Apparently Sen. Perata needs some more time to rearrange the chairs on the Senate Health Committee.

Sheila Kuehl, Chair of the California Senate Health Committee that is holding a hearing on AB X1 1, the Nunez-Schwarzenegger health coverage bill, has just announced that a vote on the bill by the committee will not take place until Monday. She announced that the delay in the vote on the bill was requested by Senate President pro Tem Don Perata, who is a coauthor of the bill […]

The building is rife with rumors as to Senators being asked to step down from the committee or asking to be taken off of it, and other procedural moves to get the bill out of the committee. With vote postponed, that gives additional time to possibly amend the bill, change the committee membership, and for those on one side or the other of the issue to bombard their Senators with calls, emails, and visits. The outcome is unknown as well as whether Perata will take extraordinary measures to move the bill.

With the LAO report today giving little cover to those pushing the reform (if the average premium is $300 per person, as the LAO expects, the program is underfunded in the first year), and both Kuehl, Yee, and possibly Gloria McLeod wavering, obviously some serious efforts are being made to turn this ship around.  The SF Chronicle had a very good article about this today.

Stay tuned.  It should be a wild weekend in the Capitol.

The massive health care reform plan brokered by Governor Schwarzenegger and Speaker Nuñez has been fraying at the edges a bit in recent weeks.  State hospitals appeared to waver on supporting the fees that would be charged to them under the plan, and hearings in the Senate Health Committee were delayed a week pending an analysis from the Legislative Analyst.  That hearing is currently scheduled for Thursday tomorrow, but State Senator Leland Yee just put a major wrench into that plan.

On the eve of a hearing for landmark health legislation, a spokesman for Sen. Leland Yee said the San Francisco Democrat will oppose the health care measure. The move throws into limbo whether the legislation has the necessary votes to move forward.

“The costs are a big concern for him,” said Adam Keigwin, a spokesman for Yee, regarding the $14 billion health care price tag that coincides with a projected $14.5 billion budget hole […]

Keigwin said Yee conferred with labor leaders in his district over the weekend who were “almost unanimous” in urging Yee “to vote no.”

With Health Committee chair Sheila Kuehl already opposed to the bill, this means that it would be unable to get out of committee without a Republican crossover vote.  And even with moderate (for the GOP) Abel Maldonado on the committee, that is unlikely.

I don’t think this is the end of the bill by a longshot.  Yee or Maldonado could have their arm twisted, or Kuehl could let the bill pass without a recommendation.

What happens next is unclear, though options certainly remain for passage.

For instance, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata could ask Kuehl to grant the measure a courtesy vote, allowing it to proceed to the Senate floor despite her personal opposition.

In an interview Tuesday morning, Kuehl reiterated her position, saying, “I’ve been very clear with all the advocates and everybody that I do not favor the bill.”

She said she had not been contacted by Perata or his staff to support the bill. Asked if she would consider granting a courtesy vote if she was, she replied that she “can’t answer that.”

“In the Senate, we generally are equal as members,” Kuehl added.

Don Perata could also kick Yee off the committee and replace him, although he hasn’t exactly been wildly supportive of the bill thus far.

What will happen is anyone’s guess.  But for the moment, this is a major blow to efforts to overhaul health care in California.

UPDATE: Frank Russo has more:

There are rumors that the report of the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, to be released soon-tonight or tomorrow morning-will not be all that favorable. That report had been sought by Senator Perata in December to further vet and test the assumptions made so that voters would not be faced with a ballot measure with shaky financial underpinnings in a year of a massive budget deficit, cuts in other programs including health, and uncertainties.

Making it even less likely that Perata will act.  But the pressure on him must be intense.

The Governor has continued to assert, and the people largely believe him, that he is somehow removed from the financial troubles that face the state.  And he got an assist from an unlikely source today – former Governor Gray Davis.

So why is California suddenly faced with a $14-billion budget shortfall? Is it because the governor (or the Legislature) did something terribly wrong?

No, the governor of a nation-size state like California can affect the economy, but only on its margins. The reason this deficit is looming is because no one can repeal the business cycle. Just as night follows day, expansionary times will be followed by recessionary times. And yet the overwhelming impulse in Sacramento is to spend every dollar on the table. If a booming economy has the state coffers flush, Democrats say: “There will never be a better time to expand programs than right now.” Republicans counter: “We have too much money. Let’s reduce taxes.” […]

Believe me, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn’t want to close 48 parks, reduce education funding or release prisoners. Like all governors, however, he is required to bring expenditures in line with revenues. I don’t agree with all of his suggested cuts, nor do I endorse all of the critical responses from the Legislature.

There is a significant reform suggested by the governor, however, that I fully endorse. It is a constitutional amendment that would require putting aside a portion of surging revenues in good times as a buffer against painful cuts in bad times. I called for such a “rainy day” fund while in office — and recently former Gov. Pete Wilson also spoke in favor of this idea.

Gray Davis is showing the political acumen that made him the most reviled governor in recent California history.  He’s also being massively dishonest.  Schwarzenegger repealing the Vehicle License Fee’s return to 1998 levels had an undeniable impact.  Furthermore, so did his borrowing through bonds, which costs the state billions of dollars per year.

Are Arnold and the California GOP to blame for this? Who else? Nobody put a gun to their heads and forced them to respond to our last crisis with nothing but a toxic combination of demagoguery and tax-cut jihadism. They did it all on their own. I understand the desire to roll up our sleeves and stop sniping about the past, but let’s not actively rewrite history to pretend that our latest crisis “just happened.” It didn’t. Arnold and his party, despite plenty of warnings from nonpartisan budget analysts about what they were doing, deliberately bequeathed it to us.

