All posts by Brian Leubitz

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Schwarzenegger Brags on Government Reforms

Arnold SchwarzeneggerFormer Governor speaks out on redistricting and top two reforms

by Brian Leubitz

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had his ups and downs as governor. He peaked That’s not all that abnormal, but with him it was entirely predictable. When he went toward the middle/leftish, he was up. When he veered hard right, he went down. 2005 hard-right special election? Down. AB 32? Up. And, more relevant here, redistricting measures? Up. You can check his approval rating history here.

And so he’s trying to craft his legacy around the government reforms that have largely been quite popular. He’ll be speaking at USC this morning about redistricting and Top-2. Yesterday, he published an op-ed that lets us know which victory lap he’ll be taking.

Many of us believed, and voters agreed, that the two reforms in combination would put California on a path toward breaking up gridlock and hyper-partisanship, and making government work better for our citizens.

We were basing our efforts on common sense and a commitment to putting people over politics. And now, the early results are starting to come in, and they show that these reforms are working.

In 2012, the top-two primary yielded 28 elections that, for the first time, pitted members of the same party against one another. Also, legislative districts that previously had been gerrymandered to protect politicians were no longer “safe” for one party or the other. … This year’s races could shake things up even more, as candidates for office are forced to appeal to all voters, not just the party bosses.(Arnold Shwarzenegger in SF Chronicle)

Now, I think he has a few fair points in the op-ed. I was a strong opponent of the redistricting system when it was on the ballot, both times actually. But I’m big enough to admit that I was wrong. The system was far more responsive to the needs and desires of the voters, rather than the legislators. The process was transparent as any we have seen, and the results were fair. Sure, there were some who were disappointed by the results, but a fair system was always likely to upset some of the entrenched apple carts.

But, as for top two, the system clearly has some big flaws. First, despite his claims that somehow the primary system allowed “party bosses” to choose, the primary system was made up of voters. There is no better example of this than the Tea Party, an insurgent force within the Republican party. How many times have we now seen the wishes of party bosses completely ignored at the ballot box? And let’s face it, the “party bosses” are bosses in name only these days. The bosses are really the big independent expenditure funding campaigns. Where they go, eventually our politics follows.

But the bigger issue of Top 2 is the troubling results it can sometimes yield to triumphs of game theory over the desires of constituents. There is no better example of this than California’s 31st district in 2012. In that election, two well-known Republicans ran against four less well known Democrats in a district with a 15+% Democratic registration advantage. In a relatively low turnout June primary, Democrats received 33,402 votes, and Republicans received 32,265 votes. Yet there was no Democrat on the ballot. This is a brilliant play for Republicans, they picked up a seat they wouldn’t have had otherwise. But, in the end, a plurality of voters in the district did not have an option from their own party. How does that make sense?

Add in the very troubling impacts of Top 2 on third parties, and you have a muddled, confusing, and anti-democratic system that favors parties that game the system with tight party boss control. If your party boss can’t impose discipline, you may end up with no candidates on the general election ballot.

Finally, with all of this, Schwarzenegger’s stated purpose was to create a more “moderate” legislature. In California, that really meant a less progressive, more pro-corporate body. It is hard to deny that Schwarzenegger was at least somewhat successful on that front. Despite the 2/3 Democratic control, many of these Democrats moved the caucus to the right. Now, whether you value the goal of making the legislature more moderate could lead you to differing judgments on Gov. Schwarzenegger. One would hope that a chief goal of structural government reform is to create a legislature that fairly and accurately represents the constituents, but that was never Schwarzengger’s thing. Sure, he had a flair for populist rhetoric, but drifted in other directions when in office.

Schwarzenegger will be talking to the hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, so you will likely be able to see snippets of the conversation on TV. But, from a Governor who finished with an approval rating around 20% in 2010, there is a lot of work left to fully rehabilitate his legacy that a flawed government reform like Top 2 can’t address.

Environment

About that “Carbon Tax”

darrell steinbergSteinberg proposal would throw monkey wrench into cap and trade

by Brian Leubitz

Cap and trade is far from perfect. And if you ask many economists, you’d find a carbon tax as a solid alternative. However, a muddy mix of the two? Well, that raises more questions than it answers.

