Gov. Makes a Pitch for tax measure

by Brian Leubitz

You won’t find a slew of biblical references on Calitics, but that will change for today. Gov. Brown pitched his revenue measure in a WWJD kind of way:

“For those who’ve been blessed the most, it’s only right, and I think the way to go to say, ‘Give some back temporarily, for the next seven years, until our economy finally gets back,’ ” Brown said at a news conference in Oakland, where he accepted a $1 million contribution to his tax campaign from the influential California Nurses Association.

Later, the Democratic governor invoked the New Testament explicitly.

“Those who we’re asking to pay more, I think they can,” he said. “And I think it says in the New Testament, ‘For those whom much is given, much will be asked,’ and that’s what we’re doing today.”(SacBee)

This is really one of the big Right-vs-Left fights in America right now. Those who claim to honor their religion, but then ignore the parts that are expensive or inconvenient, and those who see the morality of a more equal society. Religion needn’t be a big part of that, but there are parts of the Bible which specifically speak to these issues.  It is hardly a new thing for them to be ignored, after all, hypocrisy abounded in the feudal era with respect to the Church.

And so, here we are again, looking to find a way to fund our long-term needs. I can’t imagine that calling into question the sense of charity of the Rich is the way to win this fight for the long haul. But it might score a point or two in this battle.

Russian settlement was one of first European Settlements along the northern coast

by Brian Leubitz

Fort Ross is really quite beautiful, in any number of ways. The location is stunningly picturesque along the Sonoma Coast. The restored Russian buildings are an interesting sight, and park system has done a great job with it.  This post isn’t really all that political, other than the fact that Ft. Ross is occasionally slated for closure on various lists.

I’ll spare you the full historical details, you can find much of that information here, but briefly I’ll tell you that 200 years ago, in 1812, the Russians settled a small bay in order to extend their Alaskan holdings. That settlement eventually became Fort Ross, an ultimately unsuccessful venture that was sold to John Sutter in 1841. Over the years, the area has been many things, and the history is just fascinating.

If you happen to be on the Sonoma Coast (and you really should make it your business to be on the Sonoma Coast sometime in the very near future), stop at Fort Ross. And thanks to Sen. Noreen Evans for reminding me that this was the 200th anniversary.

System worried about further cuts

by Brian Leubitz

The UC and CSU systems stand to be some of the biggest winners (or losers) of the November election. If Prop 30, the Governor’s revenue initiative goes down, they will be facing over $250mil in cuts. That fact makes this story rather unsurprising:

The university announced on Monday that because of $750 million in funding cuts in the 2011-12 school year and the prospect of another $250 million in losses if Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax initiative* does not pass, only 10 campuses will accept students in spring 2013, and even those campuses will enroll a limited number. (EdSource)

This move will particularly hit students who are planning on transferring from community colleges. Many of these students will be waitlisted pending the outcome of the election, but this is no way to treat our future.  Gambling on funding, while seemingly necessary in this case, just isn’t a system that is sustainable in the long-term.

Both the UC and CSU systems need a consistent revenue stream in order to appropriately plan for the future.

State Parks face difficult questions regarding $54 in reserve

by Brian Leubitz

In an interesting KQED Forum program, Elizabeth Goldstein, head of the California State Parks Foundation, discussed the possiblities of what could happen with the excess funds that were hidden for a decade or more:

Goldstein has reason to be cautious. Of the $54 million surplus, $33.5 million is in the Off Highway Vehicle Trust Fund and can only be spent on off-highway vehicle services. That leaves $20.4 million in the Parks and Recreation Fund for the state legislature to re-allocate to keep the parks open, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Sunday.

There’s no word on when or if the legislature will consider re-allocating the funds.

“We all hope the legislature is going to rededicate this funding… to state parks,” Goldstein said. “This is one of the things that should be on everyone’s list.”

But even if the legislature approves the re-allocation, it still won’t solve all the parks’ financial issues. Goldstein noted that the department has a $1.3 billion maintenance backlog that needs to be addressed.(KQED)

That backlog is growing by the day. If you walk around the state parks for a while (I’m a huuuge fan of the state parks), you’ll notice fixes that have been left undone for too long. A broken step, or poor trail maintenance, to the larger items like maintenance on structures.  There is just a lot to be done. And like the rest of California’s infrastructure, there just isn’t enough money to get the job done.

