Superior Court says Controller not arbiter of “balanced budget”

by Brian Leubitz

In what was a pretty watched decision, a Sacramento Superior Court Judge struck a victory (?) for the legislature:

In a bitter feud during last year’s budget battle, Controller John Chiang determined that the budget passed by legislative Democrats was not balanced. Using new powers he believed he had under voter-approved Proposition 25, Chiang then blocked lawmakers’ pay and expense money for 12 days until they cut a budget deal with Gov. Jerry Brown.

In a tentative ruling today, Judge David I. Brown said that the controller does not have discretion to determine whether the Legislature’s budget is balanced. Proposition 25 said that lawmakers must approve a balanced budget by June 15 or else lose their pay.

Brown’s ruling essentially says that the Legislature can determine for itself whether a budget is balanced.

“A contrary result could threaten to undermine the Legislature’s essential function,” Brown wrote today.(SacBee)

Here’s the thing with this. If legislators are forced to vote on a budget simply to pay the rent, we are raising a number of troubling questions. Will they be forced to vote for something against their true beliefs, and perhaps against the beliefs of their constituents. It is essentially saying that we think those votes can be bought for a few thousand dollars. It is troubling in many ways.

But that is all an issue with the measure that brought us this. The issue here is smaller, about who controls the meaning of “balanced budget.” This ruling says that if the Legislature says they passed a balanced budget, then they did. And perhaps that is prickly on the gridlock issue, but it is better on the freedom to vote their conscience front.

Asm. Mike Allen, who shifted over into what is essentially a new district for him, has supported the Rohnert Park casino. In a debate yesterday, he discussed the project:

Features narration from Mayor Villaraigosa and Lance Armstrong

by Brian Leubitz

The Yes on 29 campaign released a video today taking the fight to the tobacco companies.  The measure would increase the tobacco tax in order to pay for cancer research.

San Diego Assemblyman points out GOP obstinance

by Brian Leubitz

Nathan Fletcher is many things, including a legislative sex symbol. But apparently one thing that he is no longer? In this video, he announces that he can no longer consider himself a Republican:

“The broader issue has just been a reluctance on the part of the Republican Party to be willing to advance good ideas. If it’s a good idea, it’s a good idea. It doesn’t matter which party is going to get the credit for it,” he said.

For all his differences, he said he never considered becoming a Democrat.

“Today’s political environment and political culture doesn’t appear to be geared toward getting people to solve problems. It’s geared toward dysfunction,” he said.(SacBee)

This is typical Arnold Schwarzenegger post-partisan stuff. Much of it true, if slightly self-serving, much of it Blue dog-y. Fletcher is/was on the leftward edge of the GOP, but that’s not really saying too much. But, coming as it is, in the heat of a Mayoral battle that he is losing, it has to make you a little suspicious.  I kind of doubt this will change the dynamic too much, but maybe it nudges him closer to getting into one of the two runoff spots.

Anti-equality zealot likes primaries

by Brian Leubitz

Andy Pugno, the Prop 8 attorney that enjoys making a name for himself by denying others equal rights, has made an interesting pledge. He will support the winner of the first round of balloting if he is running against another Republican.

“If I came in behind Beth Gaines, I would honor the expression of Republican voters and endorse her campaign and not actively campaign myself,” Pugno said in an interview with The Bee today.

Gaines’ consultant dismissed the scenario as unlikely given the presence of a Democratic candidate in the three-way race. But he said his candidate wasn’t interested in joining Pugno on the issue.

“She pledges to vote for a Republican in November and it’s going to be herself,” Gaines consultant Dave Gilliard said.(SacBee Capitol Alert)

This is an interesting game theory of politics moment. If you are a Democrat in the district, and really loathe Andy Pugno, do you vote for Beth Gaines. But, to be honest, Gaines isn’t really much of a step in the right direction. Perhaps somebody should tell Pugno that the June electorate isn’t confined to Republicans and that anybody can vote for any candidate.  Nah…

Perhaps this is an interesting for the fact that this is the first such case of a candidate saying something like this. However, it would be even more interesting if it were in a district where there was a decent shot of happening, say in the Senate race between Jerry Hill and Sally Lieber in San Mateo county.  A Dem on Dem race is far more likely in several districts, but I haven’t heard anything like this on our side.

I don’t expect to either.

by Brian Leubitz

SuperPACs. They’ve changed the political landscape, for better or worse. Mostly worse.  Now, here in California, Independent Expenditures have pretty much had the same leeway as SuperPACs do on the federal level for years. But the stakes for the presidency are worth, apparently, far more for corporate special interests and billionaires than control of our Legislature.  Apparently.

