You may have noticed that I don’t always agree with Ron Calderon and his legislative priorities.  You know, killing bills that block the dumping of indigent hospital patients and releasing private prescription data to marketers just isn’t my thing.  But today he has a new honor, being named the Worst Legislator in California with his brother Asm. Charles Calderon.

Of course, Calderon isn’t the first to win this award from the LA Weekly, that honor goes to Felipe Fuentes for, well, being a California legislator.  The knock on Fuentes made last year could just as well have been made on almost every legislator in the Capitol.  The problem they pointed out with Fuentes was that he was “authoring” bills actually written by “sponsoring” interests.  Yes, Fuentes does that, and he might take the art to new levels, but he is hardly unique.  This is just part of the crazy, messed-up system we have in Sacramento. (Incidentally, if you’d like to learn just how messed up it is, Ray LeBov can teach you a lot in his Lobbying 101 class).

So, yes, “special interests” write most of our bills, and, yes, that is totally and completely messed up.  But, as for Fuentes, hate the game, don’t hate the player.  Well, maybe tell the player to knock it the hell off, and wait for him to get termed out.  And the Brothers Calderon’s “award” starts with a similar trope of bill “sponsors.”  But more importantly it moves on to how they have been key players on Team PayDayLoan:

The reward for Calderon has been significant. According to MAPLight, he received more in direct campaign contributions connected to the payday and title loans special-interest group – $31,450 – than any other member of the Assembly in the 2009-10 or 2010-11 sessions. In the state Senate, his brother Ron received the most from the payday group – $50,000.

The current $300 loans cost a fee of $45, the maximum allowed. But the fee is deducted from the loan, leaving the borrower just $255 – and beholden for $300. That must be repaid within two weeks. The average payday loan customer takes out seven such loans each year. …

Charles Calderon argues that the current $300 limit barely pays the bills. “There are people who think payday lenders are vultures,” he says. “I don’t think I’m in a position to decide what [people’s] reasons are for wanting these loans. I represent East L.A., and those people need that money when they need it, sometimes to save the family car. I grew up in East L.A. in a poor family. I know desperation. Desperate people do desperate things.”

The assemblyman bristles when he’s accused of taking money for his vote, or as payback for carrying a bill for special interests.

“I might take money from a bank or a union, and then two or three years down the road I vote on a bill affecting that bank or union – and I get criticized because they gave me money years before.”

Not always “two or three years” later. As MAPLight.org points out regarding his yes vote on AB 2774, the big sums appeared in Calderon’s campaign chest within days. (LA Weekly)

As Asm. Holly Mitchell (D-47th, SE LA) pointed out, these lenders are vultures who are preying on the vulnerable.  Making Californians more vulnerable is not the answer.

But that’s not all for the Brothers Calderon.  Today, the LA Times revealed the dirty work that the Calderons have been doing for their local water agency:

Central Basin has also paid Oldtimers’ board president, former Assemblyman Tom Calderon, more than $750,000 in consulting fees since 2004 for political and legislative advice.

Calderon’s two brothers, both state legislators, have defended the water district’s interests in Sacramento. In 2009, Sen. Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) helped thwart an audit of Central Basin’s books. This year, Assemblyman Charles Calderon (D-Whittier) proposed legislation that could reduce the fees Central Basin’s customers pay for groundwater.

Tom and Ron Calderon, as well as Central Basin officials and contractors, helped finance a recall effort in 2008 against two council members in the City of Commerce who were critics of the water district, records show. (LA Times

The Calderons are certainly not the only ones who will do you a favor for some campaign cash or a gig for their brother, but they certainly strike a stunning profile in the art.  Ron is termed out in 2014, Charles in 2012.  Although, I suppose it wouldn’t shock anybody to see Tom Calderon run for the Senate seat in 2014 so that they can continue their, umm, service to the people of California.

One of the issues with the so called “moderates” in the California Democratic party isn’t so much where they disagree on social issues, because that rarely comes up anymore.  It is where they are able to be swayed by, typically, large corporate interests to put the interests of the few over the interests of the many.  That’s really not being moderate, that’s something entirely different, that doesn’t serve constituents or the state in general.  If you have beliefs, fine, let’s talk about them.  But I’m not so sure the Calderons really want to have a very public debate about the finer points of payday loans or water policy vis a vis their consulting contracts.

