Category Archives: Budget

Blog Roundup, Budget, Environment, Prisons, San Francisco

July 10, 2007 Blog Roundup

1 Comment

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let us know if I missed anything in comments.

Also, The California Majority Report seems to be experimenting with a daily news roundup. They’re calling it “Fresh Meat“, which is best thought of as a sort of a spun “Rough and Tumble”. I hope they can keep it up — I tried to do that for a month or two in 2005, and it was brutal. Of course, CA Majority Report should be able to, y’know, pay people.

Budgets are Moral
Documents

All Politics is Local

Our State and Planet

Other State Politics in
No Particular Order

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Budget

Democrats Stepping Up Pressure on Late Budget

4 Comments

(cross-posted from Working Californians)

Yesterday, Speaker Fabian Nunez put out a press release with an aggressive tone, calling on Arnold to meet with the legislative leaders on the budget.

ONE WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AT SOME POINT BETWEEN NOW AND THE FIRST OF DECEMBER THE GOVERNOR WOULD CALL A BIG FIVE MEETING SO THAT HIS LEADERSHIP COULD BEGIN TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE STALEMATE BETWEEN THE DEMOCRATIC AND THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP ON THE BUDGET.

Arnold did meet with the leadership yesterday, but it appears that little was accomplished.  Democrats often use the California Majority Report to push a message that may not be getting through in the press.  Today there are two pieces up on the Republicans and the budget.  They are clearly ramping up the pressure on them to agree to the Democrat’s budget version.

Steve Maviglio, the Speaker’s spokesman, kicks things off with a faux memo from the Republicans, claiming that the Republicans have already gotten most of what they wanted.

Well, we’ve done it. We managed to hold the budget up and put the squeeze on the Governor and Democrats. We’re still pinching ourselves that we’ve been able to win so many concessions!

Matt Jones follows this up with a post making the case that the Republican leadership is being obstinate in an attempt to save their jobs.

In the Senate, Republican Leader Dick Ackerman has been hanging on to his post by a single vote or two for the past year. Senators George Runner, Dave Cogdill, and Jim Battin are among those who have been eyeing his post.

These hard-right Republican senators coveting his job have been laying in wait for Ackerman to fold early in the budget talks. So, as a result, Ackerman has to talk tough to hang onto his job, or else he’ll be spending lots more time on his yacht.

Same deal on the Assembly Republican side, with new GOP leader Mike Villines.  He was elected to his post, promising to stand up to the Democrats, instead of “coddling them” as his predecessor was accused of doing.  Jones says that the GOP Assembly Caucus is “restless about Villines first-time performance in budget negotiations” and accuses him of hiding “behind Dick Ackerman’s skirt”. 

This is aggressive language, designed to provoke a reaction from the Republican legislators and their staff.  Doing so would encourage the press to cover the situation more in-depth than their pretty lightweight articles today (see Chron and SacBee)  They are ratcheting up the rhetoric, in attempt to create movement on the budget.  There is deliberate pressure being placed on the Republicans to lay out the programs they would be willing to cut.  Right now they are just calling for cuts without giving any details, something the press is starting to call them on.

Negotiations will continue to go on behind the scenes as this bomb throwing occurs in public.  Soon the legislative staff will start going without paychecks and other state employees will not be far behind.  Such is the typical budget making season in California.  Perhaps we can avoid shutting down the whole state government like Pennsylvania did earlier this week.  That would be nice wouldn’t it?

Budget

BuyCaliforniaBonds.com: Putting the Little Guy One Step Ahead of the Big Guys

6 Comments

So, let me start this out with a caveat, I’ve been, well, less than a Bill Lockyer fan after he said he voted for Arnold in the recall. Either he believed the hype, disliked Bustamante (well, he’s not alone there), or a combination of both. And what’s with announcing that you voted for a Republican?

That being said, BuyCaliforniaBonds.com is a genuinely cool idea.  It’s scheduled for wider release when bonds go up for sale in about a week, but here’s what they have up there now:

California voters have approved more than $60 billion of bonds to construct schools, roads, housing, parks, flood protection and other crucial infrastructure projects.  Over the next few years, the state will be selling these voter-authorized bonds to investors to raise the money to build these projects.  The state pays the principal and interest on the bonds, known as general obligation (GO) bonds, from the state’s general fund.

State GO bonds historically have been purchased by both individual investors and sophisticated “institutional investors” such as insurance companies and mutual funds.  Individual investors, however, often have found it difficult to buy the bonds and to purchase them on the same terms as large institutional investors.  State Treasurer Bill Lockyer wants to make it easier for individual Californians to invest in their own future by buying the state’s bonds.  Buy California Bonds will be the site to visit to learn about California bonds and how to acquire them.  Our next general obligation bond sale is scheduled for late June.  Come back to this site on June 11 to learn more.

