All posts by Brian Leubitz

Budget, Jerry Brown

Brown Cuts New Death Row Facility at San Quentin, Where Next?

4 Comments

With all of the cuts that Governor Brown has been making, at least he found one that isn’t totally objectionable.  He just announced that he’ll be (insert bad pun here…killing, pulling the plug, …) the new death row facility that Arnold had wanted to build:

Gov. Jerry Brown pulled the plug today on plans to construct a new housing facility for condemned inmates at San Quentin.

Brown said in a statement that he believes it would “be unconscionable to earmark $356 million for a new and improved death row while making severe cuts to education and programs that serve the most vulnerable among us.” (SacBee)

Given our lack of actually putting anybody to death since the beginning of Gray Davis’ administration, this probably makes a fair bit of fiscal sense.  Of course, so would just ending the charade of a death penalty entirely, but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards for now.

But with these targeted cuts, is Jerry Brown doing what Bill Lockyer has been suggesting by targetting projects and regions favored by Republican legislators?  Earlier in the week he suggested doing just that:

State lawmakers who want an all-cuts budget because less government is better should get their wish starting with their own districts, state Treasurer Bill Lockyer said this morning.

Lockyer, visiting the Bay Area News Group-East Bay’s editorial board, said that when these lawmakers – many of whom already serve the state’s most recession-stricken areas – start hearing from their constituents about even deeper cutbacks in police and fire services, public schools and universities, social services and the like, they’ll soon think the better of stonewalling a public vote on Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to extend current tax rates for five more years. (BayAreaNewsGroup)

Indeed, Senator Steinberg has echoed the sentiment.  Of course, the question of cutting specific regions gets kind of tricky, and very dicey politically.  I’m not saying it can’t be done, but for now this is really all gamesmanship.  Gamesmanship that probably should have started a few months ago, but that’s neither here nor there.

Of course, on the flip side, Republican Senate Leader Dutton says that it is all the Democrats fault because they won’t agree to the Republican plan.  Oh right, I remember that night in November when hell froze over and the Republicans took a majority.  The fact is that the Republicans are overplaying their hand, and eventually it has to have some ramifications for them.

Cutting into the budget for the death penalty is a good start, but it isn’t going to really get to the heart of the matter.  Unless we get some movement from the Republican legislators, the cuts are going to be coming directly from classrooms.

Uncategorized

All Our Consumer Protection Is Belonging To AT&T

2 Comments

Excuse me while I take this break from your regularly scheduled budget updates, but I felt this was of enough importance to take a small diversion.  Remember when California was the bastion of consumer protection?  We head state legislators like (now Congresswoman) Jackie Speier writing some really strong consumer protection legislation.  And while our Supreme Court was stocked with Republicans, they were the sort that understood how the real world worked.  Well, you woke up today in a whole new California, where consumer protection is only something for the simple fools who can’t pen an arbitration provision.

In a stunningly corporate-fueled decision, the United States Supreme Court in AT&T vs. Concepcion somehow found that the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA of 1925(!)) was in conflict with state law ruling that consumers can not be imposed with arbitration provisions as they were unconscionable.  That is a legal term, but it essentially means that the provision would be so unfair, and the situation so heavily tilted towards one party that the courts won’t enforce the provisions.

And that has essentially been the law in California for years, and this case involving a $30.83 charge from AT&T, is a great example.  The Courts have refused to enforce many such arbitration provisions, because quite simply the litigants would not go to court over $30.83.  They would not go to arbitration over $30.83.  It just isn’t worth any individual’s time.  And quite frankly, every attorney knows that no attorney is going to take a case, even one for $7500, which prevailing parties are awarded at arbitration.  And no individual is really going to fight for the $30.83.  

And Justice Scalia, who wrote this decision (shocking!), knows this, but he just doesn’t like the idea of petty consumers getting in the way of a hard-working corporation’s money-making.

That law makes arbitration agreements enforceable on the same terms as other contracts and prohibits states from singling out arbitration for unfavorable treatment, said Scalia, writing for the court’s conservative majority. He said the California ruling, which allows customers to pursue class actions in arbitration, “interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration.”