Clearly the laws of the State of California leave gaping holes for dirty money to seep in, and much of it is completely legal while some others skirt the lines.  However, we needn’t strive to walk that line, but rather look for ways to cut dramatically back on this crap.  And perhaps some political dynasties, the state of California would be better doing without.

The Calderons are hardly the first, and they certainly won’t be the last.  However, we can hope that a little sunshine from organizations like MapLight can discourage the skeazier of these actions.

When they said eternal vigilance is the price of liberty I’m not sure California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission was what they had in mind.

 

A few days ago I wrote about how a bunch of Republican operatives were busy submitting maps to the Commission while doing everything they could to reveal their true backgrounds and intents.  Yesterday they were back again with another set of maps that supposedly were about maintaining communities but really were about maintain Republican legislators. 

 

Presenting maps on behalf of the Coalition of Suburban Communities for Fair Representation was Scott Wilk who introduced himself as a member of the Santa Clarita Community College District (SCCCD) Board of Trustees.  Wilk left out some notable parts of his biography, like that he is a current elected member of the Los Angeles County Republican Central Committee, former District Director for Republican Congressman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, former Chief of Staff for Republican Assemblywoman Paula Boland and former Republican candidate for Assembly District 38.

 

Sound like someone whose maps would ignore impacts on parties, candidates and incumbents as Propositions 11/20 mandates?  I guess it was just a coincidence that the plans used some often convoluted shapes to make sure every Republican legislator found a district to land in. 

 

By the way, I do not mind Republicans submitting maps to the Commission.  They have the same rights to participate as anyone else.  I do mind when they hide who they are in order to try and manipulate the process.  And I really mind the hypocrisy of someone standing in front of the Commission and saying how important it was to take the redistricting process away from the Legislature when they are submitting maps designed to protect Republican legislators. 

 

Earlier this week, the Citizens Redistricting Commission held a hearing in Oakland for organized groups to submit their maps for consideration.  One of the last groups to present was the California Institute on Jobs, Economy and Education.  Commissioners were rightfully curious who that really meant.  They repeatedly asked for more information about the organization, who were their members and what was their policy interest was in redistricting.  The presenters did everything they could to skirt, dodge and avoid answering the questions.  

Well, since the Institute did not want to help, I can.  The gentleman who began the group’s presentation was Thomas Hiltacht.  Hiltacht is a well-known Republican attorney.  He’s worked for everyone from Arnold Schwarzenegger to the nefarious initiative to divide the state’s electoral college votes by Congressional District.  

The man who drew the lines was Matt Rexroad.  Rexroad admitted he is a County Supervisor in Yolo County.  He left out the fact he is also a highly-partisan Republican political consultant who frequently posts on redistricting for the FlashReport describing lines that may advantage or disadvantage his party.  Guess which ones made it into the Institute’s plan?

The good news is that Commissioners quickly realized their plan was a hot mess.  The Senate plan includes a district that runs from El Dorado to Tulare.  That’s more than 250 miles and a 4 and a half hour drive.  The Assembly plan splits 85 cities.  That’s about 30 more than the Legislature did 10 years ago.  The Congressional plan drops African-Americans from three districts to one in Los Angeles County.  That understandably irritated the African-American Commissioner from Los Angeles.  

The bad news is that we have to continue to be vigilant.  Tomorrow the Commission is scheduled to hear more group presentations.  The last group to present is Citizens for California Reform.  Another independent organization that just wants fair redistricting right?  Wrong.  Citizens for California Reform is a front group for Gabriella Holt, failed Republican candidate for Assembly District 54 in 2008 and the main force behind the 2010 failed effort to use a part-time Legislature initiative to threaten Democrats into giving into Republican budget demands.  

Hopefully we can count on Commissioners to see through their act just like they saw through the Institute’s today.  

Over at CalPensions.com, Ed Mendel tracks , well, state pensions, and he has an interesting story today about the potential for Jerry Brown “half move” toward an individual 401K style plan rather than the pensions that have helped move millions of Californians into the middle class.

Gov. Brown is proposing that the state give CalPERS $1.5 million to identify and study alternatives for a “hybrid” retirement plan, a cost-cutting combination of pensions and 401(k)-style individual investment plans.

The item in the governor’s revised state budget plan last week is a reminder that the “12-point pension reform plan” he proposed last March listed a “hybrid option” as one of five points still under development.