Hey, that’s today, so we might learn more soon, but as I understand it, this site is just an advertising component and they won’t be actually selling the bonds there.  But, I think that they  will  be making the bonds available to individuals before institutional investors, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the traditional arrangement.  Now, these bonds aren’t exactly an IPO and won’t make anybody rich, but this is a cool move by Senator, Atty General Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

You see, this is one thing that governments back in the day knew. If you are going to float debt, better to a) float it at home and b) get the citizens involved in their government.  So, like say the old Liberty Bonds in the WWII days. They got people to understand the shared sense of sacrifice. This is a good idea to be brought back, so that people understand the issues of debt financing. It’s clear that Californians aren’t really comfortable with the workings of the government, so why not reach out in tangible ways, like this bond issue, to help reconnect government to its citizens. Good work, Treasurer Lockyer.

Budget, Orange County

Extreme Makeover: OC Government Edition

New desk for reception foyer of Supervisor John Moorlach's office: $8,990, New conference table for Supervisor Pat Bates' office: $3,375, Track lighting with dimmer switch for Supervisor Janet Nguyen's office: $1,300, 90 high-end, “high-concept” Herman Miller office chairs for Treasurer Chriss Street: almost $50,000, 52-inch wall-mounted flat-screen television for EACH NEW SUPERVISOR'S personal office: $4,000 (each) (Street's flat-screen TV cost $7,800).  Seeing complete hypocrisy from all these supposed “fiscally conservative” Republicans featured in the Orange County edition of The Los Angeles Times yesterday: PRICELESS!

Follow me after the flip to see just how much taxpayer money our “fiscal conservatives” in Orange County are wasting on their “extreme makeover”…

So what the heck is going on here?

 

You might call it “Extreme Makeover: Orange County Government Edition.” As one of their first orders of business, Orange County's four newly elected officeholders — the treasurer and the three new members of the Board of Supervisors — are collectively spending just over $1.1 million to spruce up their offices in the months since they were sworn in, according to documents reviewed by The Times.

The spending is hardly noticeable in a budget totaling more than $5 billion. But the renovations for the four officeholders are occurring in a county known for its anti-tax attitudes, dim view of government spending and Republicans who boast fiscally conservative credentials.

OK, so our new Supervisors and County Treasurer are spending some money renovating their offices. What's the big deal here? Well, should it be costing us taxpayers $1.1 million? And do they really need “high-concept office chairs” and wall-mounted flat-screen TVs? Is that really the best way to spend our money?

And aren't there better ways to spend this money?

 

It also comes as officials weigh funding cuts in their coming budget sessions for services such as drug counseling for court defendants and payments to doctors who provide emergency medical services.

Oh yes, so I guess the poor people who live in this county don't matter. Let the drug addicts fall back into crack. Let the poor people die in the waiting room as hospitals can't afford to care for the sick and injured. No, what really matters is $200,000 to get rid of that retro 1960s Palm Springs look in poor Johnny Moorlach's office!

 

Moorlach, whose tab was the highest among the supervisors at $198,525.84, said he felt it was unfair to ask office staff to work in the existing environment. “When I got here, I thought I had moved into an old home in Palm Springs in the 1960s,” he said. “It even went beyond my conservative pale. I said, 'Wait a minute, this has got to be upgraded.'

“If I'm asking professionals to work for me on a $6-billion budget,” Moorlach said, “it doesn't make sense to ask them to sit on an antique furniture that wouldn't even sell at a garage sale.”

No, we can't have that! We can't have Mr. Moorlach's highly-paid staffers cringing in disgust at all that “antique furniture that wouldn't even sell at a garage sale”. But if that nearly $200,000 is money being taken away from essential services to the working poor in Orange County, that's no big deal. Who needs poor people, anyway?

And oh yes, look at the guy who collects our taxes. Isn't he doing a great job spending over half a million of our tax dollars? Isn't he?

 

Roughly half of the total spent — $578,550.82 — was for the treasurer-tax collector's office, which is undergoing a massive renovation aimed at changing the working environment for all of its nearly 100 employees. […]

Asked if the changes were needed to carry out the work of the treasurer's office, Street said: “We had $7 billion in cash being managed here, and you couldn't see what people were doing…. There is no way you can even have $100 million managed by people sitting in closed rooms. That's taxpayer funds. It's grossly inappropriate.”

Yes, having these people work in such a closed floor plan is grossly inappropriate! Yes, open up those walls! Redesign it like your old digs at that bond-trading firm. Wall Street always knows best when it comes to designing efficient yet tasteful office space.

