All posts by Brian Leubitz

Uncategorized

Greg Lucas: All That Glitters…

1 Comment

Well, sometimes it is just oil. Greg Lucas examines Texas Governor Rick Perry’s attacks on California.

By Brian Leubitz

Texas Governor Rick Perry has been running around the country talking up his “Texas miracle” of economic glory.  He has spent much of his time attacking California and trying to lure companies to move. Before they go, they may want to check not just the temperatures, which have been boiling, but also the air and water quality reports. Oh, and perhaps review the labor market in Texas.

In Capitol Weekly today, Lucas examines the “facts” that Perry is spewing. To put it mildly, there is another side of the story.  Perry is benefitting from smart progressive policies, like a limit foe home equity loans to 80% of value and a tax on every barrel of oil that comes out of the ground.  You know, the oil extraction tax that Repulicans have been fighting desperately when it is brought up here.

And then there is thet dirty side of the economic “boom” that Perry won’t tell you about:

But Texas also leads the nation in dirtiest air, amount of toxic chemicals released into the water and hazardous waste generated, according to statistics from various sources compiled in Texas on the Brink, a publication of the Texas House of Representatives Legislative Study Group.

Texas also has the nation’s highest percentage of minimum wage jobs and the lowest percentage of residents with a high school diploma in the country. Of adult Texans, nearly 32 percent are college graduates – almost 38 percent of Californians are.

Almost 30 percent of Texans are uninsured – more than 6 million persons of whom 60 percent are Hispanic.  Texas also has the highest percentage of uninsured children in the country.

In Texas, 17.2 percent of the population lives in poverty compared to 13.2 percent in California where the median income is $59,000 versus $48,000 in Texas.

I grew up in Texas, and I go back frequently.  There are some great things about Texas. Because of the foresight of early leaders in retaining mineral rights to the state, I received and excellent education at a great value. But the Tea Party extremists run rampant, and the environment is still seen as something for corporate plunder.

There are a lot of Republicans, and even a few Democrats, who think we should follow the Texas model.  But all that glitters, well, it isn’t always gold.  Sometimes it is just a bunch of oil in the ground and the fog of dirty air and water.

Uncategorized

Do Away with the Board of Equalization?

1 Comment

Dan Walters suggests that the elected Board of Equalization has outlived its usefulness

by Brian Leubitz

It doesn’t take much of a keen eye to see that California needs some pretty substantial structural reform. Dan Walters wants to take the sledgehammer to the elected tax men, the Board of Equalization.

It’s also another bit of evidence that the Board of Equalization, created 132 years ago to ensure that counties applied property taxes fairly, should be abolished.

It’s simply ludicrous that the administration of taxes is dependent on the ideological whims and personal agendas of five politicians. The board’s purview now includes sales taxes and income tax appeals from the Franchise Tax Board.

*** **** ***

It’s a virtual invitation to decide tax policy, and even individual tax cases, on the basis of ideology or political pull, examples of which have popped up frequently.

We should create a Department of Revenue that would include the functions of both boards, plus other tax-collecting agencies, with an administrative appeals process, backed by a tax court and the regular court system.(SacBee)

I think there are decent arguments to both sides of this fight.  If we could really develop a strong revenue department that would fairly administer the tax policies, maybe it is something worth considering.  However, how that is done would make a big difference to me.  If we end up with a revenue department that is too weak, or too aggressive, or just doesn’t pay attention to community concerns, that could be a lot worse than the Board of Equalization.

On the other hand, a responsive tax structure is hardly the worst thing in the world, yet alone the worst in our own government.  I can think of more than a few boards in Sacramento that would rankle more than the BoE. At least it is elected rather than a retirement home for termed our politicians.

If we are going to start making constitutional changes, might as well go big and do away with the Senate too.  

Uncategorized

Redistricting Maps Head Towards a Finished Product

5 Comments

While Republicans threaten to sue, 2012 could be an interesting election season

by Brian Leubitz

Redistricting matters.  It matters so much that Republicans are already planning their assault on the redistricting commission’s tentative final maps which were released today.  Take a look at that picture to the right, and you can see what it is worth. (Hat tip to Dante)  The Republicans are simply scared of complete irrelevance:

California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro was laying the groundwork Monday to fight some or all of the maps, saying attorneys were considering either a lawsuit or a referendum that would place the issue before voters.

Asked if the commission’s final product would give Democrats a two-thirds majority in the Legislature, Del Beccaro said simply, “I think it has raised the stakes for that considerably.” (SacBee)

These maps do put several sitting state legislators and members of Congress in jeopardy.  There won’t be a huge shift in partisan representation, but the Republicans have more to lose in the Legislature than the Democrats do.  The Republicans, while they would like to get a majority at some point, feel comfortable with their empowered minority.  They like their safe seats, and are terrified of fighting for toss-up districts.

