Pundits and electeds take entirely wrong message from Tuesday’s election results

by Brian Leubitz

On Tuesday, voters in a few communities across the state approved pension reform measures.  That one of these communities was San Francisco, you know with its San Francisco values, makes a whole lot of uninformed people think that they know something about the electorate.

Except that they have no idea. Take San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, ostensibly a Democrat, but backed mainly by the so-called “business” interests (ie developers).  He’s not a knee-jerk anti-union guy, but hardly in the pocket of labor either.  His thoughts on the San Francisco vote was so wildly off-base as to be laughable.

The results cheered local officials such as San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, who’s seeking a March special election on his own controversial pension reform proposal, as well as advocates for a statewide measure aimed at slashing the costs of public retirement packages.

“It certainly demonstrates solid public support for pension reform,” Reed said Wednesday. “Even in a labor-friendly town like San Francisco, 68 percent said yes.” (BayAreaNewsGroup)

His quote makes absolutely no sense.  Why? Well, that would be because the pension reform measure that was passed by San Francisco voters was supported and funded by labor. So rather than being in-spite of SF being a labor friendly town, that was the reason that SF gave 68% of the vote to Prop C.  On the other hand, Prop D, opposed by labor, went down hard with about 66% voting no.

Take that combined with the results in Ohio, what you should get is not that Californians want to shove something down labor’s throat.  Rather, perhaps Mayor Reed should consider how Mayor Ed Lee and the Board of Supervisors worked with labor and other stakeholders to get a deal that everybody can live with. I assure you, not all union members are happy with Prop C, I spoke to many that said they were voting No.  However, a deal could not get done without labor or by simply forcing Ohio/Wisconsin type ideas into California.

Pension reform is possible, that is what San Francisco showed.  But it should be pension reform that is negotiated. A compromise can be reached without bullshit ballot measures with right-wing funding. You know some organizations can calmly sit down and discuss issues, even ones that rise to the existential level. Perhaps now is the time for some discussion.

Goo-Goo wants to change how California government functions: increase transparency and budget process

by Brian Leubitz

California Forward has had an interesting existence. They’ve only been around  for a few years, but they’ve sent out a lot of press releases.  Oh, and it kept the current Defense Secretary busy for a few years.

It’s not that I don’t think CA Forward doesn’t have some interesting ideas.  It’s just that the press release stage is how far they usually get along the process. And then there is the fact that some of their ideas, well, they probably should have been left in the brainstorming session.

Nonetheless, Peter Schrag details another big push from the organization, and they have said that they will be pushing to get something on the ballot in November.

More important, the proposal,  co-authored by Sunne McPeak, now CEO of the California Emerging Technology Fund, and former Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, would void any legislation creating a new state program, enlarging an existing program or cutting any tax unless offsetting state program reductions or additional revenues or some combination of the two are provided in the bill.

The backers of the measure also hold high hopes in its provisions creating incentives for broader local agency collaboration. It aims at the creation of county-based Community Strategic Action Plans to reduce, the silos of agencies serving the same populations: schools, for example, foster care, health programs, law enforcement and others trying to work with the same children, but now sometimes barely talking to one another and occasionally trying to shut others out. (CA Progress Report)

Take a gander at the full article. As is typical with CA Forward initiatives, there is a long way to go before this idea is really fully baked. And, of course, there is one big, big problem: it doesn’t deal with the 2/3 requirement to raise revenues, so there is still a huge preference for cuts over revenue.

Maybe something comes of this, but, this is Sacramento we’re talking about, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Switch to a local credit union as part of Bank Transfer Day

by Brian Leubitz

I’ll admit it. I’ve been a customer of a certain too-big-to-fail bank that recently backed down from a debit card fee recently.  I’ve had an account with them since I was 12. Well, that isn’t totally accurate, my account was in one of the predecessors to Nations Bank which eventually became Bank Of America. But, you know, I’ve been lazy for a long time, and it is probably well past time that I do a little searching on my own.

Of course, I was inspired by the #OWS movement, (and an email from the Burnt Orange Report folks) but now seems like a good time anyway.  And, the PCCC’s Banxodus campaign even will help you find a local credit union.  And there are many reasons to find a credit union:

Not-for-profit credit unions are owned by their members. These banks aren’t under pressure by Wall Street investors to maximize quarterly returns. Instead, profits go back to the members in the form of higher interest on savings and lower interest on loans, mortgages, and credit card balances.

