The GOP was getting a little bit unsettled by the tack Jerry Brown has taken: demanding that they give voters a choice. You see, they want to give the voters a choice between tax increases and tax decreases. Carla Marinucci has it:
Jon Coupal, who heads the influential Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, told the Chronicle/SFGate.com today that some Republican lawmakers in Sacrameto came up with the idea after Brown argued at Monday’s State of the State address that GOP lawmakers may be seen as “thumbing their nose” at voters by blocking a special election to allow them to weigh in on tax extensions and billions in budget cuts.
Asked how Republicans could meet or even counter Brown’s challenge, Coupal said: “I think it’s quite easy.”
“I think the Republicans should agree to put those tax increases on the ballot on one condition: parallel tax reductions.”(SF Gate)
So, you know one of the oldest tricks in the handbook to killing a ballot measure? But an opposite campaign that will trick voters into just saying, a pox on both their houses.
In other words. No. No. No.
This is only a choice in so far as voting in Myanmar (or Egypt) involves a choice. This is a way to kill the revenue increases and leave our state choking to death. This proposal is a flat out non-starter.
Over the flip, you’ll find the State of the State speech. You might want to wait until I find a video, to get a real feel for the speech, as he went off-script on several occasions. He also basically outed his applause lines as hedges. My favorite being when he talked about cutting regulations, and then spoke out loud the words I was thinking: “only the unnecessary ones.” Oh, and then there were the “see I’m giving something to everybody there, it was vague.”
Yes, yes it was. Not vague enough to really make everybody happy, but at least vague enough to avoid the literary bloodbath. But, he did go straight for the heart of the issue, essentially demanding a vote on revenue.
At this moment of extreme difficulty, it behooves us to turn to the people and get a clear mandate on how we should proceed: either to extend the taxes as I fervently believe or cut deeply into the programs from which–under federal law–we can still extract the sums required. Unfortunately, these would most probably include: elementary, middle and high schools, the University of California, the California State University system, prisons and local public safety funding, and vital health programs.
While he has been reluctant to point the proverbial gun at anybody’s head, that is what is pointing at our heads right now. If we simply go for a cuts only regime, there simply won’t be the cuts that we need to make to balance this thing. That’s especially true if Brown follows up on his no gimmicks plan.
But, this budget is far from a real winner. There is no real attempt to go after revenue that is a) more progressive and b) better for the state’s economy. Let’s face it, the sales taxes that he has proposed are far too weighted towards the poor and middle class as a percentage of income. The oil severance tax still hasn’t come up in a serious way. It’s just been a toss away from one Democratic legislator or another. (It was Tom Ammiano’s turn in his press release last night.)
We need real sustainable revenue that will pull us out of this boom/bust cycle. The revenues Brown is calling for makes for a decent emergency rescue plan, it’s not a real solution.
Ultimately, the voters of California will have a decision. It’s just how it gets there, and when it happens. A delay only makes the situation worse.
As Prepared
Thank you Lt. Governor Newsom, Speaker Perez, President Pro Tem Steinberg, Senate Republican Leader Dutton, Assembly Republican Leader Conway, constitutional officers, members of the legislature, distinguished guests, and my fellow citizens:
First of all, I wish to thank all of you in this chamber for the cordiality and good will that you have extended to my wife and me during these opening days of what will be an extraordinarily difficult and wrenching legislative session.
California faces a crisis that is real and unprecedented. Each of us will have to struggle with our conscience and our constituencies as we hammer out a sensible plan to put our state on a sound fiscal footing, honestly balance our budget and position California to regain its historic momentum.
Although our state’s economy has started to recover, we will not create the jobs we need unless we get our financial house in order. It’s absolutely essential that we do our work boldly and without delay.
My intention is to make California again a leader in job creation, renewable energy and state of the art efficiency, innovation of all kinds and a solid primary and secondary education. Our universities are world renowned and I intend to see that they continue to enjoy the respect of students and scholars throughout the world. We also have to restructure our criminal justice system, carefully realign state and local government functions, and streamline state government. All of this can happen if we find the courage and summon the will to tackle our budget deficit head on and deal with it honestly and without purpose of evasion.
