All posts by Brian Leubitz

education

SB 48, FAIR Education Act Referendum Not Going to Qualify

5 Comments

Anti-gay groups aren’t able to gather enough signatures

by Brian Leubitz

Quite the day in the gay rights movement today.  First the executive director of Equality California abruptly resigns, which was quite a shock considering he was hired only a few months ago.  But that’s just the beginning, as the referendum intended to block the fair education act, which would include the contributions of the LGBT and disabled community in our curriculum, seems to have gone down in flames.

With just one day left to circulate petitions, organizers of an effort to repeal a new law requiring that California students learn about the historical contributions of gay and lesbian individuals have told supporters that they “would need a miracle to qualify this referendum.”

The Pacific Justice Institute and an arm of Capitol Resource Institute have been leading an effort to overturn Senate Bill 48, which requires public school instruction to include the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, people with disabilities and members of different cultural groups. They face a Wednesday deadline for submitting to election officials the roughly 505,000 valid voter signatures needed to place a referendum of the law on the ballot.

Despite days of emails calling for a final push in the signature gathering campaign, referendum organizers told supporters in an early morning email that “it is doubtful we will get the number of signatures we need to qualify” the proposed referendum. (SacBee)

To be honest, I was always the skeptic that this would ever qualify, but I guess it did help raise money for some of those LGBT organizations.  Given that they were using an all-volunteer effort, it always seemed very unlikely to qualify.  

Nonetheless, this is great news for those interested in pursuing equality and fair portrayals of history.

Budget, Jerry Brown

2011 Bills Complete

6 Comments

Gov. Brown vetoes high percentage of bills.

by Brian Leubitz

Every year, legislators from each house get a certain number of bills they can carry. It varies from year to year, depending on leadership, but can vary from as little as 10 to well more than double that number.  Every year, legislators basically go shopping for bill ideas. Some of them come in through the normal constituent relationships. Others from lobbyists of sponsoring organizations, and well, various other sources.

The interesting part of this is that legislators typically want to get their total up to the line.  Whether that is to make it appear that they have a lot of accomplishments, or to look busy is a matter of perspective.  However, every year we get a slew of bills at the end of session, many very important. Others, well, less so.

Gov. Brown prefers a less is more approach, and when it has come to vetoing bills that have come across his desk during this bill frenzy, it has shown.

From mid-September to late Sunday night, Brown signed 466 bills and vetoed 97, his office said.

Brown’s veto rate for the year overall was slightly lower, at about 14 percent. In the first year of his third term, Brown signed 760 bills, vetoed 128 and allowed one bill to become law without his signature, his office said. (SacBee)

Now, the 17.2% veto rate isn’t astronomical, as it is far lower than Gov. Schwarzenegger’s rate. However, given that his party is in control of the Legislature, you would expect that number to be slightly lower. But, again…less is more in Jerry’s world.

There were a few bills on the recent action pile that are worth a bit of note.  Sen. Juan Vargas’ bill against supercenters, SB 469, got the veto stamp.  The bill would have required supercenter developers to conduct an economic impact report to disclose impacts upon local economies prior to being approved to build in a local jurisdiction.  But, with the false notion that we don’t want to slow Wal-Mart from “creating jobs”, nobody has really sat back and thought of the real economic toll on the economy.  And apparently, it won’t be happening in 2012 either.

Brown also vetoed a bill regulating “debit card paychecks”.  These debit cards are targeted at low income workers and carry some pretty onerous fees, as part of the high cost of being poor.  But banks generally get their way when their lobbyists are involved, and they were able to get Gov. Brown to kill the bill while saying that he wants to work with the institutions and the Legislature to find a “compromise” for the debit cards.

Finally, in case you didn’t hear, the Governor signed the shark finning ban, at least one bill that environmentalists and progressives could count as an accomplishment.

Uncategorized

Brown Signs Bills to Move Ballot Measures to Novembers & Online Voter Reg

6 Comments

Measure would put signature initiatives on November elections

by Brian Leubitz

First, let’s say one thing, SB 202 is not a simple stroke of genius that makes initiatives all of a sudden a great system. But, it is a fair reform that lets the full electorate vote on important measures.

In short, SB 202 moves all future (so doesn’t apply to measures already qualified for the ballot) initiatives placed on the ballot through signatures to general elections.  In other words, gubernatorial and presidential elections.

Of course, the Right is pretty livid about this, as this June was going to be their dream election to put a bunch of right-wing crap on the ballot. With low turnout on the Democratic side, we would basically have the electorate of Arizona or something.

You can read Governor Brown’s signing message for SB 202 here or below the fold.  He refers to a rainy day fund measure that will be on the ballot that is moved by SB 202, in the context of wanting to avoid putting additional money into a bank account when we are broke.  (Makes sense, huh?)

In other news, the Governor also approved finally allowing people to register to vote online. Which, if you think about it makes perfect sense. So, apparently Jerry has some of that common sense thing. Hooray!

