You have got to be kidding me.  It appears there is an argument that no matter what happens with the vote on Prop 94-97, the Native American gambling compacts that the federal government’s approval, which only happened on a technicality could be the determining factor if they are approved.  Arnold was right in the middle of this and is now claiming that he had no clue that it could result in this confusion.  Yeah, right.

Here is the timeline as laid out in the SacBee this morning.

Early September: Secretary of State Debra Bowen sends the four compacts, which had been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor to the Interior Department for approval.

The Interior Department had 45 day to act on the compacts.  They “mysteriously disappeared soon after arriving and did not resurface for 80 days.

December 3rd, they announce they will delay publishing the notice of approval to avoid confusion over their legal status.

December 6th Arnold makes a call to the Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne, asking him to give “some attention” to the compacts and brings up the timing of the publication of approval.

December 19th, Department officials reverse their original decision to delay their announcement and approve them, since the 45 days for action had already taken place and they could not do anything else.

On Dec. 3, an official for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is part of the Interior Department, said the bureau would delay publishing a notice of the compacts’ approval in the Federal Register to avoid more confusion about their legal status. But the official was overruled by superiors, and the approval was published Dec. 19.

Schwarzenegger told the editorial board that he did not specifically ask Kempthorne to publish the agreements, but asked him to make sure that “everything go through procedures.”

But Schwarzenegger’s communications director Matt David said later that the governor did bring up the publication issue with Kempthorne in a Dec. 6 call on another subject.

The governor swears that he was not trying to monkey around with the timing to give the tribes and advantage after the election.  Meanwhile he is playing dumb to the SacBee editorial board.

The action has led to widespread speculation that one or more of the tribes might claim the deals to expand their casinos are valid, even if voters reject the compacts next month.

Schwarzenegger, who wants voters to authorize 17,000 more slot machines at four Southern California casinos, told The Bee editorial board that he’s unclear whether the federal action would override voters should they reject the agreements.

“I thought if the voters did not approve it, it’s gone,” he said. “But maybe you’re asking me that … because there is a way out of it? That will be quite interesting. I don’t know.”

Oh yes, very interesting indeed.

If the voters reject the gambling expansion (which Calitics has endorsed), then we may well see a court case brought by the tribes arguing that since the federal government approved the compacts that what the voters said doesn’t matter.  That would mean that the fed’s “lost” paperwork overrides the will of the people of California.  And it appears that Arnold is right in the middle of it all.

Update 1:15 pm by Julia It looks like today’s story is already making waves.  The Department of the Interior is promising not to losing things again. CapAlert (reg req)

Embarrassed by the “misplacing” of four California Indian casino compacts that resulted in the deals being approved without being reviewed, federal Interior Department officials said today they are taking steps to see “we don’t ever have a repeat of this.”

And they are investigating themselves, yeah that will work well.

Department spokeswoman Tina Kreisher said Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has asked the department’s inspector general’s office to review the BIA’s conclusion that “these documents were inadvertently and not deliberately misplaced, and that sufficient corrective measures are being taken.”

The only question is when they will exonerate themselves.  I bet it is a few months down the road when nobody is paying any attention.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed Prop. 93, some considered it the result of some deal on health care or some other quid pro quo.  I thought it was much simpler than that.  

Schwarzenegger has a good working relationship with Fabian Nuñez and Don Perata.  He for the most part gets what he wants out of that relationship.  Why would he want to change it for his last two years in office?  The pessimist’s view would be “Why would he want to housebreak someone else when these two are already housebroken?”  The optimist’s view is “He’s moving forward on his agenda, why rock the boat?”

Arnold has now confirmed this, by the way.

Schwarzenegger said he has developed a “trust” with sitting legislative leaders and hopes to continue to work with them. The governor said he felt a loss when former Senate leader John Burton was termed out of the Legislature.

“I just got this groove going with this guy and we got to understanding each other and all of a sudden he’s being ripped away,” Schwarzenegger said.

The governor said he and current lawmakers would be better able to tackle major issues facing the state, from the budget crisis to the state’s need for $500 billion worth of infrastructure improvements.

Besides, he said, “I really want some of those guys to stay.”

It’s a selfish view from the standpoint of Schwarzenegger (should the governor really be picking the majority leaders in the opposite party?), but perfectly coherent.  He wants to continue the working relationship.  In the short term, it’s up to the voters to decide if that working relationship is good for California.  I think the sum total of this site could be “Exhibit A,” but your mileage may vary.

(As a side note, interesting how this experience vs. change question continues at the state level, no?  Of course, we must wonder about the right kind or the wrong kind of experience.)

(Regarding the summoning of the devil below, I’ll get there at some point.  But I’d prefer to talk about something important over an obscure argument about which Americans deserve to decide things over which other Americans.)

The battle between environmental groups and the US Navy over the use of sonar off the California coast appeared to come to an end last week, when a federal judge forbade sonar use within 12 miles of the shoreline.  But for this ruling to hold, you would have to have a President who believes in an independent judiciary and the rule of law.  Alas, we have a king.

