San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed was never really a traditional Democrat. He never really had a strong labor base, and was never particularly well connected to the LGBT community. His objection to joining the Mayors for Marriage Equality campaign gave rise to much nashing of teeth in the Bay Area’s largest city.
However, the city council found a better way to put their city on record in support of the cause of marriage equality.
But this week Councilman Ash Kalra found an appropriate way to show support for equal marriage rights on behalf of San Jose, whose voters rejected Proposition 8 in 2008 when it passed statewide. With Councilmen Don Rocha, Kansen Chu and Xavier Campos, Kalra proposed that San Jose join in San Francisco’s argument to the United States Supreme Court that the same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional.
The motion passed by a surprising 9-1. Newly-seated District 10 Councilman Johnny Khamis did not vote, raising eyebrows when he left the meeting without explanation before the discussion. The lone no vote was Reed. So that would mean — yes, it’s true: Conservative Republican Pete Constant, who supported Proposition 8 and rarely sees eye to eye with Kalra on anything, concurred in the motion.(SJ Merc)
Constant is hardly a progressive, but somehow he found it within himself to support the right for loving couples to married, under civil law. Progress…
The California Republican Party (CRP) is in a cash deficit, that much is clear. How much exactly would take a lot more digging, and perhaps a psychic connection to some of their vendors. And apparently ESP is not one of former Sen. Jim Brulte’s skills.
Brulte, who is uncontested in his bid for the CRP chairmanship, estimated that the debt might be the better part of a million dollars:
The former GOP Senate leader, who is expected to take helm of the embattled party next month, said Wednesday that the CRP is between $500,000 and $800,000 in the red, a figure he says could vary based on the potential for legal battles with former vendors.
“This is more like a bankruptcy workout,” Brulte said of setting up party infrastructure as chairman. “First of all you have to pay off your debt, hopefully while you’re doing programs simultaneously. We have to increase our income and reduce our expenses, that’s just prudent.”
The irony of the party that touts itself as “fiscally conservative” in a fiscal mess is, well, funny. But the problem for Brulte is really far deeper than some cash.
But, starting with the cash, how exactly is he supposed to raise it? The party is basically irrelevant, Democrats have or will have supermajorities in both chambers of the Legislature, and all of the state constitutional offices. Brulte will have to get contributions despite all of that. On the other hand, if you look at the efforts to restore the financial situation of the CDP in 2009, they had a strong wind at their backs. Brulte has none of that.
Brulte is also facing the big schism in the GOP, that is, the party is tearing itself up over “electability.” The grassroots right-wing base has been creating havoc, nominating characters like Todd Akin. Top-2 somewhat distorts that here, but there is still much of that grassroots vs establishment angst in the CRP here. That Karl Rove, who is currently launching a war against the most unelectable of the extremists, is the featured speaker of the upcoming convention does not help that point.
Brulte faces an enormous task: make the CRP relevant again. One wonders if even the biggest legends of the CRP could take that on. Maybe a multi-headed monster of Hiram Johnson (yes, he was a Republican), Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger?
But he did get a nice vacation in the most beautiful state!
by Brian Leubitz
Rick Perry’s swoop through Southern California appears to be over, and he’s leaving without much other than a few parties to show for it:
On a conference call with reporters from Laguna Beach, the Republican said he spent his four days meeting with entrepreneurs and business leaders and held a reception for more than 200 California companies that have expressed interest in moving to Texas. Such relocations can take time, but Perry also offered no details on prospects, much less concrete announcements. …
Perry said on the call that “this isn’t about bashing California; it’s about promoting Texas.” But he went on to offer a few digs. When asked if Texas’ light regulatory rules have contributed to a high number of worksite deaths, the governor said he thought it had more to do with high-risk oil and gas industry jobs prevalent in his state.
“Y’all in California are not very knowledgeable about the energy industry and that is a fairly dangerous workplace,” Perry said, ignoring California’s green-technology initiatives. (Houston Chronicle)
Not sure what to say here, other than California has plenty of dangerous jobs, yet a much lower incidence of injuries. Surely that couldn’t be the work of workplace safety regulations.
Perry’s little stunt with the $14,000 radio ad got some press, but it also got this clever response from the Lone Star Project. (see right)
Now whether Perry chooses to acknowledge it, California has several major advantages that can’t simply be tossed aside. Silicon Valley is a technology cluster like no other, and Hollywood, is, well, Hollywood. Our renewable energy standards mean that we will be in the middle of the green economy, a ship that Texas is letting sail by.
California remains the home of innovation. Surely every state has its peccadilloes, but our resources are vast and our economy is growing. It’s a great time to be in California.
Housing, not taxes, are forcing people out of California
by Brian Leubitz
There is much ado about the “job creators” fleeing California because of the high taxes. These uber wealthy are leaving, so we are told, because the high income taxes just aren’t worth it.
