Last summer, Californians suffered through a period of Republican obstinance on the budget. A temper tantrum, you might say.  Expect more from the new Senate Minority Leader, Dave Cogdill (Modesto).  Cogdill was not one of the 8 Republicans to finally end the budget debacle. Cogdill felt they could have extracted another chunk of hide out of working Californians.

Right below, David wrote about the governor’s slow attempts at lowering the deficit. Hey, if we catch a bunch of people napping, they can’t use state services. Woohoo! Well, in an interview with Capitol Alert, Cogdill let’s us know he’s got some more tricks up his sleeve, namely hacking up the education system in California

So when you’ve got this type of budget problem, I don’t think you have any option but to look at the education sector of the budget. Given its size and the cumbersome nature of it, as it relates to categorical and other ways that we spend money, there’s got to be some opportunities there to find some savings. Especially, when we look at what we spend on administration, the top end of the budget, versus what actually ends up in the classroom.

Those are the biggest complaints that we hear often from teachers and others, ‘There isn’t enough dollars going into the classroom.’ At the same time, there is usually a lot of criticism that we spend too much money in administration. So if that’s the case, let’s all work together and figure out how we can achieve some savings in administration.

In 2002-2003, California ranked 26th (PDF). Yup, behind Georgia (25th) and West Virginia (18th). But, that being said, an enoromous amount of that goes into teaching salaries because California has a high cost of living. In fact, we had the highest average teacher salary in 2002-2003 at $56,283. So, the myth of these “high administration” costs is just that: a myth. Teachers have to buy supplies for their students and themselves. Parents hold fundraisers to pay for language classes, let alone arts classes. And athletics? Well, good luck to the scools competing for the San Joaquin Section/Les Schwab Tires Division I Championship. We are slowly selling our schools to corporations or whomever has a few bucks.

Furthermore, Cogdill talks a lot about pragmatism, yet, refuses to talk about the revenue side, over the flip…

How often do you see the pragmatism come together? There’s a pretty big gap between what Senator Steinberg says he wants to see to balance the budget and what you say you want to see. How do you bridge that?

Cogdill: Again, I think it’s just through an open dialogue. Because of our relationships we have an opportunity to do that. There are certain places he knows I can’t go. There are certain places I know he can’t go. So the challenge for the two of us is to find that middle ground.

In terms of working with the governor, you said you have a good relationship from (working on) the water bonds. How strongly do you believe him when he says he’s not going to raise taxes?

Cogdill: Well, he’s said it so often. He’s said it from day one in his original run for governor. He’s never wavered (on) that with anything I’ve seen, except this proposal he put forward for this surcharge on insurance for fire protection. … I think you can make that argument, but certainly, as it relates to the general fund of the state of California, I think he’s been pretty adamant about his belief that we should not raise taxes.

That’s pragmatic, how? We just keep digging the whole through moves like axing the VLF, but can’t look at fixing how we bring revenue into the system? That’s not pragmatism, that’s obstinance.

But wanna hear something really rich? His take on the recall process:

It’s extremely unfortunate that the president pro tem (Don Perata) has decided to move forward on the recall. I don’t think that’s what the folks that devised the recall law had in mind at the time. It wasn’t to take someone out because they voted their conscience as a sitting member of the Legislature. It was for such things as malfeasance or immorality or any number of other legitimate reasons to provide a mechanism whereby voters could recall their legislator.

Now, I’m sure Sen. Cogdill was vehemently opposed to the gubernatorial recall as well, right?

Yesterday I noted how the Governor is trying to lower the Medi-Cal rolls by increasing the paperwork for enrollees and hoping that they’ll get tripped up by the process.  This is officially a trend.

Midnight on March 1 — Saturday — recently became the deadline for students to apply to seven Cal State campuses that traditionally accepted applications months later. An even earlier deadline, Feb. 1, has already passed for 16 other Cal State campuses

The root cause of the time crunch is a multibillion-dollar state deficit. In his provisional budget for next year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger set Cal State’s share of reductions at $386.1 million. If that figure holds, schools have much difficult budget-cutting ahead. As a precaution, Chancellor Charles B. Reed limited the number of students by shortening the application period.

“An effort was made to try to slow down what was otherwise going to be a record year in enrollment,” said Jim Blackburn, director of enrollment management services in the chancellor’s office. Blackburn did not know of another time when Cal State sought to curtail students in this fashion. He noted, however, that campuses frequently stop reviewing new applications when they reach enrollment thresholds. The priority application period ended Nov. 30, which was the deadline for Cal State Long Beach and four other especially popular schools. Three other campuses would have closed by Feb. 1 regardless.

What we have here is a coward of a Governor, who instead of cutting programs wants to throw up sneaky barriers to entry in an effort to take the blame away from himself and toward those who need the services.  It’s about as scummy as you can get.  Frank Russo shares my disdain.