If the Dems lose two seats in both houses, they are still in the same position that they were before. But if Republicans lose two in both houses, and the Democrats then have a 2/3 supermajority.  The 2/3 threshold is still a very difficult task, and would require another big round of turnout in 2012. These maps do make it more possible, but far from probable.  But with stakes like that, the CRP is right to worry.

Meanwhile, it seems that communities of interest have taken precedence over all else in the considerations.  Despite the fact that the text of Prop 11 made city and county borders, and communities of interest the express priority, some aren’t so fond of that.  Dan Walters calls it a de facto segregation, and he is somewhat correct on that score.  For better or worse, we Californians have separated ourselves out. Grouping not just by race, but also by interests and, as Walters points out, political views.  Urban life appeals to some, but not to others.  This goes a long way in indicating your political leanings.

You can keep track of the maps here, but a first vote is scheduled for Friday.  At this point it looks like the Commission is reaching a sort of consensus that will result in a map emerging from the process.  (If so, I will duly issue a mea culpa on my prediction that it would be hard for them to even produce a consensus map.)

Uncategorized

Brown Nominates Goodwin Liu to Replace Carlos Moreno

4 Comments

Jorde Symposium 2010Liu will have big shoes to fill

by Brian Leubitz

The news of Carlos Moreno’s retirement earlier this year was not entirely surprising, yet it did leave a big hole on the California Supreme Court.  Moreno was the only Justice appointed by a Democrat, and while the Court was fairly moderate on social issues (see marriage equality 1 and 2), it often tilted to the Right on economic issues.

Moreno was a voice that sought fairness and a standard of law that imposed rights and duties on corporations just as it did on ordinary citizens.  His strength of character and perseverance were essential to building a reasonable consensus on the court.  Jerry had quite the shoes to fill when Moreno announced his retirement.

There was a big push for a Latino, and while that goal was not achieved, the appointment of Goodwin Liu will fill many other goals for the Court.

Gov. Jerry Brown nominated UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the California Supreme Court Tuesday, giving the state high court a fourth Asian justice and a collegial liberal who is likely to be strongly supportive of civil rights.

Liu was President Obama’s pick for a seat on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but he failed to garner enough Republican support. Liu, 40, has never been a judge, but his colleagues at Berkeley, including conservatives, strongly endorsed him for the position.(LA Times)

Liu will be a strong voice for ordinary Californians on the Court. While hardly a radical leftist, he does have a sincere respect for civil rights.  While President Obama was not willing to spend the “political capital” to get him on the federal appellate bench, he will be allowed a fairly simple confirmation here.  He may face some pressure when he faces a retention vote in the general election, but unless something drastically changes between now and then, nothing will really come of it.

Liu’s appointment gives the Court a strong representation in the Asian community.  However, the Court will have no Latinos or African-Americans, something the Governor would be wise to rectify in the next appointment process.

Uncategorized

Poll Numbers on Card Check for Farmworkers

2 Comments

As safety violations continue, card check still has many opponents

by Brian Leubitz

Despite the deaths and very public injuries of farm workers over the past few years, farm labor is still very difficult to organize.  There are many reasons for this, as you can imagine.  Great distances, language barriers, and immigration issues are just some of those.  In addition, because of these issues, management has great sway over labor.  Management essentially has a thumb on the scale of an election process.

Card check wouldn’t end these issues, but it could go a long way towards making labor relevant in farm work.  Despite Jerry’s veto of card check legislation, the issue won’t go away quickly.  However, the numbers from the recent LA Times/USC poll show that the unions may need to do a bit more work on messaging.

The poll shows that 42% support card check for farm workers, and 45% oppose. Now, those numbers should probably considered somewhat squishy, but not necessarily in the good way.  After being read pro and con statements, support for card check fell to 39%.

Farm work is one of the more obvious positive cases for card check. It makes an unmanageable task possible, but hardly easy.  Farm workers need the right to organize, and card check just levels the playing field somewhat.

Budget, Jerry Brown

Voters Want Local Taxes, Prison Cuts

2 Comments

More data from LA Times/USC poll

by Brian Leubitz

Last week I mentioned the LA Times/USC poll done by Greenberg Quinlan Research in the context of the Amazon referendum, but the poll itself had quite a variety of meat on the bones.  One interesting question regards a proposal raised by Sen. Steinberg to allow municipalities raise taxes on their own on a new litany of items.  According to the poll, it has some strong support:

Californians would let local officials put new taxes on cigarettes, sugary drinks, liquor and oil pumped from the ground if voters in their communities said it was OK, a new poll shows.

Local governments cannot tax such products in California now. But a proposal being vigorously debated in the Capitol would allow cities, counties and more than 1,000 school boards to add their own levies and give local voters final say. Nearly 60% of those polled supported such a change.