The Navy announced today that two important steps have been taken under existing law and regulations to allow it to conduct effective, integrated training with sonar off the coast of southern California after a federal court earlier this month imposed untenable restrictions on such training.

In accordance with the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and at the recommendation of the Secretary of Commerce, the President concluded that continuing these vital exercises without the restrictions imposed by the district court is in the paramount interests of the United States. He signed an exemption from the requirements of the CZMA for the Navy’s continued use of mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar in a series of exercises scheduled to take place off the coast of California through January 2009. The Navy already applies twenty-nine mitigation measures approved by federal environmental regulators when using active sonar, and these will remain in place.

In other words, the President thinks killing whales is a small price to pay for not having to tell the Navy move their boats a bit.  Anyway, if the whales aren’t willing to die for the cause of liberty, then they simply want the terrorists to win.

The Navy takes steps to limit damage to whales, granted.  But that is pretty much besides the point.  Between denying the waiver for California to regulate its own tailpipe emissions and this latest action, it’s clear that this Administration doesn’t find the normal structures of the law to apply to them.  This next election is in large part about bringing this back into balance, about finding an executive who doesn’t treat the Constitution like something on which you wipe your shoes.

Okay, this is an extraordinary photo of a beyond-the-pale moment: Steve Maviglio, the Deputy Chief of Staff to Fabian Nunez, the Speaker of the California Assembly, directing Capitol police to arrest an un-insured patient for speaking to the media about healthcare reform.  That’s Maviglio on the far right, and Jerry Flanagan from ConsumerWatchDog in the middle.

Conversations with press like this happen every day, every hour in the Capitol; it’s why the building exists.

But I guess most conversations aren’t on the subject of the insurance industry’s number one priority-which is to pass an “individual mandate” law.  And most conversations don’t happen as a gigantic fake healthcare reform bill seems to be careening to an ugly defeat.

Which is why most conversations don’t end with patients being cited for a misdemeanor.

We’ll tell what happened and why, below

…cross-posted at the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association’s Breakroom Blog, as we organize for GUARANTEED healthcare on the single-payer model.

It’s a good news-bad news situation.

The bad news is that the insurance industry has convinced some politicians on their payroll to hop aboard the individual mandate train, and pass a law requiring every person in the state to buy one of their products-no matter the cost or the quality.  The train’s rolling here in California, for a test run, before it goes national.

The good news is this bill is about to collapse, and this could well end this nasty little trend in healthcare reform, and open the door to replacing insurance companies altogether with universal, non-profit, single-payer coverage.  The kind that works in every other industrialized democracy.

Meet Ron Norton.  He’s on the far left in the picture, looking confused as to why Speaker Nunez thinks he’s a threat to the Capitol.  He’s been victimized by the Mitt Romney plan in Massachusetts, which is the basis for the Schwarzenegger, Clinton, and other individual mandate plans…and here’s what he’s got to say:

I’m Ron Norton, an adjunct professor of radiology and an administrator at a Quinsigamond Community College in Worcester, Massachusetts. But like 66% of our community college teachers, I’m considered an independent contractor and don’t get health insurance.

“After a few years of making about $21,000, I made closer to $40,000 last year because I’m also doing an administrative job. Under the Massachusetts insurance law my family won’t get subsidy because even though my wife has health insurance with her employer, her income is counted against my eligibility.

“Her small employer doesn’t offer family insurance. I imagine lots of California families are in the same situation.

“I’m 47 and have no health problems but the cheapest individual plan available in Massachusetts is $234 a month. That’s 6.8% of my salary. That “cheap” plan has a $2,000 per person pushing the cost up to 12.7% of my gross salary. Even if I bought the policy I still wouldn’t have affordable health care, and the number of doctors is very limited.

“I have a daughter, and it gets much worse if I want to insure her. The cheapest plan for the two of us is $440 a month, $5280 a year. That’s 11.6% of my income alone. The cheapest medium-range plan – without the huge deductibles – is $632 a month, nearly 20% of my own salary.

Details, details.  Doesn’t he know how much money these insurers have paid politicians to support their bill?

Hopefully, and apparently, not enough, as Capitol rumors are abounding now that the Schwarzenegger-Nunez bill is DOA.  Some reasons why:

First-the California Nurses Association has begun major advertising against it.  People generally people trust RNs more than insurance companies on healthcare issues.

Second-It’s becoming clear that voters don’t like this particular mandate. (Warning; .pdf, of poll.)

Third-California’s in a heap of budget trouble, and now is not the right time for multi-billion dollar public subsidies to already-profitable insurance corporations.

Fourth-the “insiders’ coalition” is breaking apart.  I mean, who really deep down likes insurance corporations?

Fifth-Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan is emerging as a total loser.

We might a few more arrests along the way, but we can see the light, and build a template for stopping fake healthcare reform and winning guaranteed healthcare. Or, as we sometimes call it, CheneyCare.

Everybody in, nobody out, nothing less.