But wait. Hold on a moment. Is this the best way to spend our tax dollars? Is the best way to spend our money when we have thousands upon thousands of people who struggle to survive?

What about emergency medical services? What about keeping people off drugs? What about the needs of the people in this county? The county is facing some awfully tough budget choices, as County Supervisors consider all these cuts to county services. If times are really this tough, is it really that appropriate to spend county money, OUR TAX MONEY, on unnecessary high-end furniture?

Even though I'm happy that Lou Correa is now my State Senator, I often miss seeing him on our County Board of Supervisors. Among all those “fiscal conservatives”, he seemed to be the only one who was actually interested in putting our tax dollars to work for us.

 

One former supervisor, state Sen. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), was surprised at the price tag for renovations to the office he vacated six months ago. When he was there, he said, he asked that a ripped section of carpet be replaced and covered the cracked glass on a desktop with a book.

“A public office belongs to the taxpayers, not to the elected,” he said. “I don't think I need a 52-inch wall-mounted TV to do my job.”

In fact, Correa said, he had a regular 36-inch television in his office; he bought it himself and took it with him when he left.

Cheese louise, why does it always have to be the Democrat to bring some fiscal responsibility to government? And what happens when we don't have any? I guess we're left with a bunch of “fiscally conservative” Republicans wasting money on high-end desks and flat-screen TVs.

Budget, California, Environment

High Speed Rail Update: A Piecemeal Solution?

19 Comments

Will California’s high speed rail project survive Arnold’s budget cuts – and if so, how will it get built? George Skelton’s Monday LA Times column turns its attention to the issue, with some important insights about the current status of the plan. With an excellent excoriation of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s unwillingness to lead on the issue, despite his public claims of support for the project, Skelton also questions some recent decisions of the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) regarding the implementation schedule of the project.

The first part of the column focuses on Arnold’s lack of support for the project. A few weeks back he published an op-ed in the Fresno Bee claiming to support the project. As I noted in response, this seemed to be a bit of smoke and mirrors, as Arnold continued to seek cuts for the plan behind the scenes.

Skelton’s column lays this point out further, noting that such an interpretation is prevailing wisdom in Sacramento, and that Arnold wants to preserve the funding capacity for more dams and freeways, despite the obvious environmental benefits of high speed rail. Quentin Kopp, the longtime San Francisco supervisor, state senator, and judge, who now runs the CHSRA, argues that if Arnold would come out and champion the project publicly, the battle would be “80% over.”

Skelton also correctly points out the flaws of Arnold’s claim that the CHSRA funding plan is inadequate – that there’s no way federal or private financers will commit until the state has indicated its support through a vote:

Most everybody outside the governor’s office considers this naive. Until California voters commit to the project, seasoned pols note, no private investors or government officials will. Besides, no one knows who’s going to be in charge in Washington after 2008. And about the only Sacramentan with the ability to coax Boxer, Feinstein and Pelosi into a negotiating room is Schwarzenegger, who isn’t lifting a finger for high-speed rail.

In short, Arnold himself is the key to the CHSRA funding plan – and he refuses to act in that capacity. What better place to get some of CA’s tax money returned from DC, as Arnold famously claimed he could do during the 2003 recall election, than to secure federal aid for the project?

The contrast between Arnold’s stated support and his actual efforts to kill the project led State Sen. Dean Florez, a Central Valley Democrat, to bitterly remark “Obviously, the governor’s budget writers don’t read his Op-Ed pieces.”

To Skelton, however, a bigger problem may be self-inflicted. He argues that the CHSRA’s decision to make an Anaheim-SF line the first phase of the project built is a recipe for political disaster. He quotes some important legislators who argue that by leaving Sacramento and San Diego to “some future lifetime” – implying that the plan to build to those cities is merely a vague promise – it will become more difficult for voters to support it, especially if their region is left out. Some of the quotes:

“If the project actually has a life, it’s going to have to include Sacramento,” says Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento)…

“I don’t see how they could leave out San Diego and have this make sense,” [Senate Budget Chair Denise Moreno] Ducheny says. “I can’t imagine why anybody in San Diego would vote for it.”

Given these alarmist quotes, what exactly happened at last week’s CHSRA board meeting? Clearly the board believes that the HSR system, like all other rail systems in the country as well as HSR systems around the world, cannot be built all at once. That seems a sensible point. They focused on Anaheim to SF via Merced for the following reasons, as defined in this report:

-This route is the “backbone of the network” which will likely bring in the most riders and the most private financing.

-The SD to LA route is plagued by “considerable uncertainty.” CHSRA argues that SCAG (SoCal Association of Governments) and SANDAG (SD Association of Governments) are more interested in Maglev technology to finish the route.

