Back in October the special session on water seemed dead. Republicans rejected Perata’s water bond plan, which had no funding for dams in it and instead emphasized fixing the Delta and conservation projects. At the time the GOP’s attitude was “it’s our turn” – give us dams, dammit!

But just as the health care session, which also seemed to be dead, was revived when Democrats caved in to Republican demands for an individual mandate, the water session may be revived by the same means as well, as Perata has tentatively agreed to $3 billion in funding for new dams that Republicans have demanded. From the Visalia Times-Delta article:

No details of the meeting were immediately available. But going into the meeting, Senate leader Don Perata, D-Oakland, tentatively had agreed for the first time to set aside funds, perhaps $3 billion, for work on three reservoirs if there was benefit for the ailing San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta, according to the senator’s office. But Perata has insisted on an annual legislative review of funding for the work, something that Republican lawmakers oppose because it could give legislative critics an opportunity to stall a project. GOP advocates of the dams want all the funding to be available once it is approved without further legislative oversight.

In response, Friends of the River reiterated its arguments against dams (and was approvingly quoted by Steve Maviglio, making one wonder if Núñez is on board with Perata’s cave-in). Dams are simply not necessary to solve our looming water crisis, as conservation and alternative water storage methods can provide for our needs, even during a drought, without the ruinous effects of new dams – dams that virtually none of the studies done on CA water issues and the Delta have suggested are necessary.

Further, dams may actually hurt the Delta, not help it. The proposed Peripheral Canal would make the Delta’s problems worse by taking badly needed freshwater out of the system – and dams along feeder rivers would cause similar problems.

Both the water and the health care compromises share a fundamental logic – Democrats give in to a key Republican demand but try and shape the outcome in their favor. It’s not clear if they’ll be able to make an individual mandate affordable or even workable, and it’s not clear that Perata will be able to keep control of dam funding.

More importantly, have Democrats already given up their positions of strength by caving on the key demands? Can Dems, having agreed to an individual mandate and to new dams, reject them again if they are unable to convince Republican legislators or the Republican governor to give in to Dems? Having already given in on the key demands does not put Dems in a strong negotiating or political position.

The nation actually had a good employment month in October.  The economy added 166,000 jobs, mainly in the professional and business services, health care, and leisure and hospitality sectors, and even construction was largely unchanged.

On the other hand, California lost 15,800 jobs, and year-over-year unemployment is up a full point to 5.6% (and that of course doesn’t include those who have stopped looking for work).  That’s also a full point over the national average.  The apologists that call themselves economists in this article are trying to spin the numbers but it won’t wash.

October’s decline in employment, the biggest since the loss of 14,000 jobs in July, confirms that the state’s economy is slowing, said Stephen Levy, who directs the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto.

But “this is a slowdown that the nation is participating in,” Levy said. (Then why did the US add 166,000 jobs in the same month? -ed.) […]

Levy cautioned against making “a big deal” of the overall job loss figures.

“None of this is like when we lost our aerospace industry — that was permanent — or when the Internet bubble burst,” he said.

The current job losses do not signify any loss of strength in the state’s key economic sectors, he said. “It’s not like our economy is threatened from this.”

Really?  You mean the construction sector isn’t losing strength due to the housing meltdown?  And that isn’t driving economic trouble in all other sectors, as the end of refinancing and redecorating new homes depresses consumer spending?

Ever hear of trash-outs?

“An old wooden house along Genevieve Street in San Bernardino was the scene recently of a trash pickup for tenants who lost their home to a bank foreclosure.”

“On Thursday morning, the driveway was piled up with appliances, furniture and clothes that were littered everywhere – a telltale sign of a family that recently lived there. An old gas stove with a skillet full of dust was found. In the back yard, there were mattresses, a microwave, two mangled couches and a bulky refrigerator.”

“Foreclosed homes all over the Inland Empire are turning into what Lisa Carvalho calls ‘trash-outs’ – wooden and stucco carcasses with piles of junk left behind by former tenants.”

“The High Desert offers even more interesting tales. The area is full of tract homes in subdivisions that have stacks of furniture piled inside every room, she said.”

“‘These typically look like they’re occupied, but they’re not trashed,’ she said about these homes. ‘(The owners) just walk away and wash their hands of it.'”

Distressed properties (which are usually foreclosures or short sales) made up one out of every five homes listed for sale in Orange County last week.  And it’s hard to even say who’s in worse shape, homeowners, realtors, or financial institutions stuck with mortgages that will be defaulted without delay.

This is a crisis, and economists who keep their heads in the sand aren’t serving whoever it is they’re supposed to serve.  The legislation that would have at least helped to address this was blocked by Senate Republicans last week.  Where California is able to go in the next decade relies on stabilizing this housing situation.