And, so we have Sen. Steinberg’s proposal:

Next year for the first time, transportation fuels will come under the program: oil companies will have to account for the emissions from Californians’ cars and trucks. The cost of buying additional pollution permits is one that companies are almost certain to pass along to consumers.

Steinberg’s plan would make it more direct, as a tax that we pay at the pump. His reasoning is that while drivers will pay more for gas either way, with a tax the increase is more predictable and transparent.

“What people in California also need is pollution cuts,” said Tim O’Connor, director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s California Climate Initiative. He said that while he supports some of the ideas behind Steinberg’s proposal, he’s concerned it could undermine California’s efforts to charge for the right to pollute, and to reduce greenhouse emissions overall. (KQED / Molly Samuel)

The bill seems far from complete, and will likely get a lot of revisions. But, today is the deadline for bills to be filed, and so here we have something. Now, generally when the Western States Petroleum Association is happy, as they have said they are eager to listen to these changes, it should draw attention.

Whether these changes would go anywhere involves a lot of questions for a system that was just about to start in earnest next year. This will surely change, but environmentalists will want to keep a keen eye on this bill.

San Francisco

Field: Californians Support Further Regulation of Sugar Beverages

Added sugar leads to profound health risks

by Brian Leubitz

Last year, under a flood of beverage industry money, two proposed sugary beverage taxes were easily defeated in Richmond and El Monte. However, Californians are still wary of the health risks that they present. To wit:

California voters endorse a proposal to require beverage companies to post a health-warning label on sodas and sugary drinks to alert consumers that their daily consumption contributes to diabetes, obesity and tooth decay. Statewide 74% of voters back this requirement, of whom 52% do so strongly. Support is bipartisan, with large majorities of Democrats (80%), Republicans (64%) and non-partisans (75%) endorsing the idea.

The poll also finds continuing support among the statewide voting public to tax the sale of sodas and other sugary drinks and use its proceeds for school nutrition and physical activity programs for kids. Two in three voters (67%) favor this proposal. The results are similar to a Field Poll completed in late 2012, which found 68% of voters statewide supporting such a tax. (Field (PDF))

Unfortunately, the beverage industry isn’t keen on leaving anything to chance. And now San Francisco, led by Supervisors Scott Wiener, Eric Mar and Malia Cohen, are looking to put exactly such a measure on the ballot for November. The statewide poll found that within the San Francisco Bay Area, 78% of residents favor a soda tax to fund school nutrition and physical activity programs to reduce diabetes. San Francisco voters support it, but will all that Coke and Pepsi money be enough to confuse the issue.

Look, there are clearly some issues with the regressiveness of the sugar beverage tax. I don’t have the exact figures on this, but one would expect to see that under the proposed measure, low to middle income San Franciscans would pay a far larger share of the tax than for other taxes. However, that is also the case with tobacco taxes, yet we tolerate those. The fact is that while sugary beverages have not yet been proved to be as dangerous as tobacco, they carry very severe health risks. The Boston Public Health Commission has some startling statistics.

  • One, 20-oz bottle of regular soda has about 16 teaspoons of sugar.
  • Teens consume twice as much soda as they do milk.
  • On an average day, 80% of youth consume a sugary drink.
  • A single, 20-ounce bottle of regular soda has about 16 teaspoons of sugar.
  • The average person consumes almost 100 pounds of sugar a year, with the single biggest source being sodas.
  • The American Heart Association recommends that the maximum daily intake of added sugars be no more than 4.5 teaspoons for teens aged 12-19.
  • Did you know, health costs of obesity in the United States are $147 billion annually? That’s like buying everyone in the U.S. an iPad.

    • Economists call such taxes a case of “internalizing externalities.” In other words, the government has been subsidizing these beverages, in the form of health care, for years. It is now time to include those costs in the price of the beverage.

    Uncategorized

    The Drought and Fracking

    1 Comment

    Fracking and waterFracking requires vast amounts of water, where it will come from in a parched state

    by Brian Leubitz

    I’ve been writing a lot about the drought, more than I’ve wanted to recently. But the hits just keep on coming. In recent news, there is word that up to two million acres may be apportioned no water at all, thereby made to lie fallow. Of course, some of this is simply mandated by mathematics. To give enough water to the best farmland, you must let some lie fallow. The Republicans argue that we can simply take from the water we release to the rivers and the Bay, but that simply pits other interests against each other, most notably fishermen, of both the sporting and commercial varieties. George Skelton has a good take on this:

    Don’t blame the little fish. And don’t call it the Central Valley.