SB 202 Signing Message

Uncategorized

US DOJ Declares War on Pot

8 Comments

4 US Attorneys Announce that they are going after California Marijuana Industry

by Brian Leubitz

Remember when Eric Holder said that the US Department of Justice wasn’t going to spend a lot of time investigating medical marijuana, but that they would spend time on distributors? Turns out the later overrules the former:

Federal prosecutors in California announced a series of actions Friday targeting what they characterized as the “large, for-profit marijuana industry” that has developed since the state legalized medical marijuana for select patients 15 years ago.

Four U.S. attorneys — Benjamin Wanger, Andre Birotte Jr., Laura Duffy and Melinda Haag — detailed in a joint press release steps they had taken in conjunction with federal law enforcement and local officials in California. (CNN)

I honestly don’t understand why the Administration would make this a priority? Does somebody thing this will win any votes? Will some vast amount of lives be saved? Sure, there probably is a bit of corruption in the industry, but nothing a formal recognition of the industry couldn’t solve.  It’s time to give up this ridiculous war on marijuana and move on to focus on that war on poverty we never really won.

I can’t really say it any better than Asm. Tom Ammiano said it today, so I’ll just reproduce that in whole:

I am bitterly disappointed in the Obama Administration for this unwarranted and destructive attack on medical marijuana and patients’ rights to medicine.  Today’s announcement by the Department of Justice means that Obama’s medical marijuana policies are worse than Bush and Clinton.  

It’s a tragic return to failed policies that will cost the state millions in tax revenue and harm countless lives. 16 states along with the District of Columbia have passed medical marijuana laws – whatever happened to the promises he made on the campaign trail to not prosecute medical marijuana or the 2009 DOJ memo saying that states with medical marijuana laws would not be prosecuted?  Change we can believe in?  Instead we get more of the same.

Uncategorized

Hey Consumer Watchdog, It’s Only Ok If You Are a Republican? Get it?

1 Comment

Consumer Watchdog in Middle of Fight for Insurance Rate Regulation

by Brian Leubitz

Consumer Watchdog (CW) has more than its share of enemies.  While most normal Californians have very little idea who they are, the denizens of the Capitol are not really normal, are they? They have a pretty good idea of who they are.

They have enemies from the 2007 health care fight, where California ended up with no health care reform package, partly because the left didn’t want to be complicit with Gov. Schwarzenegger’s plan.  You see, fellow progressives, we are supposed to stand by while the “adults” do all the negotiating and then cheer when we get some scraps.  By adults I mean, the corporate right, the Tea Party, and the center-right Democrats.  So, you know, “serious” people.

It turns out that when CW helped out with blowing up that 2007 process, there were some hard feelings. And these things linger in Sacramento.  Of course, for Consumer Watchdog, it is hardly the first time they’ve pissed anybody off.

Fast forward to this year, when AB 52, health insurance rate regulation is up in the Senate. It ultimately fails, and Sen. Ed Hernandez, the chair of the Healthcare committee that ultimately passes it to the full Senate, catches some flack.  Hernandez didn’t ultimately support the bill in the full Senate, or at least he has said as much.  Consumer Watchdog then proceeded to put out a TV spot attacking Sen. Hernandez.

The spot was pretty hardhitting, and Asm. Feuer and IC Dave Jones have distanced themselves from it.  However, what is interesting now is that the focus doesn’t seem to be on the issue itself anymore, but rather that vague sense of transparency.  You see, like the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations, CW keeps some of their contributors private.

Thornier than the fees is the disclosure of individual donors who fund Consumer Watchdog, It is  widely believed – and some within Consumer Watchdog have confirmed it over the years – that much of its money comes from the trial bar. The group receives individual donations from the public, money from foundations, money from settlements that go into affiliated foundations for education and outreach that provide money to the main group and money from labor and other groups.

But individually, just who gives what is not available, Court said, “the donors can get harassed by politicians because people like us run ads about their (the politicians’) conflict of interest,” he said. He said nondisclosure as a civil rights tool, much as nondisclosure was important to the NAACP to protect its donors.

But critics of Consumer Watchdog are not convinced, saying the group is hypocritical for not disclosing donors while demanding full disclosure from those it attacks.(Capitol Weekly)

Or, in other words, you can’t advocate for good government unless you are a perfect teacher’s pet. But if you are advocating for giveaways to corporations? Well, no need to tell us who you are working for. We sure they are all just “job creators” trying to …ummm…exploit labor to increase their own capital or something like that.  But hey, it’s capitalism…so that’s awesome!

Do we need some control over the funding of political? Yes, desperately. But the Left can’t be forced to give up the tools and play on a different playing field as the Right.

Jerry Brown

Jerry Brown and His Canoe? WTF?

1 Comment

Gov. Brown vetoes bill that would allow childcare workers to organize and a local VLF

by Brian Leubitz

For over thirty years, Jerry Brown has professed fealty to the canoe theory of politics, that is paddle a little to the left, a little to the right.  Well, there was that We the People period, but we’ll leave that out of the story for now.

Jerry can do some really amazing things, stand up and fight for struggling Californians.  And then he does something like vetoing farmworker card check.  Well, he had another one of those moments:

In a major blow to organized labor, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed legislation today that would have let unions organize child-care providers who work out of the home.