This is not a time for politics as usual. The stakes are too high. Our overall financial system, which came close to absolute breakdown, has not fully stabilized. Where we go from here-either more austerity or more stimulus-is hotly contested. Even the cause of the mortgage meltdown remains in dispute.
Voters are clearly telling us that our state and our nation are going in the wrong direction. Yet, our two main political parties both in Washington and in California are as far apart as I have ever seen them. Still, I know that politics is at the heart of democracy. It is the essence of our structure of freedom and the way in which we as a people make our collective decisions. We owe it to ourselves and to our forebears-and to our children–to rise to this occasion, do what is right and regain the public’s trust. Kicking the can down the road, by not owning an honest budget, is simply out of the question.
If you are a Democrat who doesn’t want to make budget reductions in programs you fought for and deeply believe in, I understand that. If you are a Republican who has taken a stand against taxes, I understand where you are coming from.
But things are different this time. In fact, the people are telling us–in their own way–that they sense that something is profoundly wrong. They see that their leaders are divided when they should be decisive and acting with clear purpose.
We are still a very rich society. In two years alone, Californians will have added more than $100 billion to their personal income. Yet, our State’s credit rating is the lowest of the 50 states, unemployment is higher than the national average and some journalists are calling California a “failed state.”
The times call out for vision and for discipline. Discipline so that we live within the revenue which the state collects each year, and Vision so that we rise above mere party, act as Californians first, and put our trust in the people.
Under our form of government, it would be unconscionable to tell the electors of this state that they have no right to decide whether it is better to extend current tax statutes another five years or chop another $12 billion out of schools, public safety, our universities and our system of caring for the most vulnerable.
Let me read to you, Article 2, Section 1 of the California Constitution:
“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”
When democratic ideals and calls for the right to vote are stirring the imagination of young people in Egypt and Tunisia and other parts of the world, we in California can’t say now is the time to block a vote of the people. In the ordinary course of things, matters of state concern are properly handled in Sacramento. But when the elected representatives find themselves bogged down by deep differences which divide them, the only way forward is to go back to the people and seek their guidance. It is time for a legislative check-in with the people of California.
At this moment of extreme difficulty, it behooves us to turn to the people and get a clear mandate on how we should proceed: either to extend the taxes as I fervently believe or cut deeply into the programs from which–under federal law–we can still extract the sums required. Unfortunately, these would most probably include: elementary, middle and high schools, the University of California, the California State University system, prisons and local public safety funding, and vital health programs.
My plan to rebuild California requires a vote of the people, and frankly I believe it would be irresponsible for us to exclude the people from this process. They have a right to vote on this plan. This state belongs to all of us, not just those of us in this chamber. Given the unique nature of the crisis and the serious impact our decisions will have on millions of Californians, the voters deserve to be heard.
Do I like the choices we face? No. I don’t. But after serious study of the options left us by a $25 billion deficit, the budget I have proposed is the best I can devise. If any of you have other suggestions that you think are better, please, share them with us. After all, we are in this together.
In recent days, a lot has been made of the proposed elimination of redevelopment agencies. Mayors from cities both large and small have come to the capitol and pressed their case that redevelopment is different from child care, university funding or grants to the aged, disabled and blind.
They base their case on the claim that redevelopment funds leverage other funds and create jobs. I certainly understand this because I saw redevelopment first hand as mayor of Oakland. But I also understand that redevelopment funds come directly from local property taxes that would otherwise pay for schools and core city and county services such as police and fire protection and care for the most vulnerable people in our society.
So it is a matter of hard choices and I come down on the side of those who believe that core functions of government must be funded first. But be clear, my plan protects current projects and supports all bonded indebtedness of the redevelopment agencies.
From the time I first proposed what I believe to be a balanced approach to our budget deficit – both cuts and a temporary extension of current taxes – dozens of groups affected by one or another of the proposed cuts have said we should cut somewhere else instead. Still others say we should not extend the current taxes but let them them go away. So far, however, these same people have failed to offer even one alternative solution.
