, or America.
To Senator Mark DeSaulnier: Your health care town halls helped establish an important dialogue in the campaign about the need for comprehensive health care reform. You are an institution in Contra Costa County, and you have many admirers. You deserve special acknowledgement for your work seeking a constitutional convention. The two-thirds majority requirement has worsened California's problems and I look forward to working with you to bring a working democracy and majority rule back to California.
On Sunday, my campaign released a new poll of 400 likely 10th Congressional District special primary election voters that found our campaign holds a double digit lead over other Democratic challengers. When initially asked, 31 percent of likely voters chose me, while Senator Mark DeSaulnier, Assemblymember Joan Buchanan, and Anthony Woods received 21, 17, and 9 percent of the vote respectively. When voters were given a rundown of the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate, our lead grew to 36 percent, compared to 22, 20, and 9 percent respectively. The poll was conducted by respected California pollster Ben Tulchin. If you are interested in more information, please see our press release and Ben Tulchin's memo. We are understandably excited by the results.
But enough about polls. In three weeks (or now for those who vote-by-mail), the people of the 10th Congressional District will face a choice. The challenges we face in Washington and in our region are as complex as they are diverse. The debates over health care, economic development, and education will shape the course of our society for decades to come, and I think I am the best candidate to fight for our side on each of these issues in Washington.
John Garamendi has been seeking votes in California for well over 30 years. He first took a run for the Governor's mansion in 1982, and was set to do so again in 2010 until the seat in CA-10 opened up, and he was inspired to return to Washington, where he served in the Clinton Administration in the Department of the Interior. He has the most diverse record of anybody in the race, with stints at the federal level, the state legislature, and in two statewide offices, as the Insurance Commissioner and now Lieutenant Governor. In our interview, we discussed health care, lessons learned from regulating insurance, No Child Left Behind, saving the NUMMI plant in Fremont (more on that from Garamendi here), and foreign policy in Iran. I found Garamendi to come at issues in a very comprehensive and thoughtful way, and you can see this for yourself below. A paraphrased transcript follows. (flip it)
NOTE: These are my prepared remarks for today's keynote address as the Scripps Seaside Forum, sponsored by the Sustainability Alliance of Southern California, Heartland Foundation-United Green and Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
It's great to be at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, one of our country's most important research facilities. The work of this institute has led the way in understanding climate change, the effect of the warming oceans and how we can adapt to the inevitable changes in our environment.
I'm here today to talk to you about the next industrial revolution. The world's economies are fueled by carbon based fuels that have polluted our atmosphere and set up a warming climate. Now when I talk about the next revolution, I don't mean the coal-and-oil fueled economy of yesteryear. The irrefutable science of climate change requires that we take a different path, and with sound investments in renewable energy, green technology, and education, we can create a new green industrial revolution that will put countless thousands of our residents back to work.
President Obama understands what's at stake. Under his stimulus package, California is expected to receive more than $1.5 billion for job-creating alternative energy, energy efficiency, energy conservation, and other energy and climate related efforts. Included in this estimate, the U.S. Treasury and Energy Departments announced that at least $3 billion in competitive grants will be distributed nationwide to support an estimated 5,000 biomass, solar, wind, and other renewable energy projects. Note to Secretary Chu: consider using some of the $3 billion as a loan guarantee, thereby expanding the use of the funds.
Incentives for renewable energy generation and installation are also fueling the growth in green jobs. In just the first four months of 2009, solar installations nearly tripled compared to the year prior. Homeowners, businesses, and government all benefit from the California Solar Initiative (CSI), which provides incentives that reduce the total cost of installed systems by an average of 20 percent. Signed into law in 2006, the CSI aims to install 3,000 MW of new solar power by offering $3 billion in solar rebates over 10 years. Additionally, businesses and homeowners qualify for a federal investment tax credit of 30 percent on renewable energy systems. According to the California Community Colleges Centers of Excellence, the solar industry in California is on pace to produce 40,000 new jobs by 2016.