Arbitrating cases for a large number of customers at once “makes the process slower, more costly and more likely to generate procedural morass,” said Scalia.

He said class-wide arbitration also “greatly increases the risk to defendants” and may coerce settlements.(SF Chronicle)

Except that the FAA of 1925(!) doesn’t do anything of the sort that Scalia is representing.  It encourages arbitration and notes that they are valid and enforceable.  However, it does give one major exception: “{An arbitration provision} shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”

And guess what? The unconscionability provision has been a part of law since well before 1925, and should therefore be respected under the FAA of 1925(!).  That this ruling is only happening 86 years later should be an indicator of something sketchy.  

The other major issue here is that while conservatives are all over states rights when it comes to issues they care about, health care, racial discrimination, that sort of thing, when it comes to corporate profits they’ve never heard of the concept.

Dissenting Justice Stephen Breyer accused the majority of disregarding traditional state authority over the fairness of contracts while leaving consumers in the lurch.

Bans on class actions “can lead small-dollar claimants to abandon their claims rather than to litigate,” said Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.(SF Chronicle)

After yesterday’s decision, you will be seeing many more arbitration provisions in every agreement that you sign with a big corporation.  And really, you won’t have a choice about it, because you want the cell phone, or you need the internet service or what not.  So you’ll sign it.  And unless you are willing to personally go to arbitration over $30.83, you will lose pretty much all of your rights under California consumer protection law.

This is a monumentally poor decision, one that will continue the radical shift of power away from the people and to the corporate “persons.”  California’s right to be an innovator of consumer protection has been greatly eroded by a band of 5, and there’s not a whole lot we can do about it.

Really, the only way to change this is to pass a law in Congress.  And how likely do you think it is that the Tea Party controlled House gives one second’s worth of consideration to this states’ rights cause?  You think the Koch Brothers are slowly rubbing their hands together as they greet another step along the road to a government by, for, and of the corporation?

UPDATE: Sen Al Franken has introduced legislation to overturn this decision.  Of course, it will be a long road before it gets signed into law, but along with Rep. Hank Johnson, at least he’s walking it.

Uncategorized

Is It Time to Ditch the Vote?

5 Comments

We are now approaching May with no timetable for a vote on tax extensions, and we all know the ramifications of an expiration…$12-15 billion in additional cuts.  The well-identified problem at this point is one of timing.  There simply isn’t enough time to get those to the people before we start losing money.

There had been news of interest groups pushing to change strategy to a legislative vote, and at this point, it is hard to see, functionally, how we make a vote happen.  Tim Rutten makes the point that the Legislature just needs to do it themselves in today’s LA Times:

When Brown made his promise – a pandering nod to the direct democracy fallacy – he could not have anticipated that he’d be totally blocked by the minority party, whose philosophy of government has been overwhelmingly rejected by California’s voters. Those same legislators can be counted on to obstruct a legislative approach, but Brown has formidable political tools and the proven willingness to use them.

In the meantime, a Times/USC Dornsife Poll released Sunday found that more than half the state’s voters agree with Brown’s approach to the fiscal crisis and want to balance the budget with a combination of painful spending cuts and moderate tax increases. Barely 3 in 10 backed the plan advanced by the Republican legislators to balance the budget by cutting $14 billion more than Brown already has proposed – reductions that would leave education and the already badly frayed social safety net in ruins.

One of the realities our long infatuation with direct democracy has obscured is the fact that to govern is to choose. Jerry Brown now needs to decide between an ill-advised campaign promise and the common good of all Californians. If the choice doesn’t seem clear, we all ought to take a hard look in the mirror.(LA Times)

There is one difficulty that Rutten didn’t really delve into in this column, the problem of actually winning an election.  While the numbers show that less that 30% of Californians really support an all-cuts budget, that doesn’t mean that tax extensions (or really, new taxes) have smooth sailing.  Unfortunately the California voter is really rather hard to read, no matter how many polls you see:

So when 75% of California voters say they’re following the Great Budget Debate but only 16% are aware that state spending has declined by billions in the last three years, you’d be well advised to take voters’ opinions with a big honkin’ chunk of salt.