The same is not true in the world of for-profit corporate banking. Just look at the chart on the left showing the tremendous consolidation of the consumer banking industry in the last 20 years. These big banks think they can get away with charging you exorbitant interest or excessive fees because you don’t have a choice. Well, you do have a choice, and that choice is a credit union that meets your needs.

A wide range of financial planners and media outlets agree: credit unions are better for your money. Here’s why:

1. Fewer fees, more savings. The Credit Union National Association estimates that consumers save more than $6 billion a year in better rates and lower fees by using credit unions. That’s your money — who should make a profit off of it, you or your bank? — ABC News

2. Credit cards with lower interest rates.  Federal law prohibits federal credit unions from charging interest rates above 18%. Credit union customers pay, on average, 20% less in credit card interest. — Forbes

3. Better customer service. 70% of credit union members feel that the institution put the customer’s interests ahead of the institution itself. The highest big bank, Wells Fargo, came in at a 40% positive rating. —Forbes

4. No penalties for using or not using your money. Corporate banks routinely charge you to open a checking account, charge you if your account is dormant, charge you if your balance drops below a certain level. It’s crazy! Credit unions simply do not engage in these kinds of practices — practices that are focused on driving up quarterly profits, regardless of customer satisfaction. — MSN Money

5. Your money stays in your community. Credit unions primarily employ people locally, and give back generously as well. Local credit unions are also more likely to give loans to local businesses, especially women- and minority-owned businesses. Since the recession began, credit unions have vastly expanded their business loan operations, which helps keep funds working in the local community. — Businessweek (Burnt Orange Report)

So, with that, I went online to find a credit union that works for me. I’m leaning towards SF Fire, but there are probably several right within your community to choose from. Banxodus will help you find one that works for you, or if the data isn’t there, you can help your neighbors by doing a bit of crowd-sourced research.  Either way, now is a splendid time to tell your Big Bank^TM to take a hike.

Officially, Bank Transfer Day is Saturday, but I’m sure nobody would hold it against you if you acted a bit early.

Initiatives will be big on November 2012 ballot

by Brian Leubitz

Remember the Mercury Insurance proposition measure that was “going to give you an auto insurance discount” last year? Well, apparently Mercury CEO George Joseph didn’t want to seem so heavy handed, and went out to do some non-Mercury Insurance fundraising.  Except that he didn’t actually go very far, he got a Mercury insurance agent to contribute!

Mercury Insurance Chairman George Joseph is no longer the sole donor to a misleading state ballot initiative that would repeal Proposition 103’s prohibition against considering a driver’s coverage history when a motorist applies for insurance.  An insurance agency whose only past political contribution was to the Mercury Insurance sponsored Prop 17, contributed fourteen thousand dollars to the new initiative.  Mercury Insurance Chairman’s George Joseph has already donated over $8.1 million to the deceptive ballot measure aimed at hurting California consumers.

According to the California Secretary of State’s website Abernathy Insurance Agency, a Mercury Insurance agency, contributed $14,000 to the deceptively titled “2012 Auto Insurance Discount Act, Sponsored by the American Agents Alliance with Support from California Insurance Providers for Competitive Prices and Consumer Discounts.”  This is only the second political contribution ever made by Abernathy Insurance Agency, according to the Secretary of State’s website.  Abernathy’s website directs any customer looking for auto insurance to MercuryInsurance.com

Well, congratulations to Mr. Joseph. I’m sure everybody will see your committee and be duly impressed with the broad support for your quest to punish those who dare not to have a car for a few years.

The other major news on the initiative front is the submission of a couple measures going after public employee and teacher pensions.  You know, all Wisconsin style.  Rather than working with Gov. Brown, a coalition lead by former Asm. Roger Niello (who is looking for a new gig in the Senate) and former Schwarzenegger Director of Finance (now there’s a claim to fame!) Mike Genest submitted a couple of measures of their own and say that they have the resources to get one on the ballot.

California’s current and future state and local employees would pay more for their pensions under two ballot initiative proposals submitted to the state attorney general today with the intent of putting one of them to a statewide vote next year.

“Seventy percent of voters think it’s time,” said Dan Pellissier, president of California Pension Reform, referring to public opinion polls on public pensions.