Granted, I’m somewhat new to this issue, but that doesn’t strike me as a very good reason to leave SD out. Someone need to coordinate CHSRA, SCAG, and SANDAG on finalizing a route and a technology. There’s no need to let local governments go their own way, and if we had leadership coming from Sacto, this might not be a problem (and I am not yet sure that it really is).

Russ Jackson of the Rail Passenger Association of California and Nevada (RailPAC) fills in some of the details here:

Arguments were made during the meeting by Commissioner Lynn Schenk that leaving out San Diego would cripple the potential for the project goals stated above, and probably bury that extension for a very long time. She “could not vote for the plan as proposed if San Diego were left out.”…

Jackson goes on to note that in the 1980s a plan to build a bullet train down the I-5 corridor along the San Diego County coast was killed for a number of reasons, including uncertain funding, lack of US Marine Corps approval to use Camp Pendleton land, and NIMBY opposition – but that CHSRA avoided that mistake by choosing an inland alignment, along Interstate 15.

It seems that not enough has been done to resolve these local issues. Why on earth is SCAG and SANDAG pushing for the expensive and untested maglev technology when CHSRA’s plan is much more solid, reliable, and utilizes existing and successful technology? And why hasn’t this dispute been resolved by now, some 7 years after the initial planning for the HSR project began?

Obviously no project of this scale can be built all at once. It might make sense to give voters a clear timeline – LA to SF by 2020, Sacto extension by 2022, LA to SD by 2025, something like that. But there must be a clear plan to tie the main metro regions into the network, something that can suggest to voters that the plans to get to their metro area are not just made out of thin air.

Voters – and interested members of the media – should also be reminded that the 2002 enabling legislation approving the CHSRA plan and scheduling a November 2004 vote on the bonds (pushed back twice) mandated  that LA to SF be the first route funded (scroll to page 23). This would help justify the emphasis on LA to SF while also reminding folks that is just the start of a system, not its end.

For most rail systems, getting the first line built is the most difficult. Once a segment is in operation other regions clamor for inclusion. This was true of the LACMTA’s lines, it’s true here in Seattle, where a light rail system is a year or two away from its first segment completion, and it’s been true for European high speed rail networks as well.

However, without restoring CHSRA’s funding in this budget cycle, the questions over phasing are moot. Happily there seems to have been some improvements in the budget outlook. In a comment on a HSR diary at California Progress Report, John Shields claims “A California Senate subcommittee on the 22nd May approved a $45.2 million budget for Cal HSR”, which comports with some of the things I’ve heard as well. It’s not the full $103 million but it’s also a far sight better than the piddly $5 million Arnold had offered.

Russ Jackson of RailPAC offers this assessment, which I endorse:

In this writer’s opinion, by eliminating San Diego and not resolving the issue over Maglev with SCAG, not serving the Riverside area, without defining its route into the Bay Area, not serving Sacramento in the initial phase, and not serving the Bay Area to Sacramento segment, the CAHSRA has doomed itself to losing large blocks of votes for the $9 billion bond issue (if it ever gets on the ballot). As desirable as high-speed rail is for the state, it’s what the local folks think they want to approve for other areas to benefit from that will determine the project’s future.

Ultimately the CHSRA plan will require a champion. It took Al Gore to convince the world global warming was a fact, something that we should have realized over a decade ago. It will take Michael Moore to convince America that our health care crisis is real and that universal single-payer care is a viable solution, although Americans have been fighting for this for over a hundred years. Who will step up for high speed rail?

My earlier HSR diaries:

Why is Arnold Trying to Terminate High Speed Rail?

Save the High Speed Rail Project!

Democrats  Will Have to Save California Public Transportation from Schwarzenegger’s Budget

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Budget

Impending Cave on the Budget?

4 Comments

I really want to not believe this, no matter what kind of sense it makes.

But despite initial rhetoric, political analysts believe California will avoid a long budget dispute because lawmakers have a one-time incentive this year to negotiate in a timely fashion: job longevity.

Lawmakers want voters to pass an initiative in February to change the state’s term limits law so members may serve up to 12 years in any one house. One proposal would ensure that Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata can remain beyond 2008 even though current law would force them out of office next year.

To build support for the initiative, lawmakers will need to appear productive this year, and the budget is the Capitol’s most symbolic gauge of productivity, said Tim Hodson, director of the Center for California Studies at California State University, Sacramento.

“All policy initiatives are impacted by the budget, so it has become a single, deceivingly simple symbol of the ability for state government to work,” Hodson said. “Frankly, the political players and the news media have reinforced this notion of the budget being no more complicated than the arithmetic it takes to balance a checkbook. So if the Legislature and governor can’t, the public thinks they’re obviously inept or corrupt.”