*** **** ***

After voters in the survey were presented with both sides’ arguments, support for new local tax powers dipped only slightly, from 58% to 55%. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats, 64%, approved; 42% of Republicans did. (LA Times)

Of course, the full poll has a few more interesting items, but in many ways the results are all over the map.  It seems that many voters want one cake, will eat another, and are happy to let the cake at the end of the table burn to the ground.  

For example, prison spending is really, really not popular.  However, as you may have heard, we are required under some federal litigation to improve the situation there.  Despite our recent voting patterns on initiative after initiative, this poll indicates that voters would rather we start an early release program or do pretty much anything else before spending additional money on the system.

A whopping 69% would release non-violent offenders early, 62% would alter the three strikes system.  On the other hand, only 23% would raise taxes to pay for prisons, and only 12% would cut other services to pay for them. These are interesting numbers that legislators would be wise to heed, perhaps in a more comprehensive sentencing reform package than the little tweaks around the edges of the past few years.

The public, rather unsurprisingly, is still looking for (and in need of) more information on the budget.  But, even if we can succeed on an information perspective, there is still a lot of work to be done.

Budget

Voters Split on Amazon Referndum

26 Comments

Referendum could get expensive

by Brian Leubitz

A new poll by the LA Times and USC shows that voters are split on the “Amazon” referendum.

The poll found 46 percent of voters favor the tax and 49 percent oppose it.

Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed the bill last month, but opponents are collecting signatures to put a measure on the ballot to overturn it.

“At this point, Californians are evenly divided on whether online purchases should be taxed. This could be one of the most expensive campaigns in California history, and neither side starts with a clear advantage,” Dan Schnur, director of the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll, said in a statement. (Hill)

With some brick and mortar retailers looking set to join the battle against Amazon, there is going to be a lot of money flowing back and forth when this one appears on the primary ballot.

From a strategy standpoint, Amazon just gets to bash legislators, always an easy target.  On the other hand, supporters of the online sales tax will have to do some explaining.  There are a lot of reasons to support the tax, but actually getting the votes? Well, the old saying goes, when you are explaining, you are losing.

One more point was that there were more “Strongly” opposed to the sales tax collection than those “Strongly in favor” of the collection.  So, Amazon has a higher ceiling and a broader audience to attempt to move.

Uncategorized

Prop 14 and Party Endorsements

10 Comments

So-called “Top 2” primary makes intraparty general elections possible

by Brian Leubitz

The top-2 primary system yields some strange results.  You could end up with two members of the same party.  Or you could end up with a non-major party candidate in the top 2.  Both of these situations lead to some uncomfortable questions for the party.  Under the current rules, party entities are not allowed to endorse non-democrats.  However, if there are no Democrats in the general election, what then?  CDP Chair John Burton just released an email about his take on the “top 2” primary system and independents.  

What are we to do if a “Decline-to-State” supports the issues we do and shares our values as Democrats? I personally know several people who became “Decline-to-State” in opposition to Iraq and Afghanistan, but favor environmental protection, gay rights, and other progressive issues. If local Democrats are presented with a dilemma of a progressive declined-to-state vs. a reactionary Republican in the run off election, I believe the local delegates should have the option of whether to endorse.

The July Executive Board meeting happening next weekend will deal with these issues.  The changes proposed by the CDP Rules committee can be found here (PDF. In short, the rules changes allow a DTS voter to apply to get an endorsement where there are no Democrats on the ballot.

Take a look at the changes, there is a lot to think about.  I’m pretty inclined to support this, but I’d like to hear others’ thoughts. Full email over the flip.

Dear Brian:

One of the issues before our Executive Board later this month deals with how the Party handles endorsements in a post-Prop 14 (Top-Two Primary) world.

One of the items we grappled with in this process is what to do with regard to endorsements if no Democrat makes the run off.

What are we to do if a “Decline-to-State” supports the issues we do and shares our values as Democrats? I personally know several people who became “Decline-to-State” in opposition to Iraq and Afghanistan, but favor environmental protection, gay rights, and other progressive issues. If local Democrats are presented with a dilemma of a progressive declined-to-state vs. a reactionary Republican in the run off election, I believe the local delegates should have the option of whether to endorse.

It is far fetched, but a possibility, that a Senator Bernie Sanders type of decline-to-state candidate could be running against a Wally Herger or Tom McClintock in the run off. Should the locals not be given the option to decide to endorse or not endorse the “DTS” candidate? Some say that it would be just as effective to say that we oppose right-wing Republicans. I personally disagree. I don’t think you can beat somebody with nobody.

I truly believe that it is in the best interest of the principles we believe in as Democrats to at least have the option of deciding in those rare instances when a progressive DTS is running against a reactionary Republican.

I look forward to finalizing this matter in Anaheim on the weekend of July 29-31. If you have any questions, feel free to call on me.