It makes sense that six in 10 voters in the latest LA Times/USC survey – including (knuckledragger alert) 51% of Republicans and conservatives – agree with Gov. Jerry Brown that there ought to be a special election to decide whether to renew increases in income and sales taxes and vehicle license fees. …

Just because people say they want to vote on the budget, however, doesn’t mean they have any actual knowledge about the budget, the budget process, where California raises and spends the most money, how big public employee pensions are or any other actual factoid. Remember, one of our three rules of politics is, “Nobody knows anything.” (CalBuzz)

To be clear, we have gotten some important advancements through the legislature, but in general, our plebiscites have done more harm than good.  While we enjoy the privilege of voting, we don’t always take seriously that responsibility.  I don’t say this to blame voters, but more to empathize.   Following the budget fight is really a full-time job.  And we the people shouldn’t be responsible for that.  That is why we elect people to go to Sacramento.  They have a job there, and they should do it.

Marriage Equality

Prop 8 Proponents Think Only White Straight Men Can Rule on Civil Rights Cases

5 Comments

Well, the rumors that Judge Vaughn Walker were out there for a long time, and he never really denied it.  The Chronicle, among others, published that information during the trial, and it was basically an known fact.  However, Judge Walker has now acknowledged that he has been in a long term relationship with a man, and that apparently is entirely different.   He might, you know, be interested in marrying some day, and so the thought processes of the Prop 8 attorneys goes, he should have recused himself from the case.  They’ve filed a motion saying just that and asking for a new trial.

Eight months later, Proposition 8’s proponents and their attorneys have taken a new position. They filed a motion Monday seeking to vacate Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s historic ruling, a move they said was prompted by the now-retired jurist’s recent disclosure that he is in a long-term relationship with another man.

Lawyers for the ban’s backers argue that the judge’s relationship status, not his sexual orientation, gave him too much in common with the couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban in his court. The judge should have recused himself or at least revealed the relationship to avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest, the lawyers say.(Sac Bee (AP))

This is really rather incredible.  First, they are essentially arguing that only those who are unaffected by civil rights cases can hear those cases.  So…diversity, yeah, that’s a waste of time.  Our bench should just be white straight men (WSM) so that they can hear all the cases. Never mind that we all bring a perspective to our daily life, only WSMs are unbiased enough to hear civil rights cases.  And really, we should be looking into some of those WSMs as well.  Gender discrimination case? Well, that WSM has a daughter who might have been excluded, better eliminate him too.  You know, maybe we should just go to a court judged entirely by people locked up in a room, so that they don’t have any other interests.  We can raise children from the age of 5 in a state of unattached freedom, so that they never care about anything, and then they can grow up to be our judges.  How does that sound?

Of course, it is pretty hard to imagine that this will actually go anywhere:

Indiana University Law School professor Charles Geyh, an expert on judicial ethics, said that without more evidence that Walker stood to personally benefit if same-sex marriages were legal in California, he found it difficult to imagine that the particulars of the judge’s same-sex relationship provided gay marriage opponents with an avenue for reversing his ruling.

“It really implies it would be fine if he were essentially surfing at bars and had a new partner every night because he wouldn’t want to be married,” he said. “I don’t see that as advancing their cause.”(SacBee (AP))

In the end, Prop 8 isn’t about stable relationships, or encouraging the reasonable public policy of rewarding that stability.  No, it is a punitive measure against those that they don’t like.  It is simply homophobia, and it doesn’t belong in California, and it doesn’t belong in our nation.

UPDATE: I’m a big fan of the dean of UC-Irvine’s nascent law school, Erwin Chemerinsky.  He really knows how to get to the nub of an argument, and explain it to you in a very real way.  Here is an example of that:

“I know of no instance in which a judge has been disqualified because of his or her race, religion, sexual orientation or gender,” Chemerinsky told TIME. “This would mean that no African-American judge could have heard a challenge to segregation laws or no woman judge a challenge to a law discriminating based on sex. No court ever has suggested any such thing, nor will it. This is simply a personal attack on Judge Walker in an effort to embarrass him. As was said in another context long ago, Have they no shame?” (Time Magazine)

Budget

California Gets Another Close-up As Legislature Returns

2 Comments

PhotobucketWell, the Legislature is back in session, just in time for another exposee of California governance, or lack thereof.  This time, it is the Economist magazine’s monthly headline.  So, yay!