    Both comments, repeated incessantly, were irritants during President Obama’s visit to parched California farm country last week.

    The president was there-in the San Joaquin Valley-to cuddle with water hogs. The hogs are large growers who use lots of water, have just about run out and are angry because they’re being denied other people’s. And they keep complaining that the government is favoring a little “bait fish” over farmers.

    *** **** ***

    So water deliveries have been restricted not just for smelt, but also to protect salmon and the coastal fishing industry. It’s not about farmers vs. fish. It’s about farmers vs. fishermen. Or almonds vs. salmon. (LA Times / George Skelton)

    Read the whole Skelton piece, it is a refreshingly honest take on the various interests that you don’t often see these days. Water interests are varied, and can’t simply be boiled down to farmers vs smelt. Skelton rephrases that debate as “almonds vs. salmon”, a far more apt analogy. But, there is another huge water hog wating to join the queue for our very limited trough: the fracking industry.

    Of course, water usage isn’t probably the first concern of most environmentalists, myself included, with respect to fracking. The issues are deep and pervasive, there are many questions that remain unanswered. Issues of safety, water quality, and seismic stability are far from fully researched and should give the state pause. This is especially true in the days after a major fracking accident in Pennsylvania. (But don’t worry, they’ll give you a free pizza)

    In places like Pennsylvania, where there is plenty of water for the moment, this isn’t that big of an issue. But, the Times looks to Greeley, Colorado, itself in the midst of a drought. While it is not as severe as our own right now, water is always precious in the West. It takes a lot of water to operate hydraulic fracturing (thus the hydraulic part of that phrase):

    Last fall the Environment America Research and Policy Center estimated that at least 250 billion gallons of water had been used since 2005 in the estimated 80,000 wells in 17 states. Drought-prone Texas led the way with at least 110 billion gallons.(LA Times / Jenny Deam)

    As we move forward with hydraulic fracturing in what is expected to be a large reserve of natural gas in our Monterey shale, perhaps Alex Prud’homme asks the right question, will it be a boom or a boondoggle. It is imperative that we consider all the costs, both internal and external, before we move forward with any plan to aggressively tap our shale.

    Uncategorized

    Tom Steyer Plans on Spending Big on Climate Change Advocacy

    Former Hedge Fund Manager turned climate activist looks to make climate change big 2016 issue

    by Brian Leubitz

    Tom Steyer is no stranger to opening up his pocket book for causes in which he believes. He pretty much funded the Yes on Prop 39 by himself, contributing over $30m to the measure. He’s now looking to spread his message to a wider audience, hoping to put the issue of climate change back on the radar.

    California billionaire Tom Steyer turned heads in Washington with the news that he plans to spend $100 million to help make climate change a defining issue in this year’s elections.

    But it gets even bigger: The hedge fund executive turned green activist might be willing to lay out even more than that eye-popping number, and he’s looking to spend it in places that are also important for 2016.(Politico)

    His NextGen Climate Action SuperPAC is looking at going into a slew of important Senate and gubernatorial races, especially races that feature a climate change “denier.”

    Some are calling Steyer a sort of anti-Koch, but it is easy to overestimate the operation as well as misstating motives. First, Steyer does not have anywhere near the operation that the Kochs have. The Kochs have been building infrastructure for years, and have fostered a broad network of self-interested donors. Steyer has none of that infrastructure, but also none of the aversion to the media. He’s friendly and media savvy, eager to explain why he focuses his time on climate change. Oh, and he seems not to have the duties to legacy environmental organizations and their donors that can occasionally unsettle coalitions.

    Whether Steyer has plans, as rumored, of a race for Governor here in 2018 is still an open question. But he’s certainly going to make a name for himself in the next two years if he does spend that $100 million.

    Uncategorized

    Justice Joyce Kennard to Step Down April 5

    3 Comments

    After serving 25 years, justice steps down

    by Brian Leubitz

    Gov. Brown will get to make another appointment to the California Supreme Court, after Justice Joyce Kennard announced her retirement.