Brown issued the reform plan after a breakdown in talks with a handful of Republican legislators, who must provide at least four of the votes needed to extend an expiring tax increase.

The Republicans are said to be seeking pension reform along with a state spending limit and business-friendly regulatory changes. A news release in March said Brown intends to “introduce these pension reforms with or without Republican support.”

Back in 1978, Jerry probably missed a bit of writing on the wall with Prop 13, and so perhaps he is tryinig to be a bit more proactive this time aroung.  In general that is a good thing, as this issue really resonates for some reason.  Perhaps it is because the retirement account nightmares of the last few years of millions of middle class families, and that we have completely failed to articulate the value of pensions and the long term security they offer.  Wall Street has done a really, really good job of telling people that private investments (you know, through them taking a big cut)p are far better.  Of course, the numbers don’t really bear that out, but Wall Street has better marketing people than CalPERS does.

I cetainly understand the Governor’s intetnion of pushing this “reform”, but is certainly worrying when we are talking about dismantling, perhaps just a few bricks at a time, one of the strongest pension systems developed in the US or anywhere else.

We’ve had several fights about spending cuts, and while progressives feel we should prioritize the stability of the economy over the deficit, reasonable minds can disagree.  And while much of the argument is being rehashed with regards to the debt ceiling, again you could understand conservatives fighting for spending cuts.  It is bad policy, and seriously misguided, but you can kind of see where they are coming from.

But this morsel from Devin Nunes (R-Tulare) is really something that nobody with an elementary understanding of economics, something that a member of Congress should posses, should ever even consider saying:

Nunes says the debt cap must be raised at some point but not necessarily before the point of default.

“By defaulting on the debt, in the short and long term, it could benefit us to go through a period of crisis that forces politicians to make decisions” on major policies that affect the budget, he told POLITICO. (Wonk Room)

Either Nunes is posturing based on his base’s obsession with ruining the economy, or he really is this stupid.  No, it would not benefit us to create a recession that would be as bad, if not worse than the one that began with the housing crash.  

If you thought that one was bad, imagine the scenario when there is no government to stop the backslide and the entire financial system creeps towards the abyss.  The dollar would be virtually worthless and we would have to essentially give up the majority of our military.  I don’t think Nunes understands where our spending really goes.  If the military that he wants to lavish money upon does not get a big portion of the cuts, then there are no substantive cuts.

For his sake and ours, I hope this is just outlandish posturing meant to get attention.  If not, well, redistricting is coming up, and perhaps somebody who doesn’t want an economic depression can take his job.

UPDATE: And the right-wingers have their way. They have now blocked Prof. Liu’s confirmation, and it is now likely dead.  My guess would be that he withdraws at this point. It is really a shame, as he would have been an outstanding jurist.  So much for the up or down votes that Republicans had been clamoring for just a few years ago.

For far too long now, the nomination of a very qualified attorney, Goodwin Liu has been held up in the Senate.  It appears the “We’re not going to filibuster” gang that was formed during the Bush administration only really applied to conservative judges.  When a moderately progressive judge, and that’s really what he is, gets nominated, apparently all bets are off.

And the LA Times called bullshit today, as they have done in the past:

Liu, who has been rated “well qualified” by the American Bar Assn., is widely regarded as a brilliant lawyer with a temperament that would well suit him to the bench. He is undeniably on the liberal end of the legal spectrum but is admired for his fair-mindedness by many conservatives. Nevertheless, he was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee without a single Republican vote. Republicans complained that he was “outside the mainstream,” which seems to be a synonym for liberal.

Republicans – and Democrats – inclined to oppose Liu’s nomination are free to vote against it. But they would do an injustice to Liu and the Senate by refusing to allow his nomination to come to a vote. The Senate should make such a vote possible – and then approve Liu.(LA Times)

The thing is, Liu really isn’t that liberal.  He’s certainly no more out of the “mainstream” of legal thought any more than Thomas or Alioto on the Supreme Court.  The Berkeley professor is known for his moderate demeanor and generally being a decent guy, traits that would serve him well on the bench.  Though he is only 40, he has built up an excellent record of legal scholarship.

The 9th Circuit, which includes California, has a plurality of the Asian-American population, yet none of its members are of that community.  President Obama has nominated a well qualified (judged by the ABA) nominee, and he should be confirmed.