While the Economist looks at everything from an economic perspective first (uh…right…the title), they aren’t necessarily dogmatic.   Rather than simply joining the chorus of “man, California really sucks, their leaders are terrible,” they actually look for the root of the problem.  In their opening story of the section, they point the finger chiefly at the initiative system.

This special report has shown how one of the three ingredients of direct democracy, the initiative process, has, cumulatively over the past three decades, caused much of the dysfunction that paralyses California whenever it suffers an economic shock, as it is doing at present. Does it follow that California must get rid of the initiative process?

It is a moot question because Californian voters would never agree (in what itself would have to be an initiative) to end initiatives. Ronald George, California’s former chief justice, says that “people will never vote to give up their own power.” The best we can hope for is to make the process “less extreme”. (The Economist)

The entire series takes a serious look at where we are, how we get there, and how we get out of this situation.  Particularly, how we harness the power of direct democracy in a state of nearly 40 million people.  This is no easy question, and while it is easy to be glib, it is harder to get to real solutions.

They do suggest some particular reforms, from emphasizing referenda over initiatives, to requiring a sunset of all initiative legislation.  These are all solid ideas, and I think you could get a majority of Californians to agree to many of them.  However, getting them on the ballot, in a hostile climate amongst consultants, with a fair bit of money coming from those who have used the system to hijack the apparatus of state?  Well, that’s more easily said than done.

At any rate, while some of the particulars, which I’m going to try to take a greater look at this week, are slightly skewed, the report as a general is well-done and informative.  Take a look, and hey, let me know what you catch.

Budget, Jerry Brown

LAT/USC Poll: Californians Oppose Cuts Only Budget

9 Comments

Governor Brown has been making the case for a vote on extending the sales taxes since January.  It’s not had much effect on the Republicans in the Legislature, but it does seem to making some headway with the people:

California voters agree with Gov. Jerry Brown that tax increases should help close the state budget deficit, and they want to vote on his plan for raising the revenue, according to a new Times/USC Dornsife poll. …

Sixty percent of those surveyed, including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans, said they back such an election. The alternative being pushed by most GOP lawmakers – forgoing an election and balancing the budget by cutting more from state services – was supported by just 33%.

You can view the full poll here, but there is some really interesting information.  It might drive pretty much any politically interested person crazy as much of it is wildly conflicting, but that’s kind of what you get when you ask questions that drop nuance in favor of simplicity.  Not that there is anything wrong with this poll, but asking questions that really focus on values is more of an art than a science.

The bold face numbers aren’t so bad, with only 25% of voters preferring a cuts only budget when they find out that such a budget would require cuts to K12 education.  Later on down the line you see that when asked if they support a state budget cap at the rate of inflation, a pretty strong majority supports it.  Of course, the fact that a budget that only increased at that rate would require some pretty heavy cuts due to population growth didn’t come up.  Oh…and we still have outstanding debt that has to be paid at some point.

This really does reflect the bigger problem of a system of governance with no real leader.  There isn’t anything wrong with the Governor, it is just that the system is designed to fail.  The elected leaders are subject to the whim of the initiative system, a process that favors feel-good slogans over sound policy.  For now, we have to deal with it, as Republicans are increasingly recalcitrant.  But, this is really no way to run one of the world’s largest economies.

After all, what it comes down to is that Californians want their cake, and they want to eat it too.  They want their two Santas, one to give them stuff, one to cut their taxes. While there are these competing visions (one of which, the Laffer-curve mania, has never been shown to work for anybody but the rich), we really can’t be surprised with these type of results. After all, the Republicans have been telling everybody that they can get something for nothing for years.

If we can get it on the ballot, a focused campaign can pass revenues, of that I am confident.  My certainty doesn’t extend much past that.

Uncategorized

A Dangerous Incompetence: PG&E’s Peter Darbee

1 Comment

PG&E’s Peter Darbee, who has been at the heart of the predatory stance of the company recently, has announced that he will be resigning:

PG&E Corp.’s embattled chief executive, Peter Darbee, will retire at the end of the month, the company reported today.

