There hadn’t been that much to actually do about the budget mess.  Personally, I’ve seen as many cute web videos as I can take.  This is from today’s BearFlagBlue (thank you Sean):

Budget details are beginning to emerge and more rumors of a vote on Friday are floating around…but will it pass?

With Cogdill noncommittal, Correa a likely no, and Maldonado at least right now a definite no, there does not seem a strong change that the bill has the votes to pass the Senate.

The result of that is likely on Friday, the Governor firing 20,000 state employees. High stakes if Maldonado ends up being the deciding vote. In essence he will have put the lives of 20,000 state workers in turmoil over a petty dispute with Controller.

The GOP’s latest excuse for why they just can’t vote on the budget comes down to office furniture. The issue isn’t taxes or spending caps at all according to them. What’s important, is preventing Controller John Chiang from getting a new office chair…at all costs. 20,000 state employees be damned.

Seriously.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

 

And most specifically:  what the hell is wrong with Abel Maldonado?

Your state Democratic party helped reelect this guy.  He’s being a bad, bad dog.

Ideas for better discipline for Abel Maldonado after the flip.

And Abel is actually proud of this.

He’s playing this up to the hilt on his GOP nut job caucus web page:

State Controller is Out of Control

John Chiang wants to spend your tax return money on new office furniture

State Controller John Chiang has already spent $2 million on new office furniture in the past seven months. Now we’ve learned he’s asking for another $1 million in this year’s budget for more furniture!

John Chiang claims that he’s not responsible for the money because it was approved by the previous controller. The $2 million was requested in the last seven months! John Chiang has been in office for two years! Tell the controller to stop passing the buck and stop the spending now.

Help stop this insanity. Tell the controller that you want your tax refund. Tell him to stop spending your tax dollars on new office furniture. Click here to email the State Controller’s Office or call him at (916) 445-2636.

Well, yeah, it’s time to stop the insanity.  Only problem — calling Chiang would be barking up the wrong tree.

But Maldonado’s site helpfully tells us where the right trees are:

Capitol Office

State Capitol, Room 4082

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 651-4015

Fax: (916) 445-8081

San Jose Office

100 Paseo de San Antonio, #206

San Jose, CA 95113

Phone: (408) 277-9461

Fax: (408) 277-9464

Monterey Office

590 Calle Principal

Monterey, CA 93940

Phone: (831) 657-6315

Fax: (831) 657-6320

San Luis Obispo Office

1356 Marsh Street

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Phone: (805) 549-3784

Fax: (805) 549-3779

If you live near any of these places, consider getting a few friends together and raising some holy hell.  Be creative.  And consider inviting local media along for the ride.

I have been furious for the last year at Don Perata’s idiotic decision not to run someone against Maldonado in last year’s election.  We’re paying for that now.  And unless we really rub Abel’s nose in the mess he’s making, he’ll keep right on making them.

Abel’s been a bad dog folks.  Let’s see how well he does agility testing when folks start running at him.

The final numbers on the stimulus package are trickling out.  Some of the baseline investments are here:

* Investments in Infrastructure and Science – $120 billion

* Investments in Health – $14.2 billion

* Investments in Education and Training – $105.9 billion

* Investments in Energy, including over $30 billion in infrastructure – $37.5 billion

* Helping Americans Hit Hardest by the Economic Crisis – $24.3 billion

* Law Enforcement, Oversight, Other Programs – $7.8 billion

It’s unquestionable that the conference report is worse than the House bill but better than the Senate.  It costs less than the Senate bill while providing more stimulus.  Some bad spending like the clean coal “FutureGen” project is out, along with some of the worst corporate tax breaks.  Mass transit spending is up, the child tax credit was partially restored to House levels (now kicking in after $3,000 in income), and the state fiscal stabilization fund gets around $54 million (but that includes funding for school construction).  You can find the full summary here.

There are some very solid elements to the bill.  White House economists estimate that the package will create or save 396,000 jobs in California and 3.5 million nationwide.  This is a down payment on a new generation of investment in America.

However, like with most Congressional sausage-making, there may be some rough patches.  The worst is the allegation that Dianne Feinstein is trying to include filtering into the stimulus as part of the program to expand broadband capacity across the country.

The Open Internet Coalition – which includes groups like Public Knowledge, Free Press and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) – is applauding the more than $2 billion expected to be in the stimulus bill for broadband build-out in rural or underserved areas. They say not only will building out high-speed Internet instantly create jobs, but giving people in those areas more access to the Internet will spur small-business creation and other growth […]

These groups are also over-the-moon about the fact that the Senate bill has a non-discrimination, interconnection requirement that essentially says any provider receiving stimulus funding has to make sure they provide equal access to everyone over their network (part of the so-called “net neutrality” debate). The House version requires the FCC to define “open access,” which essentially calls for carriers to share their networks with competitors.