We've already seen a trend of national columnists using California's budget woes to conveniently push whatever obsession they want. Two more of these land on the nation's most august op-ed pages today, both of them inaccurate and out of touch with the nature of the situation here in the Golden State.
First we have fiscal scold Robert Samuelson trying to use California's budget crisis to make a larger point about a national "fiscal reckoning." He claims that California has "made more promises than its economy can easily support," as has the nation, and only fiscal austerity can remedy the problem.
On paper, the state could solve its budget problems by raising taxes further. But in practice, that might backfire by weakening the economy and tax base. California scores poorly in state ratings of business climate. In a CNBC survey, it ranked 32nd overall but last in "cost of business" and 49th in "business friendliness." Information technology (Intel, Google, Hewlett Packard) and biotechnology remain strengths, but some traditional industries are struggling. High costs, as well as tax breaks from other states, have caused movie studios to shift production from Southern California. In 1996, feature films involved 14,500 production days in the Los Angeles area, says FilmL.A.; in 2008, the figure was half that.
So California is stretched between a precarious economy and a strong popular desire for government. The state's wrenching experience suggests that, as a nation, we should begin to pare back government's future commitments to avoid a similar fate. But California's experience also suggests we'll remain in denial, prisoners of wishful thinking, until the fateful reckoning arrives in the unimagined future.
Ezra Klein does a pretty good job with this column, noting it provides a lesson for the difference between fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism. Samuelson, of course, is the latter, wanting a low-tax, low-spending country. Rather than arguing for a balanced solution, Samuelson eschews taxes due to the "business climate," even though many businesses cite the lack of investment in education and infrastructure that Samuelson is CALLING for as a reason for their concern about their future in the state. In addition, the "businesses are leaving California" argument is a myth applied to all states by fiscal scolds as a means for them to race to the bottom and provide as many corporate tax breaks as possible. Which California has done, to the tune of $2 billion a year, at a time when funding for state parks and domestic violence shelters and poison control units gets slashed. Ezra adds:
Samuelson implies otherwise, but California isn't a particularly high-taxing state. Total state and local taxes take up 11.73 percent of the average Californian's income. The national average is 11.23 percent. And it's been like that for many years [...]
Nor is California's spending on education somehow out of the ordinary. The state ranks 29th in the country on education spending (much lower per pupil; try 47th: ed.). And recent tax cuts haven't been helping the Golden State out. This graph from the California Budget Project shows the contribution that decades of tax cuts have made to the state's current fiscal crisis. It's a pretty depressing story [...] The budget deal that Arnold Schwarzenegger just accepted contained $15 billion in spending reductions. Absent the tax cuts of the last few decades, most of those reductions wouldn't be needed (add the vehicle license fee increase and you're talking about a surplus: ed.).
Samuelson is essentially making an argument about the kind of government he likes, using the California situation to illustrate it, the facts be damned.
Next up is Ross Douthat, who uses the California mess and contrasts it with Texas to create some notion of red states faring better in the recession, also at odds with the facts:
Consider Texas and California. In the Bush years, liberal polemicists turned the president's home state - pious, lightly regulated, stingy with public services and mad for sprawl - into a symbol of everything that was barbaric about Republican America. Meanwhile, California, always liberalism's favorite laboratory, was passing global-warming legislation, pouring billions into stem-cell research, and seemed to be negotiating its way toward universal health care.
But flash forward to the current recession, and suddenly Texas looks like a model citizen. The Lone Star kept growing well after the country had dipped into recession. Its unemployment rate and foreclosure rate are both well below the national average. It's one of only six states that didn't run budget deficits in 2009.
Meanwhile, California, long a paradise for regulators and public-sector unions, has become a fiscal disaster area.
Douthat also throws in the "rich businesses and rich people are fleeing California" canard, which as stated above is untrue about businesses and even less true about rich individuals.
Steve Benen deconstructs the argument about Texas being a great economic steward and California a basket case, and the reasons why. As Benen says, Texas is the worst state in America for the uninsured and the second-worst state for poverty rates. To conservatives who judge the progress of a state by the budgetary balance sheet and not the prosperity of the citizenry, I'm sure they are a model citizen.