His departure follows a year in which the company and its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., have been rocked by a series of controversies and crises, most notably the deadly explosion of a natural gas pipeline in San Bruno. Consumer advocates and several public officials had called for Darbee to step down.(SF Chronicle)

As if all that mayhem wasn’t enough, let’s toss in the $46 million boondoggle that he lead his shareholders on to kill public energy choice in Californian in the form of Prop 16.  

Oh, and speaking of PG&E, it turns out that they have no idea what condition their pipelines are in, how much pressure they can sustain, and possibly, where they are.  

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. told California regulators Thursday that it will never find documents for some of its older gas pipelines, and that if the state doesn’t accept “assumptions” about some pipes, the company will have to spend five years shutting them down and testing them with high-pressure water.

In a filing with the California Public Utilities Commission, PG&E said it cannot satisfy a state order to come up with “traceable, verifiable and complete” records on all 1,800-plus miles of its pipeline in and around urban areas.

The commission issued the order after it was revealed that PG&E’s records incorrectly described as seamless the San Bruno pipeline that exploded Sept. 9, killing eight people and destroying 38 homes. Federal metallurgists have concluded that the pipe failed at a seam weld, but PG&E never conducted inspections that might have detected the problem weld.(SF Chronicle)

The argument that PG&E makes against public power choice are really two-fold.  One, that they, as a private corporation subject to market forces, could provide energy more cost effectively.  And two, that they could do it safely.  As San Francisco ratepayers look at their bills, and then look at the San Bruno disaster, what arguments still exist for the antipathy to public power.

Look at the Sacramento Municipal Utilites District (SMUD) or any other public power agency, and you will see an organization with better accountability (and rates).  PG&E is simply another middleman for a utility, one that really isn’t necessary.  

Darbee’s exit was necessary in the wake of San Bruno, though his $30+ million exit package won’t really make it seem as a kick out the door so much as a vacation.  But, really, this is just some shuffling, it seems unlikely that any real change can happen here.  But, perhaps I should be more optimistic.  With that, I welcome my new power overlord, PG&E board member Lee Cox.

Uncategorized

The Ups and Downs

1 Comment

If you are a nerd, you may be interested in keeping track of how much money is coming into the state.  While April is tax month, that doesn’t mean that all the money comes in during April.  However, the month is an interesting indicator of how we’re doing.

So, fortunately for us, John Myers has been following the data on the State Controller’s website.  As a side note, if you are a wonk, you’ll love to watch the data come in.

But, to the basics, the previous budget plan from the Administration had expected about 6.8 billion dollars.  Up until this week, we weren’t really doing so well.  That all changed over the last two days:

Wednesday 10:49 a.m. update: The last two days since this posting was written have been huge for income tax receipts — almost $1.9 billion in just 48 hours, thus putting the state on a path to possibly exceeding expectations. No doubt that would change the political debate over revenues come May. (KQED CapNotes)

So, right now we’re standing at about 5.7 billion dollars with 7 more business days before the end of the month. If I were a betting man, I would estimate that we would at least meet the original target, and perhaps even exceed it.

Keep an eye on the numbers.

Budget

Local Taxation, Negotiation, and A Mixed Bag of Policy

4 Comments

PhotobucketFor a few years, San Francisco’s legislators have been pushing, in one form or another, legislation to allow at least that county to control additional forms of taxation.  The chief target of that has been the vehicle license fee since the time that Gov. Schwarzenegger lopped off a huge chunk of revenue from that source.  Both Sen. Migden and Leno have been keen on allowing my fair city to restore the VLF to return revenue to the City and County of San Francisco.

Now, there have been a few stumbling blocks around this.  Logistically, the taxes would be approved by different majorities depending upon the election circumstances.  That’s not an overwhelming obstacle, but certainly getting 2/3 is challenging.  Not impossible, as the slew of parcel taxes over the past few years has shown, but difficult nonetheless.

But in a larger sense, it would be something of a declaration of war against the Republicans and their ideology.  And frankly Gov. Schwarzenegger was having no part of that policy, or of the politics.  But things are different now; Gov. Brown is not Gov. Schwarzenegger, and the time for a smooth reconciliation is drawing ever smaller.