As I have said before, I have not come here to embrace delay or denial, but to get the job done. If you have solutions that are truly viable, by all means present them. We need everyone’s best thinking.
Wherever I look, I see difficult choices. But I also see a bright future up ahead and a California economy that is on the mend. When we get our budget in balance, California will be in a strong position to take advantage of its many assets and its strategic location on the Pacific Rim. As the countries of Asia and south of our border continue to thrive and expand their trade, our state will play a leading role, as it always has, and reap unimagined benefits.
We have the inventors, the dreamers, the entrepreneurs, the venture capitalists and a vast array of physical, intellectual and political assets. We have been called the great exception because for generations Californians have defied the odds and the conventional wisdom and prospered in totally unexpected ways. People keep coming here because of the dream that is still California, and once here, their determination and boundless energy feeds that dream and makes it grow.
When I first came to Sacramento, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak had not yet invented their personal computer. There was no wind generated electricity, and we didn’t have the nation’s most advanced building and appliance efficiency standards as we later adopted. Of course, Yahoo, Google, Facebook and Twitter did not exist-not even in someone’s imagination.
California’s economy has grown from less than 200 billion dollars when first I came to this rostrum to now over two trillion dollars expected this year. California has been on the move-a marvel, even a miracle and some kind of gift.
Yes, I will work with you on the issues-from water and realignment to healthcare and prisons, to agriculture, schools, environment and transportation. We must also face the long term challenge of ensuring that our public pensions are fair to both taxpayers and workers alike. Finally, at a time when more than two million Californians are out of work, we must search out and strip away any accumulated burdens or unreasonable regulations that stand in the way of investment and job creation.
But let’s not forget that Job Number 1 – make no mistake about it – is fixing our state budget and getting our spending in line with our revenue. Once we do that, the rest will be easy-at least easier because we will have learned to work together and earned back the respect and trust of the people we serve.
Well, today Jerry Brown gives his first (well, of this term) State of the State speech. He gave a preview of what was on his mind last week:
“The budget is a key point, but we have to have some optimism, too, about how great everything is and how rich California is and how we’re going to create all these jobs and have enough water and fix our schools,” he said. “There’s a lot of issues, whether it’s reform of schools, whether its water, whether it’s energy, whether it’s crime. Those are things I’m really interested in; but at the same time, if we don’t get this budget fixed, California will flounder, and it will really be a real impediment to doing all the other good things the state should be engaged in.” (SF Chronicle)
Brown has a history of short speeches, so it would be surprising if he actually got to many issues beyond the budget. (You can check a history of the previous speeches at the Chronicle) Given that he likes to write his own speeches, and indicated that he would do so on this one, can this speech really afford to be anything other than a cheerleader for his budget?
Every year when the budget comes around, there is always some sort of “hostage” that the GOP gets together and decide that’s they want to take out. In previous years it was things like workplace safety regulations, lunchtime regulations, and on and on. You name a piece of progressive legislation, and there has been an attempt on its life during the budget season.
Well, on the plus side, we’ll be seeing fewer of those under the new Prop 25 simple majority vote on the budget. But, as you likely know, we didn’t get the whole enchilada with Prop 25. So, if we are going to go the easy route on getting taxes on the ballot, that is to say getting 2/3 vote to place them on the ballot, then we are once again open to the annual hostage situation.
Now, this year, it seems that the wizards of the GOP caucus(es) have once again focused on pension reform. A reasonable subject to discuss. After all, we have an enormous outstanding pension obligation, much of which is underfunded. But, a cordial conversation, some committee hearings and the like isn’t how Mimi Walters wants to roll. Oh no, it’s going to happen by the middle of March or there will be no GOP votes for putting revenue on the ballot:
Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Hills, is preparing a package of pension reform bills she said must be addressed before taking up taxes. Among her reforms is legislation requiring all new state employees to enter 401(k)-style benefit plans.