The problem is that the leaders in the Legislature would be bashed SO MUCH if they gave in on, say, slashing funding for the poor or the elderly, that they would lose as much support as they would gain.  There’s a fine line between “working together” and “giving the Governor every cruel thing he wants.”  How could  progressive groups be eager to pass a term limits bill for the benefit of those who would sell out our poor or our elderly?  Budgets in California take time, and it’s up to the Legislature to explain why, should there be an impasse.  “Arnold is trying to build a budget on the backs of the poor and our children, etc.”

over…

Still, this is not encouraging:

Perata, D-Oakland, and Núñez, D-Los Angeles, came out swinging last Monday. The two leaders sat quietly in the front row of Schwarzenegger’s presentation at the Secretary of State Building. Núñez then told reporters that “you’ve got the aged, blind, disabled and poor that are having to be the ones to take it in the shorts again.”

Republican leaders held court nearby to complain that Schwarzenegger had failed to reduce spending and that they would be demanding as much as $4 billion in additional cuts. Yet Perata briefly acknowledged that the initial back-and-forth was “part of the Kabuki,” a form of traditional Japanese theater and a term Schwarzenegger has used to describe early negotiations.

“I think these particular players have worked together long enough to know the subtext, and certainly Democrats are going to stand up and fight for those who need government services the most,” said Darry Sragow, a Democratic strategist. “I think it’s a serious criticism of the governor’s budget proposal that should be taken at face value. But having worked together for a while, they all understand there’s a side conversation either going on now or that will go on that will lead to a deal being cut.”

I certainly hope that such a deal doesn’t keep any of those draconian cuts intact.  “Productivity” should not sacrifice principle.  Especially in service to nothing more than an initiative which keeps the major players in power longer.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Budget, California, Environment, Health Care

To: kos Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger R-CA

8 Comments

(cross-posted from dailykos)

People (myself included) are giving you a lot of crap in the comments of your post about the Republican wonder Arnold Schwarzenegger.  In it you suggest that Arnold is governing like a Democrat (though an imperfect one), which merits praise.  May I suggest to you that Arnold is simply getting closer to governing the way he ran and that it is sharply contrasted to his 2005 “year of reform”, skewing people’s perceptions.  He is not now, nor will he ever be a Democrat.  Arnold is a moderate Republican and is governing like one.  There are serious differences between what a Democrat would do in office and what Arnold does.

What I want to do is go on a subject by subject basis and get at the heart of what is going on when it comes to his supposed social liberalism, fiscal conservative and environmental progressive governing style.

Let me state up front that since moving to California two years ago, I have written thousands of blog posts on Arnold Schwarzenegger.  This governor loves to say one thing and do another.  His public statements rarely match up with his actions.  I talk about Arnold’s governing philosophy in terms of software versions, since it switches all too often.  He has actually stuck to one version in the last year and a half, something that kos picks up on.

Health Care
The governor is living up to his campaign promises and has pushed forward a health care plan.  I am glad that he has made it a priority, though the Democrats long have been leading on this issue and it is one of the top issues on the minds of the California electorate.  That said there are clear differences between Arnold and the Democrats.

The mainstream Democratic health care policy in California is SB 840, a single payer plan.  It was passed through the legislature last year, but was vetoed by Arnold.  He has pledged to do the same this year.  The Democrats do not have the votes to override him.

In order to pass health care reform, under the reign of Arnold, it must stick within the current private health insurance sector.  He has pushed forward his own plan that has been pretty ripped to shreds by all sides.  Not only that, but he has failed to find a single legislator to carry it forward as actual legislation.  Politically, it would need to be introduced by a Republican and that simply will not happen.  The Republican legislators are far to the right of Arnold on this issue.  His plan is quite business friendly, with an unworkably low percentage of pay roll tax designated for health care.  It is what one would expect from a pro-business moderate Republican, no matter the state.

Budget
This has been the hot topic in the past few weeks, following the revised budget he submitted to the legislature.  No Democrat would have ever proposed the type of cuts Arnold is promoting.  It is “mean-spirited” and completely unacceptable.  Arnold has proposed cuts to aid for the aged, blind, disabled, children and poor.  He has proposed illegally funneling money out of the public transportation budget, just weeks after he was promoting public transit as a response to the bridge collapse in the Bay.

He is also promoting selling off or long-term lease of state assets for short-term gains.  The ultimate goal of these proposals is to free up cash to be able to pay down the state’s debt early.  That would free up the state to be able to issue another round of infrastructure bonds.  Arnold really, really wants to build two new dams.  Selling EdFund and leasing the lottery for 40 years would make it easier for Arnold to borrow more money on the state credit card, which he supposedly cut up back in 2003.