His group, which includes a former chairman of the California Republican Party, Duf Sundheim, former GOP Assemblyman Roger Niello, Marcia Fritz, president of the Citrus Heights-based president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, and Schwarzenegger finance director Mike Genest, is filing the measures for an official ballot title and summary today, less than a week after Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown rolled out a pension reform agenda last week.(SacBee StateWorker)

Note that depending on what happens with signature gathering surrounding SB202’s move to make future signature-based ballot measures general election only, November may also feature the paycheck deception measure that could effectively neuter labor’s political power.

Oh, and also, Obama for America is trying to get its volunteers to make calls to other states on GOTV weekend 2011 for many municipalities this weekend to remind them about how important the presidential election is. So, you know, nothing important here in California…

Massive transition of property taxes from commercial to residential

by Brian Leubitz

First, as something of a preface, let’s just posit that Prop 13 has been an overall disaster for the state. After all, this is a progressive blog.  If you want details of how that is the case, well, just use that google box to the left. We have plenty of information about that. You could argue that it did put a reasonable check on property taxes, but it also tossed the baby right out with the bathwater by making the property tax system ripe for the gaming.

And that’s what has happened. As Peter Schrag outlined today, corporations now use Prop 13 as one of the great California tax loopholes, if not the King of all loopholes:

It’s been just a third of a century since the passage of Proposition 13 in June, 1978. In that time few of its offspring have caused more damage than the great loopholes allowing corporations to evade hundreds of millions in local property taxes that they’d owe in any fair and economically rational revenue system.

*** **** ***

In Santa Clara County, the booming Silicon Valley center of high tech, where the proportions were roughly even in 1978, residential property owners now pay about 65 percent of property taxes; commercial property pays 35 percent.  In Los Angeles County, where residential property owners carried just over half the burden in 1975, they now pay nearly 70 percent of all property taxes. In Contra Costa County, it’s gone from 48-52 in 1970 to 73-27.

To be clear, you can point to the dramatic outperformance of residential real estate as compared to commercial real estate for part of that. However, there is a lot more than that going on here.  Since 1978, the house that you are living in has probably had several owners. Sure, some people stay in a house for 50 years, but for most people, you don’t stay in a home forever. According to the super scientific opinion of one realtor, housing needs change every 5 to 7 years for most families.  Meanwhile, commercial property will stay in the same hands for far longer.

Of course, there is that tricky question of ownership. As in, who owns that building if, as Schrag points out, typically more than 50% of the ownership of a publicly traded corporation turns over every three years.  If that happened in residential real estate, you would trigger a new appraisal. That is not true with a corporation. So, if a skyscraper has been held by one big corporation since 1978, its appraisal is stuck at a figure tied to its 1978 valuation which likely has very little to do with its current value.

We need to fix this issue, and unfortunately, it will likely take action at the ballot. Asm. Tom Ammiano has been focused on this issue during his three years in office, and he hopes to bring it back in January.  But a fix seems just as far now as it did years ago. If we are to really repair our state finances, we have to look at the totality of the system, not just dwell on small chunks. We can’t cut our way out, our pension reform our way out, or even raise revenue enough to solve the problem.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was found of rhetorically putting everything on the table. But with his recent pension reform proposals, Gov. Brown is doing far more in terms of action than Arnold was ever willing to discuss.  If we are to really discuss pension reform, we need to also discuss how we fix the other, more badly wounded, systems of state government.

Activists and city leaders still asking questions about police actions

by Brian Leubitz

Last night was general calm at Occupy Oakland, as Oakland PD generally just watched as the occupiers retook the plaza.  Apparently video of a cop throwing a flash grenade at people trying to help an injured victim made the police a little skittish of another confrontation.

Well, it looks like there might be more to worry about on Nov. 2, as the Oakland PD will have to deal with calls for a general strike:

PROPOSAL:

We as fellow occupiers of Oscar Grant Plaza propose that on Wednesday November 2, 2011, we liberate Oakland and shut down the 1%.

We propose a city wide general strike and we propose we invite all students to walk out of school. Instead of workers going to work and students going to school, the people will converge on downtown Oakland to shut down the city. (Occupy Oakland)

Read the full text over the flip.  I’ve not heard any word about the response for the strike call, but I would expect a fairly large crowd to show up given the media attention.