“We want reforms in place before there’s any discussion about tax increases,” said Walters, the GOP’s nominee in the fall for state treasurer who was trounced by incumbent Bill Lockyer. “I do know there’s not support at all to even put it on the ballot without significant pension reforms.” (MediaNews/Steve Harmon)
Now, you see the framing there? That’s classic move the goalposts framing. If you are a Democratic leader at this point, your ears should be perked up, just waiting for the next demand. See, there’s no support for placing the measure on the ballot sans pension reforms. And after you get your way? What then? Notice that she’s hardly promising any votes. Of course, she would then cross into the murky waters of vote trading, but you know, that’s how the GOP rolls.
Of course, as Dan Walters pointed out a while back, there are ways to put these measures on the ballot sans GOP support. There is certainly a lot of inherent risk in that approach, both politically and policy-wise, but the Democratic legislators will have to make up their minds on which odds they’ll take.
UPDATE: One more thing that I wanted to mention. Before the Right pours on about the pension system, let’s look at one critical fact. The average annual pension for a state worker is $30,000. While it isn’t a pittance, we can’t simply portray all state workers as hogs on the system and end the conversation there. We need to ensure a stable future for all Californians, and part of that includes retired state workers.
Jerry Brown’s been there, done that for much of California politics. While he has been in state government in his most recent stint for just over four years, his time as Oakland Mayor isn’t really all that distant. So, you’d think he would carry some street cred with California municipal officials.
Well, considering the massive spending spree with redevelopment projects over the past ten days, that doesn’t look to be the case. They are, of course, upset about the possible end of the (slush?) funds from the redevelopment agencies, funds that they get to take just a little bit of credit for, but there’s more than that. Part of Brown’s realignment plan is to devolve some power (and money) to the city and county level, but they aren’t so sure it’s going to happen. And they have the buttons to prove it:
Ever since the Democratic governor proposed eliminating redevelopment agencies to help balance the budget and direct more money to schools and public safety, cities have responded by pushing projects out the door in emergency meetings to thwart Brown’s plan. But the few hundred city leaders gathered Wednesday at the Hyatt Regency Sacramento were respectful when Brown spoke at their League of California Cities luncheon, never mind the buttons declaring, “Stop the State’s Redevelopment Proposal.”
*** **** ***
“We just don’t have the money right now,” he said later in defense of his Oakland projects. “That’s the problem, and that’s the difference.” (SacBee)
Of course, this austerity thing is the way he’s planned on going for a while. I’m not sure that it will actually get any right-wing votes in the legislature, or even the ballot box, but it might just be enough to get the DTS crowd to push the vote over the line when it comes to that time in June.
As Robert mentioned earlier, we need some sort of system to encourage redevelopment. There is a lot not to like in the current system, and its tendencies towards big splashy projects over building quality housing and the like. Totally demolishing the system perhaps cuts down on the boondoggles, but doesn’t really provide a long-range plan. And so, the muni’s skepticism is really to their credit.
There are still details to be hashed out, and as the saying goes, there are your details. The realignment plan could ultimately be successful on all ends, but there is going to have to be some convincing going on.
With the ever-vigilance of the right-wing scaring Republicans from looking into all solutions and, it looks like getting 2/3 for a revenue portion of the budget might be pretty challenging. While I’m sure that Brown and the gang would love to get a few Republican votes, I doubt they will be holding their breaths on that. It’s just impractical to expect the Republicans to do anything to help with the budget. And so, unsurprisingly, the Democratic leaders up in Sacramento are looking for ways to put revenue on the ballot sans a 2/3 vote.
Fortunately for us, Dan Walters has been hounding the Capitol and it seems that there are two possible roadmaps:
One [method] would be a section of the state constitution that allows the Legislature to propose amendments to previously approved statutory initiatives. In theory, therefore, the additional taxes could be framed as amendments to a previous tax measure, such as Steinberg’s own Proposition 63, which imposed an income tax surcharge on the rich for mental health programs.
Under this theory, the amendment would be passed in the Legislature’s special session on the budget and after a 90-day wait would be placed on a special election ballot.