But, this week the Assembly joined several other states in calling for the overturning of Citizens United:

The California Assembly yesterday approved a resolution urging Congress to overturn the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The split decision helped give rise to super PACs by allowing unlimited contributions from corporations and unions to attack or support politicians, as long as the committees don’t coordinate with candidates. The California bill, AJR 22, is part of a campaign to pass such resolutions around the country.(CalWatch)

This is a noble sentiment, and I applaud the Assembly Democrats for making it. However, let’s be real here. The Supreme Court, with its conservative core, isn’t particularly interested in seeing a return of regulated campaign finance. Since the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case, it has all been a big race to deregulate campaigns.  SUre, there have been fits and starts of trying to come up with some way to control spending. To find some way to equalize the voice of the people, so that the rich don’t hold vastly more power than those who can’t afford to buy nationwide TV spots.

But that hasn’t happened.  Overturning Citizens United is an important step. However, as the “Move to Amend” groups are pointing out, the key underlying distortion is that for some reason the Court thinks that money is speech, and that corporations are people. It isn’t, and they aren’t.

Municipal bankruptcy becomes mainstream

by Brian Leubitz

When Vallejo was looking at bankruptcy, it still seemed a little taboo. There was a stigma attached.  However, since then, municipalities, especially when right-wingers are involved, figured out that municipal bankruptcy is a great way to break the back of the public employees.  And, so hooray, they are becoming more acceptable. Stockton is already considering it, and now add Fresno to that mix:

Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin on Monday warned that the city is in “severe financial stress” that demands immediate action and presented a 10-year plan calling for more concessions from city workers.

But the presidents of the city’s two public-safety unions said they sense Swearengin is being overly dramatic for political reasons, and urged the public to get all the facts before choosing sides.

Fresno’s budget season has come early this year, and it’s already turning into a war.

At a morning City Hall news conference where she was joined by City Manager Mark Scott, Swearengin warned that “there is no Plan B” to the cost reductions, and Scott warned that even bankruptcy could not be ruled out if expenses don’t come down.

“It is not in our employees’ best interest for their employer to be so financially unstable,” Swearengin said. “I hope they will see that.”(Fresno Bee)

The city is facing a $15mil shortfall in the next fiscal year, doubling a few times over in the next 5 years. For a city like Fresno, this is a really big deal, and changes they way they provide services.  At the same time, this isn’t as existential as Mayor Swearingen is making it seem. This is a negotiation, and cities have discovered that they have a nuclear weapon in their pocket that they didn’t know about.  And, oh, look, at that…it’s a nuke, it sure would be bad if that went off in here, wouldn’t it?

Mayor Swearingen isn’t necessarily a right-winger. She’s hardly a progressive, but not one to really be pushing the ball forward too much on the big conservative issues. But, perhaps that tells us more about the role of muni bankruptcy now that is being used in this situation. Fresno seems unlikely to ever get there, but anything to beat down the unions, I suppose.

Fortunately after the Vallejo bankruptcy, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, AB 506  that requires a mediation process before they can actually declare.  It’s something of a credit counseling service, that brings the City and the creditors together to work things out before the situation becomes a toxic waste site for future credit for the relevant city. It still isn’t as restrictive as some other states are with their municipalities, but it was a step forward from the old situation of playing with the nukes out in the open.  Whether this will actually prevent bankruptcies is still to be determined.

Closure of mail processing centers means mail could take days longer in some locations

by Brian Leubitz

In case you haven’t watched the dramatic saga that is the US Postal Service, well you should check in on that. There is the sensational story of the members of Congress that are super excited that their union employees will be laid off, and are fighting the pension overpayment issue. But, for electoral purposes, this message from SoS Debra Bowen is important:

Unfortunately, a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) plan to shut down 223 big mail processing hubs across the country and 14 here in California – including the one located in Redding – threatens to disenfranchise millions of Californians who vote by mail. … By law, late ballots can’t be counted; postmarks aren’t enough.

The USPS asserts the closures won’t affect your ballot, but its future best hopes do not coincide with the current reality voters and elections officials have already witnessed in California. When mail facilities closed last year in Monterey, Ventura, and Yuba counties, officials conducting small local elections there reported mail that used to take one to three days to deliver was instead taking five to seven days. (Redding.com)

Many voters use the last weekend to vote their ballots. If the closures go ahead, there is a strong chance that these voters will be disenfranchised.  No matter which side of the political spectrum on which you reside, this is seriously troubling.  The post office, Congress, and the State need to find a way to ensure that voters aren’t losing their votes because the post office is having some money issues.