    Kennard, 72, plans to resign effective April 5, giving Gov. Jerry Brown his second opportunity to fill a California Supreme Court vacancy after having appointed Justice Goodwin Liu in 2011.(SacBee)

    Justice Kennard’s resignation date of April 5 will be exactly twenty-five years after she was appointed by Gov. Deukmejian.  Though appointed by a Republican, Kennard wasn’t a hard-liner. She was definitely business friendly, but also wrote a strong concurrence in In re marriage cases striking down Prop. 22 and allowing for our brief period of marriage equality back in 2008.

    In holding today that the right to marry guaranteed by the state Constitution may not be withheld from anyone on the ground of sexual orientation, this court discharges its gravest and most important responsibility under our constitutional form of government. There is a reason why the words “Equal Justice Under Law” are inscribed above the entrance to the courthouse of the United States Supreme Court.

    Given that he has a couple of months before she retires, Brown will likely take a few weeks to vet candidates for the post. A mid-March announcement seems the likeliest right now.

    Jerry Brown, Prisons

    Three Judge Panel Designs Plan to Reduce Prison Population within Two Years

    1 Comment

    San Quentin State Prison California taken from a passing ferryPanel say the delays are costing the taxpayers

    by Brian Leubitz

    At some point, whether this year or two years from now, the state will have to get the prison population down to 137.5% of its designed capacity, or around 112,000 prisoners. Gov. Brown has been working on that primarily through realignment and shifting prisoners to private prisons out of state. The three judge panel took a look and decided the deadline should wait. But there’s a catch in the ruling (Full court order here):

    Under Monday’s order, the state has until Feb. 28, 2016, to reduce the inmate population in its 34 adult prisons – designed to hold 81,574 inmates – to 137.5 percent of its current design capacity. State prisons now house roughly 117,600 inmates. The order requires the number to be reduced to 112,164 and bars the state from sending inmates to out-of-state prisons to get to that level. (SacBee)

    Beyond that agreement not to send prisoners out of state, the state also agreed that they would seek to reduce the current out of state population of 8,900. Furthermore, the judges went ahead and outlined how the state was going to get down to that 137.5% figure pretty explicitly, with benchmarks and an appointed compliance officer.

    Many of the media reports are simply referring this order as a stay of execution, but rather it is a compromise that requires the state to meet certain conditions. Beyond seeking additional space in county jails, the state will implement the following 8-point plan agreed to by the court:

    (a) Increase credits prospectively for non-violent second-strike offenders and minimum custody inmates. Non-violent second-strikers will be eligible to earn good time credits at 33.3% and will be eligible to earn milestone credits for completing rehabilitative programs. Minimum custody inmates will be eligible to earn 2-for-1 good time credits to the extent such credits do not deplete participation in fire camps where inmates also earn 2-for-1 good time credits;

    (b) Create and implement a new parole determination process through which non-violent second-strikers will be eligible for parole consideration by the Board of Parole Hearings once they have served 50% of their sentence;

    (c) Parole certain inmates serving indeterminate sentences who have already been granted parole by the Board of Parole Hearings but have future parole dates;

    (d) In consultation with the Receiver’s office, finalize and implement an expanded parole process for medically incapacitated inmates;

    (e) Finalize and implement a new parole process whereby inmates who are 60 years of age or older and have served a minimum of twenty-five years of their sentence will be referred to the Board of Parole Hearings to determine suitability for parole;

    (f) Activate new reentry hubs at a total of 13 designated prisons to be operational within one year from the date of this order;

    (g) Pursue expansion of pilot reentry programs with additional counties and local communities; and

    (h) Implement an expanded alternative custody program for female inmates. (Order at p. 3)

    The Compliance Officer will be checking in with the court, but the court plans on retaining jurisdiction over the prison system until the reductions are deemed “durable.”

    In the end, this is a very reasonable plan for all parties. It makes the prison system safer and healthier for prisoners and guards. It will shift focus from parole violaters and other low-risk offenders to the most dangerous elements in the prisons. There is a lot of evidence that we can make our communities safer through more rational sentencing, and perhaps this can be the hammer that prods us along that course.