The second potential pathway would be Proposition 25, enacted by voters last November. It reduces the legislative vote on budgets from two-thirds to a simple majority and also applies the lower vote margin to measures needed to implement the budget, called trailer bills in Capitol jargon. (SacBee)
Either method would certainly attract the attention of lawyers from the immovable Right. Given the timeline, the courts would either have to act upon this very quickly, or we could be looking at some logistical nightmares. At this point, time is certainly of the essence.
I’m not sure which method they’ll turn to, and at this point, I’m sure there are legal minds better than mine analyzing the question. However, stay tuned here, we’ll try to get some more details on these questions as the process moves forward.
Sure, Arnold Schwarzenegger has left the Horseshoe, but that doesn’t mean that we can just forget about him or what he did to the state. In this case, we’re talking about the child care subsidies for parents who have recently left welfare. For this one, there at least seems to be a remedy that gets us through to the next budget. (hopefully)
Assembly Speaker John Pérez will announce today that state officials have found a way to save child care subsidies for 55,000 low-income families – a program that then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to eliminate last year.
The subsidies are available to parents who were formerly on cash assistance but now have jobs or are in school. Supporters had argued that eliminating the subsidies was shortsighted and could ultimately cost taxpayers more than keeping it, because many parents would quit their jobs and apply for welfare if they were unable to afford day care.
Under a plan Pérez will announce today, state officials will use $60 million in child care funds left from previous years to fund the subsidies through March. The program’s funding would be restored April 1 under Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget proposal unveiled this week.(SF Chronicle)
Now, clearly this is a stopgap gimmick, but a necessary one. We really cannot afford to let this program just die for three months. If we are really attempting to get people off of welfare rolls and back in jobs, we can hardly pull the rug out on them so quickly. There has to be an effort to transition off of being a full-time child care provider as a parent to a place where the parent can reasonably afford child care expenses. We can’t say we want people to work while at the same time presenting a net loss in money coming into the household if they are working a low-wage job.
CalWorks has been a pretty successful welfare to work program, and that’s what the Right has been clamoring for. But, when times get tough, better to squeeze the poor than the rich, right?
UPDATE: Just got the word that the effort worked. Find the full press release (with a timeline) over the flip.
Speaker Pérez: Child Care Effort Succeeds– Big Victory for Thousands of Working Families and Small Businesses
SACRAMENTO-Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) today announced that thanks to efforts by the Assembly, California’s local First 5 Commissions, and the Brown Administration, thousands of working parents in California will continue to receive the child care services that allow them to stay in their jobs and keep their families off welfare.
“With the stroke of his blue pencil last fall, former Governor Schwarzenegger forced thousands of working parents to face the choice of losing their jobs or letting their kids fend for themselves,” Pérez said. “Today, I am pleased to announce that we did not let that happen and that this program is in fact being restored and is included in Governor Brown’s budget. This is a big win for working parents and their children, and also for the thousands of small business child care providers who would have had to close their doors or lay off their employees.”
In December, Speaker Pérez introduced AB 1, the first bill introduced in the 2011-2012 session of the Assembly, to reverse Schwarzenegger’s veto and restore the Stage 3 Child Care services that enable parents to transition from welfare to work. Speaking from the Assembly floor today, Pérez announced AB 1 would now be used as a vehicle if one is necessary to allocate existing transition funding until the budget is enacted and the program officially restored.
“Not only did Governor Brown hear us and restore Stage 3 Child Care in his budget this week, his administration is also actively working with us to identify existing funding that can be used to transition until the budget is enacted,” Pérez said. “As we move forward, should it be determined that any interim funding we identify requires authorizing legislation, I will make AB 1 available for that purpose.”
More than $40 million in bridge funding – including $6 million from cuts Speaker Pérez made to the Assembly’s own budget and additional funding he sought from the county First 5 commissions – helped buy time until Stage 3 Child Care services could be restored. A judge’s stay of the elimination of the services also allowed time for Speaker Pérez and other advocates to successfully push for the program’s restoration.