Peace and friendship,

John

Jerry Brown

Medicaid Fight Reaches from Sacramento to DC

5 Comments

Budget Cuts May Get Stalled at the Waiver Request

by Brian Leubitz

The nasty budget that the Governor just signed included some MediCal cuts.  Unfortunately for the legislators and the Governor, and perhaps fortunately for some Medi-Cal recipients, the cuts must be cleared by the federal government in order to continue receiving important federal funds.  The problem is that the cuts are really far too deep, if allowed to proceed, Medi-Cal recipients would find it even more difficult to find a doctor that accepts Medi-Cal and get the services they need.  In other words, it puts lives of Californians at risk.

But that’s not the only issue, as there is always something to the political side of Medicaid.  If it were a simple matter of acceptable cuts, this batch would probably not fit the definitions.  But, in an article entitled “Liberal governor’s request for Medicaid cuts puts Democrats in tough spot”, the Hill points out that the administration might want to avoid poking Jerry Brown in the eye.  Of course, you’ll need to take the Hill with a big grain of salt, as they called Jerry Brown a “liberal Governor.”  You know, the guy who slashed our budget, that man is out of control with his liberal-ness.

But I digress from the point:

President Obama and congressional Democrats have been put in a tough spot by California Gov. Jerry Brown’s (D) request to cut Medicaid spending by 10 percent.

Brown says he needs to make the cuts to the state Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, to ease his state’s severe budget woes. But advocates say cuts of that size would be devastating to California’s most vulnerable residents.

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) – and, by extension, the White House – must choose between helping a Democratic governor who has been a leader on healthcare reform and signing off on a policy that advocates say would be devastating to people with disabilities.

CMS also has to weigh the potential fallout from the decision, because giving California carte blanche to make Medicaid cuts could open the floodgates for other states to make similar requests. (The Hill)

In other words, this cut would ripple not only through California, but far beyond. Other states, seeing a chance to cut a big line item that they aren’t so fond of anyway, will come knocking on the federal doors.  As goes California, so goes the nation, or something like that.

But if Jerry Brown is the “liberal” here, well, might as well be Dennis Cardoza on the other side:

“If the proposed cuts in the Medi-Cal rate go through,” Cardoza recently wrote to CMS Administrator Donald Berwick, “I am deeply concerned that [some] providers [of services for the disabled] will have no option other than to close their facilities.”

We risk losing many group facilities with these cuts. We risk losing many doctors with these cuts.  Pharmacies may stop taking MediCal soon too.  One more thing to consider: children with MediCal actually have a lower access to medical care than uninsured children.

Cutting Medi-Cal more at this time just means that this problem gets worse.

Uncategorized

You Didn’t Think Term Limits Actually Led to Citizen Legislators, Did You?

13 Comments

A new report shows legislators just move over, not out.

by Brian Leubitz

A new report by the Center for Governmental Studies shows that state legislators don’t really leave Sacramento after their terms are up, as Prop 140 envisioned:

“Let’s restore that form of government envisioned by our Founding Fathers,” proponents wrote. “A government of citizens representing their fellow citizens.”

The CGS study, admittedly only a snapshot of the post-Prop 140 world in Sacramento, compared the landing spots for the men and women termed out of office in 2008 to the careers of ex-legislators in the decade between 1980-1990.

In the Assembly, 60% of the 2008 departed remained in the public sector through either appointed or elected positions… the exact same percentage as did so in the 1980s. In the Senate, 30% of ex-members stayed in public service a generation ago; in 2008, it was actually a little higher at 40%. And in both instances, the ex-pols of the 1980s seemed to return to the private sector at a higher rate than those of today.

Exactly what accounts for all of that isn’t clear, and the CGS study doesn’t pretend to have the answers. But it does offer an opinion about one of the essential promises of legislative term limits:

These findings suggest that California’s term limits have not created an environment in which citizen legislators temporarily serve in the state Capitol and then return to the private sector. Rather, it suggests that professional legislators pre and post term limits continued to seek careers in other governmental positions — a form of political musical chairs for governmental office.

CGS goes on to argue in their report (PDF) that term limits need reform, specifically the change from 14 to 12 years but allowing members to serve the entire time in one chamber.

That recommendation is basically the initiative that will be on the ballot during the next election that was sponsored by the LA Labor Fed. The big difference between this measure and Prop 93 of 2008 is that current legislators aren’t exempted.

But CGS also makes one more interesting recommendation: members can come back from their term limits ban after waiting a suitable time.  This could make for some interesting races involving unretired legislators against their former chosen successors.  Could make for some interesting political theater anyway, but that would require an additional ballot measure.

Given the state’s record since Prop 140, it is really hard to defend term limits in any meaningful way, but this additional data adds some fuel to the fire.