And so, the possibility of local taxation is back in a major way.  This would allow counties to tax a whole slew of items that were previously regulated only by the state, and the anti-taxers are none too pleased.  Dan Morain has an excellent column on the subject in today’s Bee:

The latest: Grant all 58 counties the power to tax everything from booze and cigarettes to oil extraction and personal income. Don’t forget cars, soda pop and more, assuming voters would approve the new local levies. … Lobbyists representing the oil, tobacco, soft drink, auto industry and many more are taking the latest tactic in California’s budget battle seriously.

“I know it has gotten the attention of a lot of people, and I’m glad,” Steinberg told me Wednesday. “The majority party needs to begin, appropriately and intelligently, using the power of its majority.  One way or another, it is our responsibility to do everything we can do to avoid $5 billion in cuts to education, and billions in cuts to public safety.” (SacBee)

As this doesn’t actually raise any taxes, it is a majority vote measure. No Republican votes are necessary.  Tony Strickland was suitably apoplectic, but really nothing new there.  And as the budget fight grows longer, and more teachers get pink slips, county supervisors are going to find this ability extremely attractive.  While voters won’t have the right to vote on statewide taxes, they may get the chance to vote on local taxes.

As Morain suggests in his column, this really isn’t the ideal situation.  It’s one more way to draw the line between the haves and the havenots of the state.  What we’ll end up with is Bay Area counties with more stable revenue streams, while the Central Valley faces ever deepening cuts.  The inequality would be both troubling, and possibly violate some laws.

On the other hand, counties that choose a more reasonable fiscal path shouldn’t necessarily be bogged down by an obstinate minority in the Legislature.  And if this is what it is coming to, then so be it.  The state, and the counties, need additional revenue.  There are several counties that have shown themselves ready to tax themselves, and we shouldn’t rule that out right away.  If the decision is between inconsistency across counties, and keeping thousands of teachers in classrooms, I suspect many Californians would opt for the inconsistency.  Heck, at least that way our kids can learn about inconsistency at school.

Perhaps this is just a negotiation ploy, but it is one that should be viewed from a serious policy perspective.  It’s certainly not the best alternative, but it is among the best options that we have remaining, given the Republican Minority.

Orange County

Oh the tangled web of OC GOP politics

6 Comments

PhotobucketI can’t really purport to be an expert on Orange County politics, but the scandal that is going on now is really quite funny.  Well, funny as long as you don’t dig too deep into the racism of a member of the OC GOP central committee sending out an email to a big group of friends and acquaintances with a picture of President Obama’s on a chimpanzee body.

But the backlash, well, that’s where you see the long-standing feuds and how much these people are really out for themselves alone.  Sure they tolerate each other, but as soon as they get the chance, it’s every man for themselves.

Deborah Pauly, the first vice chairman of the Republican Party of Orange County, said the controversial email sent by another elected member of the county GOP’s governing Central Committee was a matter that should have not been handled in the public eye.

County GOP Chairman Scott Baugh publicly called on the sender, Marilyn Davenport, to resign and Monday ordered the committee to launch an ethics review. The accompanying negative publicity could have been avoided, Pauly said.

“It should have been handled internally,” Pauly said. “What Scott should have done is pick up the phone and talked to Marilyn.”

***

Pauly said the image was “indefensible,” but said Davenport “wasn’t doing anything she thought was hurtful.” (OC Register)

Right, calling our first president of mixed race a chimp couldn’t possibly be hurtful.  It would take a master of human cognition for that, right?  You know, to see into people’s emotions and stuff.

But, seriously, the more interesting part in this is the reaction of county chairman Scott Baugh (seen with the patron saint to the right), who has apparently never really liked Ms. Davenport and decided that this would be a good chance to get rid of her.  He has called the email “unquestionably racist” and called on her to resign.  Not that Baugh is really the best judge of these sorts of things, but he did seem to get this one right, whatever his motivations might be.

But for the OC GOP, motivations matter.  I can’t really help at this point to see it as nothing but some sort of proxy fight between Baugh and his detractors (of which he has many.) Grab the popcorn, I suppose.