“Of course, there are still difficult cuts proposed to all child care programs – and undoubtedly, the final budget will have to include some of the proposed reductions,” Pérez said. “But as painful as those cuts may be, they will still be far better than Governor Schwarzenegger’s wholesale elimination throwing 60,000 families out of the workforce or their children into harm’s way. This is a very positive sign we can work with this Governor to create jobs, put California’s fiscal house in order, and make sure every Californian can find opportunity and the chance to succeed.”
Timeline:
October 8, 2010-Governor Schwarzenegger blue-pencils Stage 3 Child Care funds eliminating services for 81,000 children in 60,000 families transitioning from welfare to work.
October 19, 2010- Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez pledges $6 million from part of his 15% cut to the Assembly operating budget and contacts state and county First 5 commissions asking for help in providing bridge funding until Stage 3 Child Care can be restored. Local commissions take action throughout the next several weeks.
October 29, 2010-Alameda County judge issues stay in implementation of the cuts and orders November hearing.
November 5, 2010-Speaker Pérez announces more than $40 Million in bridge funding pledged so far.
November 17, 2010-Judge approves settlement keeping child care services available through end of year.
Dec 6, 2010- Speaker Pérez introduces AB 1 to reverse the veto and restore Stage 3 Child Care.
January 10, 2011-Governor Brown includes Stage 3 Child Care funding in his 2011-2012 budget proposal.
January 14, 2011-Speaker Pérez announces victory for working families and providers. Moves AB 1 to become authorizing vehicle if necessary for interim funding identified by Assembly and Brown Administration.
Website of Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez: www.asmdc.org/speaker
The deal would sell the building that houses the California Supreme Court
Arnold Schwarzenegger was quite keen to get the sale of buildings through before he left office. That’s no surprise, considering that Jerry Brown was never really a fan of the deal. His latest statements have been somewhat ambivalent, essentially saying that he wants 30 days to review the deal before he does anything.
But the deal is now rapidly losing investors, and the Bay Citizen (a website you should be reading), notes that in addition to the shrinking pool of investors, there is also the question of who the investors are that are left paying the up-front costs. Well, turns out it isn’t that easy to find out:
Most of the members of a shadowy investor group that agreed to finance the sale of tony state office buildings last year appear to have dropped out of the deal, and those that remain are tight-lipped about their involvement in the transaction, which is being challenged in court as an illegal gift of state assets to a group with political pull in Sacramento.
*** **** ***
The identities of the people and companies behind California First LLC have been a mystery. And the increased public scrutiny and court challenges have done little, thus far, to shed light on them. The group declined to participate in the legal battle to close the deal, a stance that Renne finds “extraordinarily unusual. I think, frankly, they cannot stand to see the light of day on their transaction.”
The Bay Citizen reporter continued to follow the trail of money, but ended up with more questions than answers. People avoided her calls, said they weren’t really helping, merely advising, and generally being unhelpful. That being said, the three “main partners” in the deal have long history in government and ties to past administrations.
Even if you were to look at this deal from a totally outside perspective, without this information, the deal would look like a bad one. We aren’t really getting enough money to make this worthwhile. It’s a short-term fix for a long-term problem. Oh, and it leaves us with a huge pile of debt to deal with over the next generation. Adding on the mysterious and rather shady nature of this deal, you really have to question Schwarzenegger’s motives for this deal.
We still have a while before we get a decision from Gov. Brown, but one hopes that we can once and fully put this stinker of a deal behind us.
Seven years ago, Books Not Bars started calling for closing California’s youth prisons. People laughed in our faces. Literally. Even reformers who agreed in private, thought we were foolish to call for shuttering the largest set of youth prisons in the Country.
Monday, Governor Jerry Brown presented a plan to do just that. In the $12.5 billion in spending cuts was a proposal to close the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) youth prisons by 2014.
This is not merely a victory of activists and politicians. The real champions are the mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles that would not give up on their children or our state. Families who knew that by closing youth prisons we could open real opportunities for California’s youth. Families that pushed us to look at what other states had done. States such as Missouri showed there was a better way to invest in youth, families and communities, while decreasing crime at the same time. Bringing together families of incarcerated youth gave Books Not Bars the power and the resolve to push for closing this costly and abusive system.