Note by Brian: The Google transparency update was actually from an earlier request from a different law enforcement agency, so I have removed it.

Below is the proposal passed by the Occupy Oakland General Assembly on Wednesday October 26, 2011 in reclaimed Oscar Grant Plaza. 1607 people voted. 1484 voted in favor of the resolution, 77 abstained and 46 voted against it, passing the proposal at 96.9%. The General Assembly operates on a modified consensus process that passes proposals with 90% in favor and with abstaining votes removed from the final count.

PROPOSAL:

We as fellow occupiers of Oscar Grant Plaza propose that on Wednesday November 2, 2011, we liberate Oakland and shut down the 1%.

We propose a city wide general strike and we propose we invite all students to walk out of school. Instead of workers going to work and students going to school, the people will converge on downtown Oakland to shut down the city.

All banks and corporations should close down for the day or we will march on them.

While we are calling for a general strike, we are also calling for much more. People who organize out of their neighborhoods, schools, community organizations, affinity groups, workplaces and families are encouraged to self organize in a way that allows them to participate in shutting down the city in whatever manner they are comfortable with and capable of.

The whole world is watching Oakland. Let’s show them what is possible.

The Strike Coordinating Council will begin meeting everyday at 5pm in Oscar Grant Plaza before the daily General Assembly at 7pm. All strike participants are invited. Stay tuned for much more information and see you next Wednesday.

And deceptive signature gathering practices abound…

by Brian Leubitz

Last week, I ran into Safeway to grab a few groceries and saw the various assortment of your typical signature gatherers. I’m always intrigued to see what they are pushing, and how hard they are pushing it, so I took a look.

It looked like the one who approached me had a couple of clipboards but she only asked me about one, a measure to “repeal the new districts proposed by the NAACP.”

“Interesting,” I said, “because that measure is in fact paid for by the California Republican Party. They have already pumped more than a half a million dollars into it.”

“Oh, that’s not what they told me. They told me it was from the NAACP and Equality California.”

“Well,” I said, “that just isn’t true, and you probably shouldn’t be telling people that.”

I was in a bit of a rush so I ran in and grabbed my few groceries. As I was headed out, I saw the signature gatherer speak to another gentleman.  I quickly told him that it was paid for by the Republican party and he immediately said no thanks.

That’s when the story gets more interesting, as the other signature gatherer decides to tell me that it was Equality California that hated the Senate maps.  I assured him that was not true and that I am in fairly regular contact with EQCA.  He would not take no for an answer and kept telling me that Equality California was paying for this.  That is somewhat laughable as it fairly well-known that EQCA is having some serious money issues and could not consider funding something like that even if they were against the maps. (Which, as far as I know, they are not.)

But, rest assured, dear reader, that it was the CRP and their friends that are trying to put the referendum on the ballot. The irony that their one time savior, Arnold Schwarzenegger, put this thing on the ballot is kind of funny.  But, now the right-wing interests are out to get it:

The financial woes of the California Republican Party have been well documented. The state GOP had just over $200,000 in the bank as of July 1, but in recent days, it has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into an effort to repeal the new state Senate district lines drawn by an independent commission earlier this year.

The source of that money has been the source of some speculation in Capitol circles since it began moving late last week. Jeff Green, a spokesman for George Joseph, the head of Mercury Insurance, confirmed Tuesday that Joseph wrote the state party a $1-million check to specifically fund the state party’s efforts to have those Senate district lines redrawn. (LA Times)

Joseph also funded last year’s Prop 17, the skeezy insurance measure that would discriminate against drivers that dropped their coverage for whatever reason. If they do get the entirety of this million bucks to the signature gatherers, they have a decent shot at qualifying, but it is far from guaranteed. They have to get 504,000 valid signatures by Nov. 13.

Now, the California Supreme Court today unanimously said that the Senate and Congressional maps are valid under the state and federal constitutions.  If the CRP is successful in gathering enough signatures, it will then be up to the Court to decide which maps the state should use in June when the referendum will take place.  They could either have their own drawn up by a special master, or just use the maps the commission drew up.  It certainly wouldn’t shock me to see them just use the Commission’s maps even if it does go to a referendum.  And, of course if the referendum goes through, well, all hell breaks loose and the Court has to come up with a new map.