Is this what the great state of California is coming to? I thought, apparently naively, that we celebrated and cherished the desire of our young wanting to further their education and attend institutions of higher learning. Instead, because of the budget proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger for next year, and difficulties the California State University (CSU) system expects to have with cut backs, they are, with premeditation (but propbably without malice aforethought) advancing the deadline for applying and hoping that many students miss the deadline.

Now we see the “Year of Education” and the “Year of Healthcare” turned into the “Year of Changing Paperwork and Deadlines So We Can Kick People Off Education And Healthcare.”  The Legislative Analyst has already deemed the Governor’s budget unworkable.  I wonder what she’ll say about these latest efforts.

This post first appeared at Speak Out California

How is it that corporations have the rights that individuals do, but not the responsibilities?  

Let’s reflect on what a corporation is.  A business is formed by a few people.  The business asks the government for a corporate charter, pays a fee, and is then this special entity called a corporation with special rights granted by the government.

Under our laws, corporations are fictional persons with certain rights.  They can own assets, employ agents and engage in contracts just like people.  But unlike you or me they have special benefits including limited liability and unlimited life.

Corporations enjoy limited liability — if you or I commit a crime, injure someone, go bankrupt or get sued we’re in big trouble and have to suffer the consequences.  But this is not what happens to the owners of corporations.  Their liability is limited and if their corporation is involved in any of these things they can just fly away in their private jets.  In some jurisdictions corporate officers and directors are even shielded from liability for criminal acts the corporation commits.  

Corporations have unlimited life — which means the entity continues beyond any individual.  The assets owned by a corporation can stay and grow in that corporation, and be controlled by its owners perpetually.   So the corporation is able to amass significant assets and resources.

A corporation is not taxed the same as individuals.  In most case they pay much lower taxes, the dividends they pay their owners are taxed at lower rates, as are the capital gains.  In fact there are many circumstances where corporations do not have to pay taxes at all!  So the burden of paying for the roads and schools (and wars) falls on the rest of us.

Corporations are able to compel large numbers of people — employees, contractors, other corporations and other paid entities — to do certain things.  They can even tell people what to wear, how to wear their hair, even to wear makeup or not.

These special rights help corporations build up tremendous resources and power far beyond the ability of any individual in our society.  So individuals finding themselves up against corporations face tremendous disadvantages.  Many of the mechanisms for mitigating this disparity, including unions, the right to sue, taxes, even government regulation, have been reduced as a result of corporate-funded lobbying, ballot initiatives or other efforts.  The ability to amass tremendous assets and power enables the people at the top of corporations to have great influence over our government and the laws it makes — even to the point of granting them ever greater rights and benefits and tax cuts — helping them to amass even greater assets, resources and power.

Corporations make decisions in ways that are very different from how We, the People of America and California make our community decisions through our governments.  In our government all decisions and spending are participatory and transparent, meaning all of us can vote for representatives and can watch or otherwise look at how decisions are made and understand where all money is spent.  In California it is even illegal for a city council committee to meet in secret.  This is certainly not how things are done with corporations.  (By the way, this is why some people say corporations are “more efficient”– they do not have the procedures for the degree of transparency and accountability that governments and other public entities require.)

Question — are these differences between public and corporate accountability and transparency compatible with our understanding of democracy?  What about the ability of corporations to influence how our government regulates corporations?   Keep in mind that corporations are nothing more than the creation of our laws.  So discussing questions like these is essential to the maintenance of that democracy.

Click to continue

Much attention has been focused on the lovely town (I’m serious!) of Vallejo as it faces bankruptcy. In a harbinger of things to come for many California cities and counties, Vallejo’s general fund has been hit hard by the housing crash, leaving the city strapped for cash.

A city contemplating bankruptcy has many options. So it’s sad to see Vallejo – and smaller towns like Pacific Grove – blaming workers for their problems. In doing so, they repeat the same destructive policy espoused by Orange County Republicans – choosing to blame public employees and their unions for problems instead of supporting higher taxes, even at the cost of catastrophic disaster.

The first article on the Vallejo cash crunch in the Chronicle set up the dynamic, as city officials blamed workers for the problem:

[Councilwoman Stephanie] Gomes and others have blamed much of the city’s financial woes on police and fire contracts, which she says comprise 80 percent of the city’s $80 million budget.

The starting salary for a Vallejo firefighter is about $70,000 a year, among the highest in the state. Ten firefighters earned more than $200,000 each last year, including overtime, city officials said.

“Of course we value our police and firefighters and the risks they take, but their salaries are simply too high,” Gomes said. “They can afford to live in Marin and Napa, and it’s the very hard-working, blue-collar residents of Vallejo who are bearing the repercussions. It’s unfair.”