    Uncategorized

    Preliminary Endorsement Recommendations from the CDP Pre-Endorsement Conventions

    Recommendations will have to be ratified at CDP Convention in early March

    by Brian Leubitz

    The CDP released its recommendations from the pre-endorsement conventions held in each of the regions this weekend. You can check out the full PDF here. In some of the competitive races, Tim Sbranti got the nod in AD-16, Dan Wolk in AD-04, and Ted Leiu in CD-33. Meanwhile, several districts will be going to caucus at the convention, including AD-15 in the Berkeley area, AD-07 in Sacramento, and the somewhat intense race between Eric Swalwell and Ellen Corbett in CD-15.

    All of these recommendations are subject to ratification at the CDP convention in Los Angeles on March 7-9. You can get the full details of the CDP endorsement process here.

    Uncategorized

    SD-Mayor Race Comes Down to Last Minute as President Obama endorses Alvarez

    4 Comments

    california_nurses_association_endorses_david_alvarez_mayor_DA2Councilmember David Alvarez looks to increase GOTV on election day tomorrow

    by Brian Leubitz

    David Alvarez was a little behind the game when he squeaked into the second run-off spot for the special election after former Mayor Filner was forced to abdicate the post.  Kevin Falcouner had a lead, and had mostly consolidated the Republican base in the city. On the other hand, Alvarez was coming off a contentious race against Republican turned Independent turned Democrat Nathan Fletcher. Fletcher endorsed Alvarez, and quietly stepped away from San Diego politics, leaving a lot of wounds to heal.

    But, slowly that process has occurred and Alvarez is now showing strong support from Democrats and beyond. While iti is technically a nonpartisan race, the city of San Diego went strongly for President Obama in both 2008 and 2012. In 2012, over 61% of the vote went to Obama, and that makes the news of his endorsement in the race that much more powerful:

    “As a native San Diegan, David Alvarez has been a fierce advocate for his city, and on the Council, has led efforts to build a strong middle class, put neighborhoods first and expand opportunities for kids in and out of school,” Obama said in a statement. “Today, with the city’s economy and neighborhoods poised to make progress there is no question that David is the right choice to be San Diego’s next mayor and I am excited to support him.” (KPBS)

    But, there is a lot of work to be done. The race is a dead heat in recent polling, and turnout will be critical. You can make calls to help GOTV through the CDP here. Better yet, if you are in the San Diego area, there is simply no replacement for door knockers on election day.  Click here for an event calendar and to get involved tomorrow.

    Uncategorized

    Six Californias Make Far Less Sense than One

    4 Comments

    Venture Capitalist Tim Draper’s Initiative Proposal Won’t Work

    by Brian Leubitz

    There is really no hedging necessary in that above statement. California clearly has regionalism, in government and in culture, to break into six states as Draper proposes in his potential ballot measure. Not only would the breakup cause huge water issues, but the finances would simply break down. Fortunately for us, the LAO broke it all down in a nice easy report.

    At times, some conservative Central Valley legislators talk about how coastal California legislators are just too spend-y, and if they had their way, they would run a lean ship. Turns out they would need to, as the potential Central Valley state envisioned by Draper’s plan would be among the nation’s poorest states, with the state of Jefferson not too far behind.

    There is also the troubling issues the lines in this new state raise serious questions. Why, for example, is Marin County part of “Northern” California rather than the Bay Area state of Silicon Valley? If you do switch Marin to Silicon Valley, income levels of Silicon Valley would go up further, and North California would fall back substantially.

    The bigger question is how each state would be able to produce a budget. Central California would have the highest need for social services, but the lowest revenue. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley would be flush with income and property tax revenues. Hey, looks like the children of Silicon Valley will be getting iPads in the classroom.

    Beyond that, there is the fact that the distribution of facilities is far from equal. There are more prisons in the Central Valley, but the UC/CSU campuses are spread all over the state. This proposal would mean more administration costs for those systems, hardly what they need right now.

    In the end, why bother with this? Yes, there is occasionally tension because of water, or spending or what not, but this is simply rash to break up the state. Yes, we are headed to 50 million people, and Sacramento can be distant. But surely there is something between doing nothing and breaking up the state. We can do more to empower the counties to bring government closer, expand “realignment” beyond the criminal justice system.

    As a thought exercise, though, this was a valuable report. It gives us a lot of information about how wealth and resources are divided and implies that we can do more to bring government close. I’m not sure the LAO would have done this sort of exercise without this sort of impetus. So, at least something valuable came out of this, and one suspects that we aren’t likely to see this measure on the ballot anytime soon.