Over the next few months, the Governor’s budget will be analyzed and debated. Strong opposition to the closure of DJJ will be an obstacle for sure. However, the mere fact that Governor Brown’s budget includes the closing of the DJJ prisons means that the tide has turned- politicians are starting to realize what our families have known for years — dumping youth in prisons doesn’t make us safer. And we hope this turning tide will also lead California to examine its relationship to all prisons, and break our addiction to lock ’em up policies that do little to invest in people or increase public safety.
Whether this budget cycle is the nail in the coffin for the notorious DJJ, or it happens next year or the year after that, this is a historic moment in our work and for California. In a span of just seven years, Books Not Bars has shifted the way our state looks at its youth and youth prisons.
When we first began, we were just a handful of families meeting on the weekends. Our early days were marked with unthinkable tragedies. On Martin Luther King Day in 2004, two young men hanged themselves in the youth prison cell they shared. Allen Feaster and Fonda Whitfield lost their sons that day. With us, they turned their tragedy into powerful appeals for change. “Look at his death as a new beginning,” Mr. Feaster told lawmakers, as he urged them to close the abusive youth prisons. Sadly, that year at least two other young people- Roberto Lombana and Dyron Brewer died within the walls of the DJJ dungeons.
Families held vigils across California, and traveled to Missouri to see the national juvenile justice model for themselves. Mothers and fathers wept when they saw the type of treatment their children could have had- treatment that could actually rehabilitate and help their kids turn their lives around. They returned to California newly determined to bring the Missouri model home with them.
A huge movement forward in this work came with the Farrell vs. Cate case championed by our allies at the Prison Law Office. Through the case, report after report documented the abuse, violence and neglect of the youth prisons. At the end of the case, the DJJ (at the time known as the California Youth Authority) signed a consent decree, agreeing to remedy serious on-going problems with conditions in the system. The case and its reports affirmed what we already knew- the system was failing our youth and was overdue for major change.
In 2005, we released System Failure, a film that documents the horrors of California’s youth prisons and features family activists and experts alike calling for the Missouri model to replace the youth prisons. The movement to transform the DJJ grew as the solution to our ineffective system became clearer.
Since 2004, Books Not Bars has trekked to Sacramento each year with proposals to shrink DJJ and, later, replace it with effective alternatives that would save the state hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on schools and much needed services. Our efforts mean that the youth prison population in California has shrunk by 60%, which makes the current budget proposal even more feasible.
In 2007, Assemblymember Sally Lieber introduced our proposal as a groundbreaking bill to shut down the DJJ and direct the millions spent on ineffective, abusive prisons to counties who could do the same job better and still save the state money. That year, the Governor also proposed to keep low-risk, low-need youth at the county level, rather than lock them in the DJJ and to ensure family connections could be maintained. Some called our closure bill “rather radical,” but we pushed and got through one committee. That was far enough to help the Governor’s more modest plan succeed. In a huge step forward for California, DJJ became forbidden for youth who committed minor offenses.
The next year, DJJ’s failures, dwindling population and skyrocketing cost forced not one, but two youth prisons to close. We started seeing non-partisan reports that recommended closing DJJ altogether. We were no longer the only voices calling for this bold change. In 2009, we launched a campaign to target Stark and Preston prisons, and later that year officials announced the closure of Stark youth prison. And right before the end of 2010, plans to close Preston Youth Prison- the oldest and most remote facility- were announced.
And now, the next great opportunity is upon us. Governor Brown is taking a bold step towards a California that invests in its youth instead of locking them up. Books Not Bars will continue to share the stories, statistics and solutions that clearly demonstrate that the time for DJJ to close is now and we hope a broad movement of Californians will stand with us. This current milestone, and the seven years of the Books Not Bars movement, prove that California’s future is one where we no longer lock kids up to languish in cells that make rehabilitation an impossible feat, but rather where we invest in our youth and our communities so that everyone can live to their full potential. That future, a State without the dungeons of the DJJ, looks bright.