More generally, Arnold has taken the Norquist pledge.  He will not raise taxes.  California has a structural budget deficit.  Either you have to cut spending (like he did on the most vulnerable this year) or raise taxes to close that gap.  He has lucked out in recent years, with the state taking in more revenue than expected, allowing him to take a hope and pray approach to budgeting.  Arnold has failed to make any hard decisions and actually fix this problem.  Thus far the Legislature has shown little willingness in addressing the structural reasons for this deficit.  Arnold is being a coward on the budget, intentionally pushing cuts he knows the Democrats will not stand for, simultaneously sucking up to the Republicans.

For more on Arnold and the budget see my past 10 posts in the last two week.

Environment
Arnold has done a great job slathering on the green paint, despite his fairly pedestrian environmental record.  He only scored a 50% on LCV’s scorecard last year, despite all of the hype and public statements.  Arnold has aggressively promoted some environmentally progressive efforts, while simultaneously undermining the implementation.

It has been useful to have a high-profile Republican talking about global warming, ostracizing those who continue to deny its existence.  But a Democrat would have signed the bill to clean up the LA Ports and a Democrat would not have tried to pass off a cap-and-trade bill as a no cap one.

Prisons
In five years California will be spending more money on our prison system than our state university system.  Our prison system is a disaster and verging on total judicial takeover.  A federal receiver already has full control of the prison health care system.  Arnold’s solution is to throw more money at the problem, and build 53,000 new beds.  He has completely failed to take on his party’s get tough on crime mentality that has put us in this situation in the first place.

Public transportation
The other week an highway interchange collapsed and Arnold’s solution was to promote public transportation.  A few weeks later he introduces a budget that would pull $1.3 billion out of the transportation fund to go to other gaps in the budget.  The Legislative Analyst has indicated that his cuts to transportation may well be unconstitutional.  He is completely hypocritical.  He has talked about supporting high speed rail, but has consistently pushed it off to the side.  It is due to be on the ballot next year, but he has indicated that he would slough it off for another year.  His rhetoric does not match his actions.

—————–

Let me go back to Arnold’s overall performance.  He started off strong when first elected, then went way off course in 2005.  He is now back to governing as he promised, but tackling large issues and actually getting a few things accomplished in the past year.  However, he has never disavowed the basic philosophy behind the anti-teacher, nurses, cops and firefighter year of reform agenda.  That Arnold is just lurking beneath the surface.  He has a much better team in place, pushing him to focus on the issue that get him the most kudos, rather than his more conservative leanings.  He is talking like a progressive, governing like a moderate Republican and yet I can’t trust him further than I can throw him (which is admittedly not very far).

Arnold’s biggest motivation is attention.  He wants to do big things that get him lots of magazine covers.  He talks in a way that brings laudatory praise and wants to cement his own legacy.  The details matter less than getting something done.  The Democrats in the legislature have taken full advantage of this attitude.  They, as kos notes, have been pleased by his willingness to deal and ostracize the Republican legislature to as kos says “an irrelevant sideshow”.  The legislature has been more productive as a result.

We will see a real test of this dynamic in the next several months as they work towards a budget.  The two Democratic leaders, the two Republican leaders and Arnold (aka the Big 5) will be holed up hammering out a compromise.  The 2/3rds requirement means that the Republican legislators must be a party to the discussions.  If Arnold has so soured his relationship within his own party, then he is not particularly useful. 

It is much better to have Arnold working within his own party, rather than switch parties.  That is true from a public relations front as well.  Having a Republican talking about universal health care (even if his proposal isn’t very good), combating global warming (even if he tries to undercut it with signing statements) and high speed rail (even if he never puts it on the ballot) is useful to move the public debate.

Then of course, we should talk about his future ambitions.  There is no reason to clap loudly for Arnold, if it further advances his election prospects for future offices.  Barbara Boxer is preparing herself for a Arnold challenge.  While I am not convinced he would actually be happy in the Senate, it is still a real possibility.

So praise Arnold for his rhetoric, clap loudly when the legislature actually passes something, but don’t tell me that Arnold is a Democrat.  He is a Republican and has no desire to switch parties, nor the record to support such a switch.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Budget

Where is the governor’s moral compass?

3 Comments

(Cross-posted at Speak Out California – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

by Hannah-Beth Jackson (Former State Assemblymember)

When I first arrived in Sacramento to begin my legislative career, I was told straight out that the most important votes I would cast each year would be on the budget. I was reminded that the budget is the state’s moral document; it reflects the priorities of the state to the neediest among us, to the future and to our vision of who we are as a people. It should be fair and responsible. It is a document that reflects our compassion, our sense of purpose and our values.