Ah, those greedy firefighters. How dare they ask for a middle-class income? What gives them the idea that they can extort such wages?

Firefighters say their earnings are high because the department is so short-staffed they’re forced to work huge amounts of overtime.

Since 2001, 30 firefighters have retired or left the department, and only three have been hired, said Vallejo fire Capt. Jon Riley, vice president of Fire Fighters Union Local 1186. And after rumors of bankruptcy began circulating, 14 more retired, fearing that their benefits and salaries would be cut, he said.

“We’re having to work an extraordinary amount of overtime,” he said. “We make great salaries, but if you’re not able to see your family, what good is it?”

Firefighters typically work 48-hour shifts with four days off between shifts. Many Vallejo firefighters are now forced to work 96-hour shifts with two days off, he said. Sleep deprivation, divorce and child-care complications are common, he said.

“I’d say morale has hit rock bottom,” he said. “But we’re still committed to providing the highest level of service to the citizens of Vallejo.”

Oh. They mean to tell us that firefighting is hard, grueling work, and that they should get fairly compensated for protecting the community?

To most of us, the firefighters’ stand is common sense. Fire protection is something you just don’t skimp on – unless you’re Orange County conservatives (more on them in a moment). And it’s not as if the firefighters are unwilling to help:

Firefighter union President Kurt Hanke told the council that the union reached an agreement late last week with city negotiators for wage cuts that would have reduced Vallejo’s deficit to zero. But he said Tanner on Monday vetoed the deal….Leaders of public safety unions say the salaries of police officers and firefighters are high because they must work large amounts of overtime because of staff shortages. The unions have offered to cut the employees’ pay if more officers and firefighters are hired.

Instead Vallejo’s leaders prefer to play hardball and blame public safety employees for the city’s crisis. And unsurprisingly, nobody in Vallejo seems to be discussing a tax increase to stave off these crippling cuts – which will not only compromise public safety, but further damage the city’s economy. Firing workers and cutting everyone else’s pay is not exactly going to help Vallejo’s restaurants and small businesses weather the storm.

Lest we think this is just a Vallejo problem, the blaming of public workers for city problems is something found statewide – a last-ditch, extremist strategy to avoid a tax increase. Here on the Monterey Peninsula, the small town of Pacific Grove has been facing a $2 million budget deficit, and recently responded by enacting drastic cuts to city services, including fire and police. Last fall the city proposed a modest tax hike to close the shortfall – which prompted users of a local discussion forum to denounce the workers in some rather absurd terms:

Why does our small town have so many firemen? I always see them parked somewhere or doing drills by the high school but not much else. Is there a reasonable explanation that I am not aware of?

How many fires does this tiny town have every year? How many tall buildings?

This town is so overstaffed by Bay Area standards (or other responsible standards) that it is truly disgusting. At least some layoffs are in the works, but the point is, PG should ALWAYS be run lean. There is not enought here to justify so many salaries.

It would not hurt to recruit people who actually have a real track record of successful leadership and money management. If you keep hiring inbred failures, you are going to continue to see a lot of red on the balance sheets.

That’s what I mean about our many firemen. I think they need to cut some of them loose. It’s silly when you go to the PG website and look at all the names for the fire dept. They are about as busy as the Maytag repairman!

In fact, a study of fire protection on the Peninsula showed that the city’s fire department is actually understaffed, but that wasn’t enough to convince folks to approve the tax – instead it was easier to blame supposedly lazy, greedy workers for the city’s crisis.

Where might all this lead? The cautionary tale is that of Orange County, where conservatives and Republicans high-fived each other in 2005 when they defeated a measure to shift already collected tax monies to help produce more fire coverage. As I explained it back in October:

Orange County Republicans campaigned hard against Measure D, a 2005 ballot proposal that would have diverted $80 million in surplus public safety funds from Proposition 172 to help properly staff Orange County fire departments. The failure of Measure D leads directly to the OCFA’s inability to quickly contain the Santiago Fire when it broke out Sunday evening….

To Steven Greenhut and the Register editorial board, the firefighters’ union is merely a greedy parasite on the public, using bureaucratic rules to claim they need more fire crews in a cynical ploy to line their own pockets.

Such is the natural outcome of an obsession with low taxes. In order to defend the untenable position that taxes must never go up no matter the need or the situation, anti-taxers have to lash out at anyone or anything that might undermine their position. If that includes public safety workers, so be it. If that means cutting back police and fire protection, so be it. To the anti-tax zealots, every man is an island unto himself.

Orange County’s experience last fall suggested otherwise. Let’s hope that Vallejo, Pacific Grove, and the rest of California learns the lesson and, like Salinas, looks to new revenue sources to provide for essential services.