Except that isn’t true at all. In a new analysis by Trulia.com chief economist Jed Kolko, housing is the culprit:
Here are the basic facts. In 2011, 562,000 people left California, and 468,000 came, according to the Census’s American Community Survey. That means 120 people moved out of California for every 100 people who moved in. Out-migration reached its peak in 2005, when 160 people moved out of California for every 100 people who moved in. The California exodus rose with the housing bubble and subsided in the recession. Lower home values in 2008-2011 made California more affordable, encouraging in-migration and discouraging out-migration, as well as pushing some California borrowers underwater, further discouraging out-migration. (Trulia blog)
The graph on the right isn’t the only one that makes the case clear. If we are to really continue our growth, we must address the housing crunch that is going on, especially along the coast. That isn’t accomplished through slashing services and budgets, but rather working to create new affordable housing solutions and ways for young families to stay here in California, where most would rather stay.
Thus, the slashing the government approach that the Legislative Republicans, far from being the panacea they claim, would make the situation worse as affordable housing money continues to dry up. Housing must continue to be a key focus of both our state and local governments.
When you ask California voters about things that we can do about the California budget, one of the more popular items that is usually floated is an oil extraction tax. California is the only major energy producing state without a tax, and it just makes zero sense.
Yet when it comes down to brass tacks and ballot boxes, hordes of oil cash usually swoops in to kill the measure. But Senators Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) and Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) are looking to bring the topic back.
“California is the largest — and only — oil producing state in the nation that does not tax its vast oil resources,” said Evans in a written statement.
The proposal, a 9.9 percent tax on oil drilled both on land and off the California coast, could generate some $2 billion a year in new state revenue (depending, of course, on the price of a barrel of oil and on in-state oil production). SB 241 says the money would be earmarked for all three branches of higher education — the University of California, the California State University, and community colleges — as well as state parks. Most of the money (93 percent, according to the legislative authors) would go to higher ed. (News10)
If you look back to the Prop 87 campaign half a decade ago or so, what you see is that the oil companies try to scare voters into thinking that somehow all of this will fall back down upon the consumer. Yet, in reality, sheer economics says that simply cannot be.
Evans points out in her statement a RAND study that shows this is not the case. Further, the sheer economics of the matter is rather straight forward:
1) Oil is taken out of the ground. It is taxed at this point.
2) Oil is sold on the world market.
3) Oil is processed for fuel or other uses.
See part two of that little scenario, it is sold in the context of a global market. That is the way it has to be, there really isn’t a localized market, because oil can move around. It isn’t necessarily the easiest thing (see: Keystone XL), but it can move around. And to pretend that somehow all of the cost of an oil extraction tax would fall down upon California defies basic logic and all economic science.
The bill would dedicate the money to higher education, a laudable goal if ever there was one. As I have mentioned a few times here, my education at the University of Texas was largely underwritten by oil severance taxes. If the oil companies are taking from the ground, from our future, a small tax seems pretty reasonable.
Surely there will be resistance, there always is, but maybe this bill, SB 241, can move the ball down the court further than we have in the past.
Group aims to show tough decisions that make up budget process
by Brian Leubitz
Next10, a nonpartisan group that has spent a lot of time working on California budget issues, has just released their updated budget challenge. Long story short, you get to act as a kind of super planner that gets to make a bunch of decisions on the California budget. One caveat, you have to make the make the numbers work.
Users will have dozens of choices, including options for restoring services and programs and paying off billions of recession-era debt.
Texas Governor tours California, but proof jobs actually move is slim
by Brian Leubitz
Texas Governor Rick Perry is set to tour California to poach jobs from the state. But this is more about Rick Perry and his situation at home than actually moving jobs. First, a bit about Perry: Texans are sick of him. I grew up in Texas, and was there during the governorships of Ann Richards, G W Bush, and Perry (plus a few more before Richards). Thing is, Texans tend to really like their Governors. Richards, even when she lost to W, had an approval rating in the 60s.
Bush actually did a fair amount of work with the Democrats in the Legislature, and was generally well regarded. Perry was another beast entirely. He came to power as partisanship was getting worse in the state, and exploited it. He didn’t really need Democratic support, and so, he turned to the right. Perry, a former Democrat who worked on Al Gore’s 1988 campaign, has made Texas government a far less friendly place.
It turns out that Texans don’t really appreciate it, and a recent poll shows they don’t really appreciate Perry anymore:
Fifty-four percent of Lone Star State voters said they disapprove of the job Perry is doing as governor, while 41 percent said they approve. A larger majority, 62 percent, said Perry should not seek re-election next year compared with just 31 percent who said he should. (TPM)
So, here comes Perry hoping that a few good photo ops of him “poaching” jobs from California, our little slice of heaven that seems to be target #1 for conservatives. Why would that be? Oh, right, we are the center of innovation in the country and the world. But can jobs be actually poached, or is this more Perry posturing?
Only a tiny fraction of California companies move or relocate to other states, and the reasons have little to do with what goodies a visiting governor offers them to relocate – even one like Perry, whose state dishes out $19 billion annually in incentives to lure businesses to Texas.
Kolko’s research found that from 1992 to 2006, the net employment change in California as a result of relocation amounted to a loss of about 9,000 jobs a year – only 0.05 percent of California’s 18 million jobs.