Meanwhile, calling California a "liberal laboratory" and not recognizing the source of the crisis, namely the conservative veto on the budget process, speaks to Douthat's complete ignorance about the nature of the state. In addition, as Paul Krugman notes, there is no correlation between a state's perceived ideology and their economic performance (two of the highest-unemployed states are South Carolina and Tennessee), nor is there any correlation between the level of taxation and the current unemployment rate.
I know that the dysfunction of what is seen on the national level as a blue state is an inviting target for conservative columnists to spin some wider tale about liberal failure and conservative ascendancy. If only they had any knowledge of the actual facts involved.
It's hard to choose the most cruel or the most thoughtless among Arnold Schwarzenegger's line-item cuts added to the budget revision. But you could make a case for the slashing of all state funding for domestic violence centers, for a savings of about $16 million dollars. LAist profiles one center, in the Santa Clarita Valley, that will probably now have to close:
The Domestic Violence Center in the Santa Clarita Valley is the only agency that provides domestic violence services in the 200-square mile valley. As a result of Schwarzenegger's cut, which is immediate, they've lost 45%, or $207,222.00, of their annual funding, which they say will force them to close their doors later this year unless the community supports them with donations. In 2008, they served over 1,000 victims of domestic violence.
"As the Center's Executive Director, I think about every client who has come through our doors and their horrific stories of abuse - I cannot help but cry when I think about what the loss of our services will mean to victims," said Executive Director Nicole Shellcroft in a statement. "Those who walk through our doors have suffered through broken bones, beatings, strangulation, food deprivation, arson, torture, genital mutilation and unspeakable sexual violence. They have been thrown down flights of stairs, have been victim to violent physical attacks during pregnancy and have even faced the prospect of murder. Victims seek our services to escape incredible violence aimed at them and their children."
This is what we are talking about when we say that people will die from the decisions made by Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. The $16 million in cuts represent a pittance of the budget and far less than the $2 billion dollar annual tax cut for the largest corporations in America instituted back in February. But, we are told, those businesses would flee the state if they were forced to contribute a fair share of taxes for the commons that they use, so instead, women and their children will have practically nowhere to turn to save themselves from spousal abuse.
It turns out that some businesses are dismayed enough to consider leaving California - not because of the lack of tax breaks, because of all of the budget cuts and the impact on the workforce.
Wilbur D.Curtis invented the globular glass coffeepot, that staple of coffee counters everywhere, in 1940. Since then his son and grandsons have turned Wilbur Curtis Co. into a manufacturing concern that earns revenue approaching $100 million by turning out commercial coffee brewing equipment from a sprawling factory in Montebello.
But their long history in California doesn't exempt the Curtis family from the costs and hassles that give this state its reputation as one of the hardest places in the country to do business [...]
Yet it's plain that the state government has failed in precisely those areas where it can make a difference. Laws' main concern isn't strictly how much money the state spends -- it's that the bucks don't go where they count.
His two biggest issues are education and infrastructure. "We pay a fortune here to educate people on basic things like writing and math skills that they should have learned in high school," he says. The company, whose workforce is mostly Latino, also provides training in English as a second language -- including for some employees who came through the public schools [...]
Then there's that lifeblood of any firm whose products can't be shipped through cyberspace -- transport.
Traffic congestion in the L.A. basin has become a round-the-clock hassle. Laws says one of his biggest customers, a coffee company with a national reach, opened a local facility here to be near its own big customers, only to find that navigating the overstressed road system drove its costs to twice its expectations.
And these complaints about infrastructure and education exist before budget revisions that would decimate the future of higher education for a generation of students, and only harm the ability to create the infrastructure necessary for densely populated areas in the 21st century.
We're picking away at safety net programs and increasing the danger and suffering for a whole class of citizens, while protecting the largest corporations and the wealthiest campaign contributors. And the actual lifeblood of job creation, the small business community, would rather see investment than the current hijacking of state government by those who want to dismantle it.