(Note: I am an online organizer with It’s OUR Healthcare!, a coalition of over 100 member organizations that includes the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.)

Art Pulaski, the Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the California Labor Federation, posted a statement featured on the California Progress Report outlining the labor organization’s “support if amended” stance on ABx1 1, the recently released healthcare proposal from Democratic leadership in the State Legislature.

In the statement, Pulaski voiced strong support for creating a baseline on employer contributions towards healthcare for all employees and the creation of a statewide purchasing pool which he says “allows millions of Californians to pool their risk and resources in order to negotiate for more affordable healthcare.” Pulaski also noted support for the expansion of public programs and accompanying tax credits under ABx1 1.

However, Pulaski writes that “[d]espite these important advances, ABx1 1 still falls short.” Find out where and his recommendations on how to fix it below the fold.

To meet the needs of California’s working families, ABx1 1 and its accompanying financing provisions should be amended to address the following issues:

First, the individual mandate:

An individual mandate to purchase health insurance must be predicated upon guaranteeing that affordable, quality health care coverage is available to individuals subject to the mandate. While this legislation takes a first step toward addressing affordability, it does not ensure the quality of the health care benefit and it does not address the entire affordability issue. To address this problem, we recommend tying the affordability standard to the total cost of a comprehensive (a benefit of at the least Knox-Keene standard plus prescription drugs), high quality (minimal deductible, low annual out-of-pocket limit) benchmark plan. The minimum creditable coverage necessary to meet the mandate should be set and defined as a separate standard.

If the comprehensive benchmark plan is available to an individual for a total cost (including premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket maximums) that is less than a specified percent of his or her income, that person would be subject to the mandate. If it is not, the individual should be exempted from the obligation.

If an individual is subject to the mandate, he or she should have the option to buy the comprehensive plan, or to buy a more or less* generous plan, so long as the plan meets the minimum creditable coverage standard. Separating the affordability standard from the minimum creditable coverage standard guarantees that individuals will not be subject to the mandate unless there is a high quality, affordable product available to them, but still leaves them the ability to choose a less expensive plan to meet the mandate. (Ed. Note: This was a little confusing, and IOH spoke with Anastasia Ordonez of the Cal Labor Fed to clarify. There cannot be a case where there is a less generous benefit than the minimum and still meets the minimal requirements. It was an error in wording. The sentence should read: “If an individual is subject to the mandate, he or she should have the option to buy the comprehensive plan [i.e., something like Knox-Keene Act + prescription drugs], or to buy a more generous plan, so long as the plan meets the minimum creditable coverage standard.” )

To ensure that these plans offer quality coverage, the benefits and cost sharing arrangements for these plans must be outlined in the legislation. Asking Californians to accept an undefined mandate is unreasonable and unwise.

Pulaski also expressed an uneasiness with the enforcement of an individual mandate in its current form.

We are also concerned about potential enforcement mechanisms for the individual mandate. First, the enforcement of the mandate should look prospectively at the ability of a family to afford coverage, but also include protections for serious life changing events.

While we appreciate the bill’s provision for future hardship exemptions, we believe it should list basic conditions that would qualify a family for exemptions. The language should explicitly exempt Californians facing serious financial setbacks such as job loss and natural disaster. MRMIB should have the discretion to add additional circumstances at a future date. Second, families should have protections, similar to those currently afforded the uninsured facing unmanageable hospital bills, that preclude the use of collections tactics such as wage garnishment and home liens.

Noting the continuously climbing cost of healthcare and the individual mandate in ABx1 1, Pulaski writes that it “makes cost containment an even more pressing concern.”

To that end, the provisions regarding prescription drug purchasing and the creation of a public insurance option must be strengthened and clarified. Specifically, MRMIB should be empowered to directly negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers to obtain the lowest possible price for Cal-CHIPP enrollees. Additionally, the existing language regarding the possibility that public entities and other purchasers, including union trust funds, could access bulk prescription drug rates through Cal-CHIPP should be strengthened to guarantee that access. Only by directly tackling high drug costs and other health care cost drivers will this proposal deliver the cost containment that California’s working families need.

Pulaski set his sights on employer fees, stating support for a sliding scale because “it addresses the needs of truly small businesses,” but warns against the Governor recently suggesting the cap be at 5.5%, instead of the proposed 6.5%.

[..] The aggregate amount of employer fee dollars, however, must raise enough funds to purchase a quality benefit. Additionally, the graduated fee schedule could exacerbate employer incentives to evade their obligation.

These are the concerns of Cal Labor Fed but are supporting the overall frame work.