Capitol Alert is pretty cool now that it’s not behind a paywall. And today they delivered a little email telling me, right away, that the health care plan should now be referred to in the past tense.  From Senator Perata:

“I think it’s DOA. I haven’t found anybody yet that I have talked to that can make any sense out of it. It sounds ridiculous to say that we’re going to have health care for everybody in four years, but in the meantime most people won’t have health care because we have to cut the budget,” Perata told KPIX.(CapAlert 12.18.07)

You can even watch the video here (comments around the 3 min mark.) So, well it looks like this plan will be another casualty of the growing budget deficit.  Now, let’s see, how did we get into this mess. Ah, yes, the governator “Terminated” the “Car Tax” to show he was no “Girlie Man” on Taxes.  Well, now that he’s boxed himself into a corner over his tax populism, where does he go now.  How does he impliment his agenda without spending money?

So, what’s next?

I know the California Republican primary is allocating delegates based on who wins each Congressional District (and will be interested to see the impact of the regionalism implicit in that plan on the Republican primary), but I am less clear on whether the California Democrats will be using the same system.

I was under the impression that we were still using the proportional allocation system, with a 15% threshold, but now am not sure if the bill that moved things up to Feb. 5th didn’t also alter the delegate allocation system as well.

This Sac Bee article from a while back states that the Dems already do it by both statewide and district vote:

Since 1972, the state Democratic Party has assigned a majority share of its presidential delegation on the percentage of votes candidates receive statewide and by congressional district. Leading Democratic candidates earn between three to seven delegates per district, depending on voting results.

Anyone got any information on this?  

I thought this was the key moment in the Appropriations Committee debate over ABx1 1, which passed the Assembly yesterday.

Republican Assemblywoman Mimi Walters asked Nunez and the Department of Finance whether they were certain financial projections would come through. AB x1 1 relies on $4.5 billion in federal dollars in addition to other revenue sources. Department of Finance staffer Tom Sheehy said one provision in ABx1 1 would not be implemented unless the Director of Finance declared that money to pay for the program was in hand and in state coffers.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, Democrat chairman of the Appropriations committee, followed up with questions about whether the program could be turned off if money did not come in as expected. Nunez’ staff responded that ballot initiative would contain provisions to assure that insufficient funds would trigger a series of events to pull back the program, including the individual mandate and the market reforms. It would first allow the governor and legislature to fix any fiscal imbalances. If lawmakers and the governor did not act, then the pieces of the legislation would be repealed, including the public program expansions and tax credits, returning the state to the status quo.

This is the key because this is what has happened to every single state that has tried to implement anything approaching universal health care.  They pass the bills with a lot of fanfare but are either unable to control costs or keep up with population or their numbers on revenue fall short (nobody EXPECTED the $14 billion dollar budget deficit this year, to use a parallel example), and the program has to be scaled back and eventually scrapped.  And there’s no massive celebration or gathering on that day, where everyone gets in a room and congratulates each other.  But that’s what’s happened very single time.

The bill has some advances on the health reform front, and is not an ignoble effort.  But nobody seems to want to deal with these historical facts.  “This is better than nothing” doesn’t mean anything when 5-7 years down the road, you’re ACTUALLY left with nothing.  And I think walling off the funding and claiming that it’s revenue neutral makes it more likely that road will be travelled again.  The state budget should reflect priorities.  We all want every Californian to have access to health care.  Paying for it with part gimmick taxes, part wishes and hopes of federal support, et cetera, shows that you really don’t value it all that much.  And admitting that the program will fall apart unless people continue smoking a lot of cigarettes… well, you see where I’m headed.

UPDATE: Ezra Klein, the sharpest commentator on health care in the progressive blogosphere, on the plan:

It is, in short, a pretty good plan — better, in certain ways, than those offered by the national Democrats — and it’s got the support of folks ranging from the Democratic legislature to Arnold Schwarzenegger to Andy Stern. I’m not super confident in its long-term prospects, as various groups are going to spend hundreds of millions to defeat the ballot initiative containing its financing package, and even if the plan survives that, I still don’t believe states have the fiscal strength to sustain universal health care in times of recession. But I’d like to see it pass, if only for the momentum it would give the national conversation over health reform.

Klein doesn’t get back to his native California much, so I can forgive him for later plaudits in the post about Schwarzenegger.  But I definitely associate with the remarks I’ve bolded.

UPDATE II: Shorter Sen. Perata: Fuhgettaboutit.