But they’re worried Hollywood is still trying to insert a content filtering provision via Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., at the last minute. Feinstein has been trying to add language specifying that Internet service provider (ISPs) may engage in “reasonable network management” … “such as” efforts to combat illegal activity like “child pornography and copyright infringement.” In essence, some argue, ISPs would be able to monitor any content coming to and from your computer, just in case there was some copyrighted material violating fair use, or kiddie porn in there.

But groups like the Motion Picture Association of America stress the “network management” angle of the bill (“filtering” is a nasty word around these parts). After all, it’s hard to argue against stopping kiddie porn from being sent over one’s pipes. I’ve left a message with Feinstein’s press office to see what the status of her amendment is. It doesn’t appear to be in there, but I’ll let you know if she plans on trying to stick it in at some point.

“Of course we see huge privacy invasions from this sort of thing,” said Cathy Sloan of CCIA.

Now, some caveats.  There was a hyperventilating story in the UK Register claiming that this would kill net neutrality.  As stated earlier, there are open access provisions in the stimulus, and it doesn’t appear that this amendment even made it into the final version.  This looks to me to be more of a privacy and anti-competition issue.

In another part of that story, Henry Waxman was implicated.  His office has assured multiple constituents, including yours truly, that he has had nothing to do with any filtering amendment.

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t be concerned.  DiFi is allegedly trying to pay back a corporate constituent with a highly invasive amendment that would certainly violate the spirit if not the letter of privacy laws.  And of course this kind of monitoring is a slippery slope, as are most IP issues.  At the root I agree with John Cole:

As baseball season is getting close, I would like to propose a trade. We give the Republicans Dianne Feinstein and a PTBNL and they give us Olympia Snowe. This is a solid trade for us. With Judd Gregg at commerce, we would almost complete the New England rout, and Feinstein, as a newly minted Republican, will go down to certain defeat in California. Additionally, there is nothing in this agreement that says the PTBNL can’t be Nelson or Lieberman.

Before last night’s blogger conference call with LA City Council President Eric Garcetti, my opinions of the budget deal from Sacramento weren’t very well-formed.  I think I have become so inured to craptastic solutions from Sacramento that this one looked no worse than others.  Of course, I don’t have a responsibility to constituents and a need to implement the outlines of the plan, so Garcetti’s very forceful words against the package kind of snapped me out of my slumber.  Here’s a paraphrase.

“I think it’s a reflection of a broken system.  It’s like shooting a little morphine into a sick patient.  I think depending on federal dollars to balance the budget is irresponsible, and will blunt the impact of the stimulus.  It means that the county and school districts will see a lot of projects rolled back.  The health care cuts are going to be devastating.  You’re going to see a lot more homeless people this year, a lot more people who need critical care and can’t get it.  So there is no joy in this resolution other than that it is a resolution.”

Very strong stuff.  And he’s not wrong.  My one quibble would be that it’s not the reliance on federal stimulus dollars to balance the budget, which is necessary and will save jobs throughout the system, that gets me, but the continued reliance on borrowing and the raid of voter-approved funds for mental health and early childhood programs, which is illegal and will require the unlikelihood of passing new initiatives.  

There isn’t any margin for error if, say, one of the FIVE measures that will now be on the ballot in order to secure the budget fail, or if the giant corporate tax cut fails to satiate business, or if nobody wants to buy our debt or buy the state lottery, which is losing revenue.  It’s another seat-of-our-pants craptastic budget which makes no long-term solutions and essentially keeps intact a broken structure.  Garcetti is right that the problem is systemic, and so that’s the goal for progressives in the state for this point forward – systemic change.

Bill Clinton must make a choice.  He must decide whether a speech for big bucks is more important than honoring a labor and activist boycott. On Feb. 15, the former President is scheduled to make a speech at the Manchester Hyatt.  

As a refresher, Mr. Manchester gave some of the initial seed money to get Proposition 8 on the ballot, $125,000 to be exact.  Since then, a coalition of labor, LGBT, and grassroots organizations has promoted a boycott against the hotel.  And it has been quite successful, with groups such as the American Assoc. of Law Schools moving their events.

But our former Democratic president still seems intent on breaking the boycott. That’s why a diverse coalition of leaders has taken an ad out in the New York Daily News to ask him not to break the boycott.  You can check the ad to the right, and in context at the Daily News politics blog. Also, read the full letter at their site, moveclintonspeech.info. It’s signed by leaders like San Diego city councilman Todd Gloria, Unite-HERE Local 30 president Brigette Browning, San Diego Dem. County Chair  and DNC member Jess Durfee, and the Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs.

Rest assured that if Clinton plans on busting the boycott, he’ll have to pretend he doesn’t notice the rally outside.  Activists from around the region are planning on protesting the speech.  Clinton should move the speech or just not give it.  Together, we will bend the arc of history for justice.  But we must be united.