So here we are in 2007, with a budget that leaks red ink because of structural deficits (that means because we’re required to spend certain amounts for various programs, etc. that cost more than we bring in). We’ve had these structural problems for years—as we load more and more requirements onto government but refuse to increase income to pay for them.

Our Governor says we should sell off some of these programs to bring in one-time dollars (and then let the private sector run amock without accountability or commitment to serving the public, just their profits). He also says we should pay back Wall Street instead of making sure that the kids on Main Street have food and shelter to help them grow and live with basic human dignity. He says we can’t ask the wealthy for more, or close tax loopholes for bloated multi-national corporations that take our services but won’t pay for them. Instead, we’ll just ignore the elderly, the disabled, the poor and cut their already puny “aid”. After all, why should those with so much be asked to share even a small amount with those who have so little? Why should corporations that make millions off of Californians and the freeways and infrastructure we’ve created for their use have to compensate the state for the benefits that come to them as a result?

Assembly Speaker Nunez calls the budget “mean-spirited.” I think that’s being kind. I see it as the Governor finally coming out behind Maria’s supposed compassionate skirts and showing us just how cold and heartless he really is. After all, there are many other ways to close the budget gap than doing it on the backs of the elderly, the disabled, the poor and oh yes, our students. They’ll likely see a 10% increase in their fees over the next year, so the biggest fat-cats among us don’t have to add a few crumbs to the state’s coffers to help those who, but for the grace of god, they may be.

How about closing those corporate loopholes? How about adding an oil severance tax so that Big Oil that continues to show record billion-dollar profits has to pay into the state coffers the way they do in EVERY OTHER oil producing state?

Or better yet, how about the Governor living up to his own hype about being the “Collectinator” and getting us back at least a portion of the over $50 BIllion we pay out to the Feds that we don’t see back in the form of services or reimbursements to our state? We’re a big donor state, but we get back less of each dollar we pay than most other states in the nation. We receive about 77 cents for every dollar we pay out in federal taxes. If we could just get back $5 Billion of that overage- a mere 10%, we’d be whole and wouldn’t have to cut important services to those who barely scrape by in life. Then we wouldn’t have to hear that stale and simplistic Republican refrain that we have a “spending problem, not an income problem.” Our problem would be gone—we could do all the things the public wants done and do it without needing more revenues to accomplish them.

I’ve been listening closely to all Schwarzenegger’s bravado, but haven’t heard him call himself the “Collectinator” for quite some time. This would have been a golden opportunity to do so and to use his bully pulpit to call on the Feds to loosen its stranglehold on our money and give some of it back to us. With the billions of dollars we’re short and a population with so many in need, the feds shouldn’t be holding so much of our money. We should be demanding that more of it come back to us! And didn’t this governor promise us that he would?

We can do better and we should be thoroughly embarassed that the Governor of this state would rather take the money away from the neediest among us to pay off Wall Street early—even before the payments to the fat cats are due. After all, isn’t a society only as strong as its weakest link? Isn’t a leader only as effective as his/her commitment to protect the most vulnerable he or she is supposed to protect?

Of course, Arnold doesn’t have time to ponder this. He’s off raising more record amounts of money from the very wealthy who want to dine with him for a mere $25,000 a pop. He’s already taken in over $700,000 for the month of May and over $2.7 Million in contributions since January 1, 2007. Of course, the poor and disabled aren’t able to fill his campaign warchests so why bother responding to their needs when you can rake in the dough and do the bidding of the big health care industry which has important legislation heading for his desk?

In truth, if Arnold was a real leader, he’d be thinking more about those who have less than making sure he continues to accumulate more and more. No doubt that if he ever had a moral compass, it’s long gone. He’s been bought and paid for many millions of dollars over—and over.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Budget, California

Greenwashed: Arnold Tries to Kill California Public Transportation

5 Comments

Also posted at Daily Kos and Blue House Diaries

Around Earth Day, Newsweek ran a memorable cover of Arnold Schwarzenegger posing with a globe, to symbolize his supposedly environmentally aware political stance. It was an apt recognition of how Arnold had successfully “greenwashed” himself in 2006, glomming on at the last minute to a Democratic proposal to mandate cuts in greenhouse gases. In doing so Arnold sealed his reelection victory and had many Californians – even a lot of Democrats – convinced he really cared about the environment.

But underneath the green veneer, Arnold is still the same conservative Republican who seeks to destroy the environment. His recent budget includes $1.3 *billion* in cuts to California public transportation, from the high speed rail project to local bus and light rail services. Speaker Fabian Núñez aptly denounced these cuts:

There’s a bait and switch on transit funding here, too. You can’t pose for the cover of Newsweek as the savior of global warming one day and then turn around and slash funding for public transit the next. You can’t have a press conference urging commuters to take public transit after a highway collapses one day and then turn around and slash funding for public transit the next.