Programs that fund state parks, maintain wild open spaces, protect wild lands from forest fires, fund public transportation and more are all on the table in Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed budget.
Make no mistake, there is a lot for environmental advocates (and everyone else) to hate about this proposed budget. But with a two-thirds majority in the state legislature required to pass new taxes and now (thanks to Prop 26) new fees, and with legislative Republicans refusing thus far to consider any new sources of revenue, Governor Brown must work with the hand he was dealt.
During his campaign for governor, Brown promised voters that he would put a halt to the gimmicks that served as short-term Band-Aids on budget shortfalls in the past. He promised a tough but fair budget that – in closing an estimated $25 billion budget shortfall – would spare few of the state’s programs and services. And he has mostly made good on that promise, with the most profound cuts in the areas where the state spends the most – health & social services and higher education. The total proposed spending cuts: a staggering $12.5 billion.
For now, Governor Brown’s budget spares the state’s K-12 public education system, preferring to allow voters to decide in a special election to agree to a five-year extension of $12 billion in taxes that will otherwise expire this year (including vehicle licensing fees, state sales taxes and state income taxes) or allow even deeper cuts to California’s programs and services, including to the K-12 system.
Here’s a summary of how environmental programs fared in the governor’s first budget proposal:
Natural Resources
As expected, the agency will share in the sacrifice being asked of all levels of state government. On the one hand, we’re relieved that the cuts proposed to the agency were fairly minimal (at least as a percentage of the overall budget cuts). On the other, the worst of the cuts are to the already-struggling state parks budget (which totaled $406 million last year). The $11 million proposed cuts this year and $22 million more in ongoing cuts will result in some parks closing and/or more restricted park hours for the public. As the California State Parks Foundation points out, budget reductions over the past few years have already left the parks system operating with 150 partial closures and service reductions.
We’re waiting for a more specific list of proposed closures and service reductions before making a complete assessment-according to a state finance department spokesman, Brown asked State Parks Director Ruth Coleman to submit by February a list of the parks that will have reduced hours or will be closed completely. Cuts this deep will magnify the budget reductions already sustained by the state parks in recent years and they are sobering, to say the least.
California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird said it was necessary for his agency to share in the short-term sacrifice:
“This Governor is determined to upright California’s budget… Fixing the long-term problem requires sacrifice from each Californian–and certainly the Natural Resources Agency–in the short-term. If California is to achieve a long-term vision for natural resources management that plays a role in restoring the state’s economy, the governor’s plan is the right path.”
Delta Restoration
The Bay Delta Ecosystem Restoration Account was zeroed out in the budget. Questions remain about how to implement BDCP in light of this.
Open Space
The proposal also zeroes out all $10 million in state funding for The California Land Conservation Act-commonly referred to as the Williamson Act. For decades, the Act has helped keep large parcels of land in California as open space by enabling local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. The incentive: lower-than-normal property tax assessments (based on farming and open space uses versus full market value).
The revenue for some rural counties under the Act has been significant. Eliminating funding may force some landowners to allow their lands to be developed for housing or retail, contributing to sprawl and allowing more of California’s precious open space to disappear.
Transportation
Surprisingly, transportation fared pretty well in this budget, with funding levels left unchanged from last year. According to the San Jose Mercury News:
Transportation officials say Brown’s plan would provide a stable source of funding for transit and highway planning across the state, and that could speed up work on some projects.”
Wildfires
Brown’s budget proposes changing the way the state battles wildfires, reducing the number of firefighters to pre-2003 staffing levels and shifting a significant amount of fire-fighting responsibility to cities and counties. (This is just one of many areas where Brown proposes a wholesale restructuring of the relationship between state and local governments.) Some experts on wildfires have already reacted warily to the proposal (read more in the Mercury News: http://www.mercurynews.com/bre…
Environmental Protection
The $71 million reduction ($12 million from the general fund) is one of the biggest cuts to the environment in the proposed budget. As with much of the above, we await details on these cuts.