In Silicon Valley, which is experiencing dot-com-boom-level economic growth, only a small percentage of all the companies that are closing or moving are leaving the state, said Doug Henton, CEO of Collaborative Economics, a San Mateo research firm that helped prepare the Silicon Valley Index, a study of the region’s job patterns that was released this month.
“Somebody like Gov. Perry can say, ‘Come to Texas,’ but the amount that do is a minuscule amount” of the valley’s job losses, Henton said.(Joe Garofoli-SF Chronicle)
In the end, many of the jobs that Perry does buy aren’t even a good deal for his state. But, they sure do make for a great photo op with some CEO. And a good soundbite about cutting regulations, business environment, and other nonsense. Perry is out for Perry, he’ll do what he has to do to stay in power. But this little PR stunt amounts to a whole lot of hot air from a politician that seems to have no dearth of it.
Termed out Assemblyman looks to spread cash with treasurer “campaign account”
by Brian Leubitz
I love it when people are honest. I particularly love it when they say things that most people don’t dare to actually mention. So, hats off to Asm. Dan Logue for admitting that his “campaign” for treasurer is actually a fundraising trick to allow big donors to double give money to Republican extremists:
Logue acknowledged that his setup could allow donors to essentially donate to GOP candidates twice — once directly and once through a transfer of funds given to his campaign account — circumventing campaign contribution limits. But he said he saw the move as necessary to protect the interests of businesses.
“I am absolutely terrified that the Democratic majority is going to dismantle the business formula in Sacramento and make it even worse than it is now,” he said. “So I’m really committed to making sure small business has a voice in Sacramento, and this is how I’m doing it.”(SacBee)
In case you forgot Logue, he’s the guy that worked very diligently to get Prop 23 on the ballot. You know, the one that would have ditched our landmark climate change legislation. Logue likes to look at businesses and corporation as pure good in the world. Which is awesome for him, becuase that sounds like a great way to live.
However, in the real world, we need regulations to protect our environment, consumers, and our general safety. But, Logue is all-in on his worldview, so no surprise that he’s looking to any and all techniques that can help him out.
For better or worse, our campaign finance system has more holes than a good Emmental cheese. This is just one of them, and elected officials from both parties use the trick. But, credit where credit is due, Logue told the truth about his plan to circumvent the finance restrictions with the loophole.
But, as the adage goes, don’t hate the player, hate the game.
A while back, I mentioned the (mostly) good news on the revenue front. Today, the controller’s office released the full numbers, and again they are (mostly) good.
Personal income taxes in the month of January came in $4.8 billion above (54.7 percent) monthly estimates contained in the Governor’s latest budget proposal. Corporate taxes came in $11.4 million above (45.5 percent) those monthly estimates, and sales tax receipts came in $582.7 million below (27%) projections.
The State ended the last fiscal year with a cash deficit of $9.6 billion. As of January 31, that cash deficit totaled $15.7 billion and was covered with $5.7 billion of internal borrowing (temporary loans from special funds), and $10 billion of external borrowing.
Of course, the big caveat here is that the sales tax numbers were below projections pretty substantially. Also, because of the fiscal cliff, many companies changed pay schedules, resulting in some of these bigger numbers. Of the numbers, Controller Chiang had this to say:
“Last month’s revenues were by far the highest that California has seen in any January for the past decade. Along with increased auto sales, rising home values, and more construction, it signals that California may be entering an era where we can govern outside of crisis. However, given our state’s troubled history with boom-or-bust revenue cycles, this good news must be tempered with increased fiscal discipline in how we interpret and budget January’s collections.”
This seems to be the path that the Legislature and the Governor are content to pursue. A steady budget with no big increases planned.
A while back, I mentioned the (mostly) good news on the revenue front. Today, the controller’s office released the full numbers, and again they are (mostly) good.
Personal income taxes in the month of January came in $4.8 billion above (54.7 percent) monthly estimates contained in the Governor’s latest budget proposal. Corporate taxes came in $11.4 million above (45.5 percent) those monthly estimates, and sales tax receipts came in $582.7 million below (27%) projections.
The State ended the last fiscal year with a cash deficit of $9.6 billion. As of January 31, that cash deficit totaled $15.7 billion and was covered with $5.7 billion of internal borrowing (temporary loans from special funds), and $10 billion of external borrowing.
Of course, the big caveat here is that the sales tax numbers were below projections pretty substantially. Also, because of the fiscal cliff, many companies changed pay schedules, resulting in some of these bigger numbers. Of the numbers, Controller Chiang had this to say:
“Last month’s revenues were by far the highest that California has seen in any January for the past decade. Along with increased auto sales, rising home values, and more construction, it signals that California may be entering an era where we can govern outside of crisis. However, given our state’s troubled history with boom-or-bust revenue cycles, this good news must be tempered with increased fiscal discipline in how we interpret and budget January’s collections.”
This seems to be the path that the Legislature and the Governor are content to pursue. A steady budget with no big increases planned.