The link between widely available public transit and environmental health, and addressing climate change, should be obvious. As greenhouse gas emissions soar, Americans need to cut back on those emissions, and driving less is a core method of doing that.

It also has an added and obvious value in an age of soaring gas prices. Californians are bearing the brunt of the oil companies’ gouging, paying over $3.50 a gallon. As a result usage of public transportation in the state has SOARED over the last few months. California’s intercity trains, such as the Capitol Corridor and the Pacific Surfliner, are seeing record numbers of riders. The LACMTA’s Orange Line, a bus rapid transit system in the San Fernando Valley, hit its 2020 ridership projections…in 2007.

The combination of environmental awareness and soaring gas prices has led millions of Californians to turn to public transportation. Millions more want to make the change but aren’t yet served by the required frequency or capacity. An example:

Anyway, if we had decent, reliable, accessible public transportation to take, we’d sell every car but the toy car and take public transportation to work. We checked into it at one point. If [my partner] took the train, he’d have to shift his work hours to ridiculously early or ridiculously late. They designed the train schedule to suit those living in Santa Barbara (median cost of single family home $1.2M) and working in Ventura. Yeah, that makes sense. Because I know lots of people who want to live in one of the most expensive towns in the country so they can commute to where housing is about half that. And me? To get to my job, 9 miles away, I’d have to transfer three times, and it would take me almost two hours each way, vs. my current 15-20 minute commute. Hell no.

Our only realistic choice is to own cars and commute to work.

In addition, many local public transportation agencies are facing financial stresses of their own – added users are requiring more buses, more train cars, and more operators.

The main agencies facing this stress aren’t small suburban carriers, but instead at the major urban systems of the state – San Francisco MUNI and the LA County MTA. For them, Arnold’s cuts are truly devastating.

The LACMTA was already looking at having to raise fares to maintain and expand its services. Now Arnold plans to give them a $230 million cut:

“It’s just going to add to the misery,” said Roger Snoble [head of the LACMTA], whose agency would lose $230 million under Schwarzenegger’s plan. “It’s going to affect everybody who moves in Los Angeles County.”

In other words – less public transportation means more people driving, meaning more traffic on SoCal’s already congested roads.

San Francisco’s MUNI system includes dozens of bus lines and several light-rail lines. All of them are heavily traveled. So heavily traveled, in fact, that they don’t have enough buses and streetcars and drivers to meet demand. So what is Arnold going to do to help? Cut a further $146 million from their budget too.

Finally there is the matter of high speed rail. In other diaries I have explained the importance of this project – a fully planned and detailed system to build high speed rail lines to link the state’s major metro areas – the Bay Area, Sacramento, the San Joaquin Valley, LA, OC, the Inland Empire, and San Diego.

Arnold claims to support the plan, and has written op-eds professing to want to see it built. But behind the scenes he continues to do all he can to kill it. The California High Speed Rail Authority needs $130 million in funding to complete its work and move ahead with a scheduled vote in November 2008 on $10 billion in bonds to start building the system. Arnold plans to give them only $3 million in funding, and that funding is to come out of the Orange County Transportation Authority’s budget.

I have written several diaries about the high speed rail project. The plan is fully developed. It’s all ready to go. All we need is $10 billion in state bond money to seed the project and convince private investors to contribute to it as well. But Arnold wants to kill that too, despite the fact that it is a green and sustainable technology that will get Californians out of their cars, out of the planes, and provide for the state’s growing transportation needs.

What explains Arnold’s desire to destroy public transportation? It’s two interrelated factors. The first is that Arnold simply is not an environmentalist. He is fixated on the automobile as a form of transportation. He thinks more freeways are the solution, not more public transportation. The screaming demand of millions of Californians for public transit don’t register with him.

The second is that Arnold is in the pockets of Big Oil. They have donated well over a million dollars to his various funds since November, even though he isn’t eligible for re-election in 2010. As their gouging of Californians continues, the oil companies know that a backlash is coming. They want to prevent that at all costs, want to ensure that they hold the line in California lest they set a trend for the rest of the nation.

If Arnold destroys California’s public transit systems, Californians will not have any alternative but to pay the exorbitant costs at the pump. The middle class will sink further into financial ruin.

Arnold’s public transportation cuts are a catastrophic disaster for the state of California. Not only will they make global warming worse, not only will they make our environment more polluted, more prone to fire, and mired deeper in drought, but his cuts will ruin family budgets, eventually causing lost jobs and further destroying the state’s middle class.

California Democrats must reverse these cuts. They are unconscionable and unaffordable.