“I think it’s DOA. I haven’t found anybody yet that I have talked to that can make any sense out of it. It sounds ridiculous to say that we’re going to have health care for everybody in four years, but in the meantime most people won’t have health care because we have to cut the budget,” Perata told KPIX.

On Monday, the Senate leader sent a letter to the nonpartisan legislative analyst asking what the fiscal impact of the health plan would be on California’s budget deficit.

“You couldn’t balance your home checkbook that way, much less run the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world,” Perata continued in the interview.

Then he ended with this: “He simply does not understand the way in which this works,” though it’s not clear from the clip who the Oakland Democrat is referring to.

You know the Drill, I find interesting stuff and cram them together:

• Well, the Healthcare Plan has passed the Assembly. It's unclear when it will be taken up in the Senate, but the Speaker and the Gang would still need to gather signatures to get this thing on the ballot. For more on that, see John Myers well-titled post “Trying to Reason with Signature Gatherin' Season.” The clock is a-ticking on that. But apparently, the GOP is not impressed with GOP Fresno Mayor Alan Autry for playing nice with the Governor. It still is kind of funny to me that Arnold is now radioactive to the GOP base, too bad he's still implimenting a far-right agenda.
• Speaking of that far-right agenda, there's his horrible Worker's Compensation plan that he foisted upon the Legislature at the threat of a ballot initiative.  Turns out that it not only shafts workers, but it also does so in a discriminatory way. Yay! From the good folks at DenialOfCare.org, we learn that if you are a women with low bone density, well, it's your own damn fault! In one case, a teacher broke her back when she was pulled down by an out-of-control student. When the teacher filed for worker's compensation, her claim was deducted b/c she was “vulnerable.” The bone density condition did not hamper her job performance, but apparently it was enough to reduce her permanent disability settlement by about a half. Before the “deforms” (SB 899) and under most areas of tort law, damages can not be reduced b/c the injured party was vulnerable.  Well, apparently a thousand years of common law didn't work so well for Arnold and the Insurers (that would be a great band name). So, lesson for all you workers: don't get old.  Or be a woman. Or be a minority. That press release is here.
• Mike Gipson, the losing candidate in last week's special election for the Assembly, apparently decided that it would be a good idea to raffle off Target gift cards to voters who brought in their stub. Reminds me of chicken dinners in the East Bay.

  BTW, check out that link, you'll learn a bit about Frank Russo's time as a progressive champion in an election in the East Bay. IMHO, dude should have won. It's another reason why our special election system should be the top two vote getters going to the runoff, not necessarily representatives of each party. Frank Russo could have held the seat, and would have been a real fighter for progressivie change in the Assembly. Instead, Audie Bock (a Green, I believe) won the special and then lost the next regular election to Wilma Chan.  BTW, Audie Bock then went on to mount a primary challenge to Barbara Lee, from the RIGHT, saying Rep. Lee's vote against the War in Afghanistan was anti-patriotic.

• More voting woes, this time in the Central Valley. San Joaquin County wil be going back to paper ballots for the most part, beginning in the February. THe funny part is the vendor that they are buying the paper ballot machines from. ANy guesses? Well, if you guessed a subsidiary of Diebold, you're right! I guess they win either way.
• A bunch of legislators rejected the pay hikes that were granted for next year. Make of that what you will…

It looks like hack-turned-supervisor Carmen Chu has decided she wants to try and keep her seat in the next election. She has decided to deal with the homeless issue in her district and blames the sweeps at Golden Gate Park, according to the San Francisco Examiner.

In her most aggressive political move since being appointed in September, interim Supervisor Carmen Chu publicly demanded that several city departments come up with a specific plan to address her west side district’s homeless problem.

The District 4 supervisor is holding a community meeting Monday to address increasing complaints from her constituents that The City’s recent efforts to clear Golden Gate Park of homeless people has increased their numbers in the adjacent Sunset neighborhood.

Last week, Chu requested city departments, including the police and the Human Services Agency, to come up with a Sunset-specific plan to combat the homeless problem in time for the meeting.

But her patron, Gavin Newsom, is not buying it.

Newsom responded to Chu’s concerns last week, saying, “There was a homeless problem in the Sunset before we stepped up enforcement in the park,” and adding that it was “naïve” to think that increased efforts in the park would not prompt some homeless to move to other locations.

It’s a small disagreement and I cannot speak to the validity of either side, but it looks like she’s been cut loose from the Mayor’s office. It also looks like she’ll do what it takes to hold the seat. She better be ready, because there are plenty of sharks that swim around in District 4.