And, contrary to Schwarzenegger’s belief, he has a great deal of control over state spending, including a line-item veto.  Trying to fault the legislature for “runaway spending” when he has to sign the document is just completely absurd.  The legislature didn’t go on a “spending spree” on its own, nor did they use revenue only for the purpose of spending; there were billions in tax cuts thrown in as well.

The Governor, and his predecessor, are writing a history of government in California that doesn’t have an executive branch.  This is a falsehood that can only be met with laughter.

We just arrived on the Strip about 20 minutes ago.  We’ll be at campaign events for Obama and Clinton tonight, and out at the caucus sites tomorrow (Mittens Romney will be out at a caucus site at 7:30am, so that could be fun).

I find it instructive to watch the local news reports on caucus eve.  Despite what you’d think, there’s been about 3 minutes of coverage of the caucuses in the last half-hour.  They’ve actually devoted more to the local women’s roller derby team than the caucuses. (ah, local news).  One station had an end-of-the-newscast story where the reporter showed a bunch of pictures of the candidates to people on the street and asked them to name them.  It wasn’t pretty.

When people say they don’t know who’ll show up to these caucuses, I believe it.  It doesn’t seem as central to the local scene as, say, the Danny Gans show.

One thing I did notice on the news: Nevada’s unemployment rate is up to 5.8%, the highest rate since April of 2002.  I’ve heard that it’s been a bad winter in Las Vegas, which may impact the desire of people to caucus if it means missing their shift at the casinos.  (By the way, the casinos made $25 billion last year, so they’re not exactly hurting; but the employees aren’t doing all that well.)

Obama and Clinton both have ads up; Clinton’s has this old NFL Films music on it, and it’s a little surprising that they went el cheapo on the score).

More later…

(more pics, courtesy of the Edwards campaign, at this photo set.)

John Edwards has generated a bit of notoriety today for smacking down Barack Obama’s suggestion that Ronald Reagan can be credibly seen as a model of change.  Edwards didn’t mention any of this today at a rally before hundreds (I’m really no good at judging crowd size, but there were a lot of people there) in downtown Los Angeles at the SEIU Local 721 headquarters, but he did have some choice words for another actor-turned-politician.

On the flip…

The speakers prior to Edwards included members of the Los Angeles City Council, Herb Wesson and Richard Alarcon (Janice Hahn was also in attendance).  All of them made a straight electability argument for Edwards’ candidacy, which was a little jarring (especially because Edwards did not do so).  Wesson even added “I don’t care who’s the first this or the first that, I want the best candidate to lead our country.”

(Wesson also asked “When was the last time California mattered in the Presidential primary, and I yelled “1968 and 1972,” but I don’t think he heard me.  Incidentally, given that three of the intervening races between now and then weren’t competitive, that was only 5 primaries ago.)

Edwards, however, stuck to the facts, and his powerful argument for why he should be President.  He offered the same policy shifts on Iraq (all combat troops out in 12 months), health care (universal coverage mandated for every American, mental health, preventive and long-term care included), global warming (80% reductions in emissions by 2050, no new nuclear or coal-fired power plants), defending the Constitution (ending Guantanamo, torture, rendition, and illegal spying), poverty (expanded social aid and an increase of the minimum wage to $9.50 indexed to inflation), and labor (fair trade and tax policy, the Employee Free Choice Act, no scab hiring, strong support for unions).  But I want to cite two moments that deviated from the script.

First, Edwards has been discussing the sad case of Nataline Sarkysian, the 17 year-old from Glendale who was denied a liver transplant by her health insurer CIGNA, and died shortly after the company reversed the decision.  This time, Sarkysian’s parents were on stage with Sen. Edwards, and when he related that tragic story, I couldn’t help but watch Nataline’s mother choke up.  It was affecting, it hit you right in the gut.  And when Edwards said, in respect to the health insurers, “Are you telling me we should sit down at the table with these people?  Never!  I don’t want to be their President,” it was undeniably moving.

Second, Sen. Edwards obviously did his homework before the rally.  He brought up the California budget crisis, and the austere across-the-board cuts proposed by Gov. Schwarzenegger.  It’s fair to say that he wasn’t a fan.  Here’s his comments (a paraphrase):

I spent a day earlier this year with an SEIU health care worker… the people she cares for need her.  The last thing this or any state needs are cuts to that kind of health care.  The last thing you need are cuts to K-12 education.  Does anybody believe that we are spending too much on K-12 education in this country?

It’s fantastic to have Edwards still in the race.  He’s obviously an underdog at this point, and he willingly acknowledged that, saying that he’s going up against “two hundred-million-dollar candidates.”  The compression of the primary calendar will make it very difficult for him to get his message out to the February 5 states.  Yet he said to the assembled crowd of several hundred that “you have the ability to send a message and build a grassroots movement, a wave across this state and across this country.”  There’s no question that Edwards has driven the policy agenda throughout this race, and his bold strain of populism and unabashed liberalism is sorely needed in Washington.  However, sadly, even some of his most ardent supporters were making the case for Edwards to stay in the race to horde delegates and extract something from the eventual winner, rather than a case for him winning.

A neat postscript: Cate Edwards, the Senator’s daughter, was on hand, and after the speech she was chatting with Mimi Kennedy of PDA, our local election reform activist here in LA.  Minutes later, I saw Cate with something written on her bag: “Bradblog.com”.  Progress is slow, but it’s happening.