$54 is a lot of money, don’t get me wrong. But this pot of change isn’t going to address the larger issues with the state parks. Fundamentally they are being starved of resources at the same time as they have been going through a prolonged leadership crisis.  I know John Laird has been working to improve the parks, and the interim director, Janelle Beland, brings some great experience. But, when it comes down to it, the system just hasn’t been managed as well as other state park systems and especially the national park system.

We have many priorities to be funded in an overstretched budget, but ignoring the parks comes only at our peril.

State Park system had been holding on to money for nearly 12 years

by Brian Leubitz

Over the last few years, hundreds of state park closures have been narrowly avoided, and many have actually occurred. At the same time, the state park system has been squirreling away 54 million dollars:

State Parks Director Ruth Coleman resigned this morning and her second in command has been fired after officials learned the department has been sitting on nearly $54 million in surplus money for as long as 12 years.(SacBee)

Now, in some ways, you hate to drive out people for doing what very may well be long-term planning. However, the Legislature, as the body empowered by the voters to decide how our state revenue is spent, should have had that information. Maybe they would have used it to keep all parks open or to keep the parks open longer hours. Maybe they would have diverted it elsewhere, but ultimately that should have been the Legislature’s call.

That $54 million is a one-time thing, and won’t be repeating. Details on how that gets distributed weren’t available yet.

UPDATE: Gov. Brown just appointed Janelle Beland acting interim director of the CA Parks and Rec Dept. Hopefully the quick transition will get the department back on the right track right away.

State’s largest union agrees to big pay cuts

by Brian Leubitz

Times aren’t good for state workers these days, and the Governor’s budget wasn’t really good for anybody. After all, the deficit required massive cuts.  However, one of the components of the budget was a pay cut for state workers. And yesterday, he actually got some of the necessary buy-in from labor.

As a vote nears on the final details of a 2012-13 budget, Gov. Jerry Brown has persuaded leaders of the state’s largest public employee union to agree to a key portion of his plan to reduce state spending, a nearly 5 percent pay cut. (SF Chronicle)

There’s no way around the fact that this is really terrible. Workers shouldn’t have to be working backward on the ladder up, but that’s where we are. At some point we have to change this zero-sum game.

However, perhaps that can start with higher education.

The governor wasn’t the only one to get a win this weekend. The budget plan now includes a guarantee that tuition at the University of California and California State University systems won’t increase this year or next year – with a caveat.

Holding tuition flat, which will cost the state $125 million for each system, is contingent on voter approval of Brown’s November ballot measure to raise taxes. If voters reject the initiative, both systems face a $250 million cut.(SF Chronicle)

Obviously, there is still a huge IF here. The Governor’s measure is skating that delicate line, and it is far from guaranteed that the measure will pass. However, our stellar education system is a big part of what made California great. We can’t continue to turn our backs on it, hoping the private sector will pick up the slack. It won’t and we’ll be left in a far less competitive position than we were at the height of the Master Plan.

On the heels of San Diego and San Jose’s vote against public employee pensions comes this article: California’s Bad Bet Makes JPMorgan’s Look Minor  

The key points were all aimed at a deal struck in 1999, at the height of the dot-com boom when California was flush with cash and Gray Davis was probably on the VP short-list.

Promising that “no increase over current employer contributions is needed for these benefit improvements,” and that the state pension fund

would “remain fully funded,” the proposal, known as SB 400, claimed that enhanced pensions wouldn’t cost taxpayers “a dime” because of

healthy investment returns. The proposal went on to assert that it “fully expects” the state’s pension costs to remain below $766 million a

year for “at least the next decade.”

The Legislature included cost projections provided by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System — or Calpers — in the description

of the bill and passed it with broad bipartisan support. Governor Gray Davis signed it.

Since then, the pension system has earned only 75 percent of what it had hoped.

Because the state is unconditionally on the hook, the state

budget has had to make up the difference. As a result, the state has spent $27 billion on pensions, $20 billion more than Calpers projected.

Because the boosted promises last for decades — for employees’ lifetimes — and because the pension fund amortizes the difference between

what it expected to earn and what it really earned during such a long period, just a small portion of the increased costs has so far been

recognized. Far larger increases are in store.

To finance the $20 billion of extra cost for pensions, the state has cut spending on services and raised taxes. As one example, spending on

the University of California and California State University systems declined 18 percent from 2002 to 2012, while state spending on pensions

rose 214 percent.

On top of the results in San Diego and San Jose and with a tax proposition coming in November look to hear more about the impact of SB400.