“Today California, like the nation itself, is facing huge budget challenges,” Brown wrote in a veto message. “Given that reality, I am reluctant to embark on a program of this magnitude and potential cost.”(SacBee)

It was a banner day for that right oar, as he also vetoed legislation that would have changed automobile restrictions for a welfare recipients.  Critically he also vetoed legislation that would have allowed San Francisco to vote to reinstate the higher level of VLF (pre-Arnold).

This last veto is actually the biggest news of the bunch.  While it would have been a problematic situation on many levels, it would have allowed communities that want to tax themselves a pretty fair tax option.  I understand his reluctance, but given the wrestling matches he has had with the Republicans over the past 10 months, you would have hoped he would have seen the value in communities controlling more of their revenue destiny.

Uncategorized

Kaiser Forced to Repay Small Businesses for Overcharging

1 Comment

HMO faces scrutiny for their arithmetic

by Brian Leubitz

Kaiser is something of a mixed bag.  They get some good press for focusing on areas that help to reduce health care costs, preventative care, that sort of thing.  On the flip side, they are usually somewhere in the background on lobbying efforts, killing any attempts to make health care insurance more consumer friendly in California.

Well, today’s news is more on the dark side.  It turns out that they’ve been overcharging small business customers and not really providing the data to back it up:

Kaiser Permanente has retroactively rolled back rate increases that went into effect for small businesses on July 1 by 1.2 percent.

The welcomed – albeit small – bit of news for thousands of  California enrollees comes after a bit of wrangling with the state regulators.

Kaiser in April had proposed a 10.7 percent rate hikes for the bulk of its small business customers. The state Department of Managed Health Care, armed with a new law that allows them to scrutinize actuarial data behind the rate filings, pushed back.

“We’ve been  concerned about the lack of data they provided to support their trends and we requested they reduce their rates,” said department spokeswoman Lynne Randolph.

The new increase of 9.5 percent translates into a total savings of $13.5 million, Randolph said. “We  believe thousands of people in small businesses are going to benefit from this,” she said. “It shows the rate review process can be effective.” (SF Gate)

This is bigger than it might seem. First, Kaiser had been facing heat from NUHW for a while now on labor issues, but also on issues of fairness like this.  In fact, NUHW raised the alarms in a letter (PDF) on this issue back in June.

There’s always more than meets the eye in these things.  Everybody scratches everybody else’s back.  In fact, the wife of Bob Hertzberg sits on the board of Kaiser.  Hertzberg, the former speaker of the Assembly and leader of the rich dude funded “Think Long” project that will be coming up with ideas to “reform” the tax system sometime in the next few months.  You think they’ll call for increased monitoring of the massively profitable “non-profit” health insurance companies?

Uncategorized

Supreme Court Hears Medi-Cal

3 Comments

High Court to consider massive cuts to services and reimbursement rates.

by Brian Leubitz

The United States Supreme Court opened up its 2011-2012 term, and oh yeah, they’re talking California:

The Supreme Court began a new term Monday by refereeing a major healthcare dispute to decide whether cash-strapped states like California can cut their Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals who serve low-income patients.

*** **** ***

Lawyers for California and the Obama administration urged the court to rule that Medicaid is a “voluntary” effort to provide medical care for the poor and that disputes over funding should be resolved by healthcare officials in Sacramento and Washington, not by federal judges in San Francisco.

*** **** ***

But Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan spoke up for the medical providers who sued. They said California was seeking to cut its reimbursements even before the state had cleared the move with federal Medicaid officials in Washington. Ginsburg said there is no effective way to enforce the Medicaid Act if patients and providers cannot go to court when spending is slashed. (LA Times)

And really, that is kind of the point, right?  The poor have a very difficult time complaining about the cuts, and they have a smaller financial interest than the medical industry.  I don’t think this is necessarily the best way to go about a health care system, but denying the providers access to the courts means that there will be no challenges at all.

Sure, we need single payer or something that will actually work, but we need to be sure that we don’t close the courthouse door in the interim.

Budget, Jerry Brown

Must We Do This Already?

Three years before the election, Governor already faces scrutiny about his plans.

by Brian Leubitz

While Jerry Brown was busy over the weekend signing bills to ban synthetic marijuana and bar a San Francisco measure to ban circumcision, apparently people are pretty excited about replacing him.  Or perhaps more accurately, people are excited to talk about people who could replace him.

“I’ve extremely enjoyed my first year,” Brown said. “I find it — I don’t know if I’d call it exhilarating — but I find it quite engaging and interesting and fully worthy of my total involvement.”

There had been speculation when the now 73-year-old Brown was first elected to what actually amounted to a third term that he would not run again.

If he does decide to seek another term it would cause serious damage to any number of folks who want to be governor. (LA DN)

Of course, this came up in the context of an interview with CalBuzz a while back, though from their article, the question seemed to be directed more at how Brown was handling his first year back in the Horseshoe.  But, Sacramento being what it is, there are always people eyeing the top spot, and tons more willing to talk about people eyeing it.  From every statewide elected official to a the big city mayors, there will be attention on the 2014 race.

Did I mention that Brown has been in the office less than a year?  Welcome to the 24 hour news cycle.