I will be on KRXA 540 AM at 8 to discuss this and other topics in California politics

Kevin Yamamura of the Sac Bee provides us with the most detailed look yet at the proposed budget deal:

The plan includes $15.8 billion in spending cuts, $14.3 billion in taxes and $10.9 billion in borrowing, according to a budget outline obtained by The Bee. The state also anticipates billions in federal stimulus money, which would reduce each component of the solution if California receives more than $9.2 billion.

Of course, thanks to the United States Senate, it’s not entirely likely that California will receive $9.2 billion, and it’s also uncertain whether the state can redirect the stimulus as proposed. The full details from Capitol Alert:

Gives K-12 education $5 billion less than it was otherwise entitled.

Eliminates two paid holidays for state workers, with the final number of furlough days per month through June 2010 still subject to negotiation.

Cuts UC and CSU by 10 percent.

Eliminates cost-of-living increases for recipients of CAL-Works and SSI-SSP.

Cuts the corrections department’s medical budget by 10 percent.

Eliminates funding for local public transit agencies.

On the tax side, the plan increases sales tax by 1 cent on the dollar, vehicle license fees from current 0.65 percent of vehicle value to 1.15 percent, and gasoline taxes by 12 cents a gallon with proceeds to pay off transportation bonds. Income taxpayers would pay a 2.5 percent surcharge on tax liability – 5 percent if federal stimulus comes in under $10 billion. Reduces tax credit for dependents from $309 to $99.

Taxes would be increased for two years, and an additional one to three years if the spending restriction measure is approved on the ballot.

Other new “revenues” include taking from voter-approved taxes for mental health and early childhood programs.

The whole thing would have to go before voters in a whopping five-measure package: borrowing from the lottery, changing Proposition 98, approving the spending cap, and taking funds from Proposition 10 (tobacco tax for early childhood programs) and Proposition 63 (tax on millionaires for mental-health programs).

Some of that isn’t awful, and some of that is truly insane (eliminating funding for local transit agencies is an act of madness, and cutting the prison medical budget even further is just going to cause more problems and costs for the state down the road when the feds get involved). But the key question now doesn’t seem to be “what’s the in the deal” but “who will vote for it?” Back to the Yamamura article, Speaker Karen Bass is a bit more cautious in describing the state of things:

“I’ve been in this position now, it seems like every week for the last five weeks,” she said. “And, you know, we get back in the room and something blows up.”

So far the uncertain votes are so-called “moderates” like Lou Correa (Dem, SD-34) and Abel Maldonado (Rep, SD-15), and conservatives like Dennis Hollingsworth (Rep, SD-36) (see update below on Hollingsworth). What this axis looks like is the same axis of stupidity that sank the best parts of the federal stimulus – centrist Dems and their allies across the aisle.

The problem of course is that the deal itself isn’t really worth defending and it’s hard to generate much activism for it. But the individual Senators themselves are a, shall we say, target rich environment for especially in Maldonado’s case, putting chairs over children. The goal now is to lean hard and heavy on these recalcitrant Senators, while beginning to ramp up public sentiment in favor of taxes to protect services. (Yes, we should have done that sooner, and I’m as guilty as anyone for not doing so).

Update by Robert: Dennis Hollingsworth’s communications director emailed me to clarify there’s no “uncertainty” regarding that pillar of the Yacht Party: he opposes the deal. I thought this part of his statement was worth quoting:

If this passes with Republican votes, there will be no reason for any Californian to vote for a Republican in the future. The people sent Republicans to Sacramento to be a blockade against tax increases. Once that wall crumbles, there will be no end to the expansion of taxes and spending. The people will rightly figure they can vote for Democrats and at least stand a fair chance of getting their entitlements and programs along with tax increases. As Republicans, we will only remain as the party that gives them tax increases and no programs.

In other words, Californians want Democrats to give them schools and health care and roads and buses and economic growth – but Republicans are there to make sure none of those horrible things happen!

And they wonder why their party has such a hard time winning statewide elections.

Here we go on a busy day:

• California’s Leon Panetta’s confirmation finally got out of committee, and should be confirmed by the full Senate shortly.

• Some advice to the conference committee: IGNORE REP. JERRY LEWIS, who was appointed to the conference committee for the stimulus. The man is corrupt. On the other hand, I’m sure if you built a highway near his land, he might be willing to talk.

• The Washington Post is reporting that Obama is considering Lloyd Dean, head of Catholic Healthcare West for the Health and Human Services gig.  (h/t CapAlert) Dean was a big Arnold fan during the so-called (and failed) “Year of Healthcare Reform.”

• The Majority Report begins a series looking at potential Yacht Party targets for 2010.  First up is Cameron Smyth in AD-38 (Santa Clarita).  We’ll be ramping up this kind of coverage a few months down the road.

• LA City Attorney (and AG hopeful?) Rocky Delgadillo settled with HealthNet over their practice of rescinding coverage for their insureds when they dare to make a claim. PDF Press release here.  In addition, Anthem Blue Cross is agreeing to take back clients and pay a $1 million dollar fine in its rescission case.