Does Jerry Brown Control the Skies? GOP asks if why he is hiding the water

by Brian Leubitz

Governor Brown briefly discussed the drought in his state of the state speech, but clearly there is plenty more to be said. The picture to the right is what is passing for the Sierra snowpack these days. But first let’s review what he did say in the speech:

Among all our uncertainties, weather is one of the most basic. We can’t control it. We can only live with it, and now we have to live with a very serious drought of uncertain duration.

Right now, it is imperative that we do everything possible to mitigate the effects of the drought. I have convened an Interagency Drought Task Force and declared a State of Emergency. We need everyone in every part of the state to conserve water. We need regulators to rebalance water rules and enable voluntary transfers of water and we must prepare for forest fires. As the State Water Action Plan lays out, water recycling, expanded storage and serious groundwater management must all be part of the mix. So too must be investments in safe drinking water, particularly in disadvantaged communities. We also need wetlands and watershed restoration and further progress on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.

It is a tall order.

He goes on to mention that climate change is real, and that we will be facing more variable weather, more droughts, more fires and other extreme weather. But while 2013 was the driest year on record, it is far from being the driest California has experienced. That being said, a UC-Berkeley professor, B. Lynn Ingram, believes that it might be the driest year in 500 years. But that isn’t to say that we know 2014 will be better, or that it was some sort of anomaly.

When Drake landed in California in the 16th Century, it was reportedly as dry, if not drier. But the bigger issue is that the massive 20th century development was based on an abnormally wet century. A century when our droughts were shorter and less severe than the previous millenia:

If you go back thousands of years, you see that droughts can go on for years if not decades, and there were some dry periods that lasted over a century, like during the Medieval period and the middle Holocene. The 20th century was unusually mild here, in the sense that the droughts weren’t as severe as in the past. It was a wetter century, and a lot of our development has been based on that.(B. Lynn Ingram)

Today, that wetter climate supports over 10 million people in LA county alone, in addition to one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world. Yet what happens if 2013 isn’t a blip on the radar, and it is a part of the reversion to the mean? Then we would need to really critically examine our land use patterns and how we collect, store and use our water. But, instead of that critical analysis, the California GOP would rather make this a political issue. Us versus them; agriculture vs environmentalists.

But even if you wanted an us versus them, it isn’t clear that you can stop at just agriculture and protection of endangered species. But, that’s what the GOP is going with. It sounds good enough to draw the most senior Republican in the nation, Speaker John Boehner:

“When you come to a place like California, and you come from my part of the world, you just shake your head and wonder what kinds of nonsense does the bureaucracy do out here?” (Speaker Boehner) said, referring to the long-running diversion of millions of gallons from farms to the habitats of endangered fish.

“How you can favor fish over people is something that people from my part of the world never understand,” he said.(LA Times / Evan Halper)

Nevermind that Ohio deals with issues of endangered species all the time, but the bigger myth is that this is simply an issue of the smelt vs farmers. It is far bigger than that. You have the issues between Delta farmers, who are quite productive themselves, and farmers in the Central Valley, especially the drier southern part of the Valley around Bakersfield. The fish being considered are not just the endangered tiny smelt, but also the salmon runs in Northern California that could be totally eliminated if enough water isn’t granted to the rivers. Once the runs dwindle, it is remarkably difficult to bring them back, even with substantial hatchery programs. And those fish, yeah, they represent jobs to thousands of fishermen.

At any rate, it is hard to argue that Jerry Brown has been some sort of impediment to getting water to the Central Valley farmers. In fact, during the last huge drought, then Gov. Jerry Brown tried to get a peripheral canal built. That was ultimately defeated by referendum in 1982. Had it passed it would have brought massive change to the Delta and a lot of questions of sustainability.  The BDCP includes two tunnels around the Delta that would divert fresh water around the Delta. Now, the technology has clearly improved over the past 30 years, but questions about the long-term viability of the tunnels still abound.  The junior water users, especially the Westlands Water District in the southern Valley, desperately want change, any change, to move them up the ladder. But will there be enough snowpack in the Sierras to divert all that water to Southern California?

The other major question is storage. In an age when snowpack can no longer be trusted to store our water from February-June, do we need to build a bunch of more reservoirs? Well, again, where does that water come from if we have neither rain nor snow? But even with that question, does storage really change the fundamental questions, or just delay the inevitable? With agriculture accounting for about 80% of water usage, how do we decrease usage without decimating our crop yields? No matter how much we spend on water projects, we will need to get more out of the water we do have no matter what.

Or maybe we will get a lot of rain this week when the high pressure ridge breaks down, and we can go back to pretending that there is tons of water laying around. But in the end, it is hard to imagine that blaming Democrats for a lack of rain will bring Republicans out of their political drought of their own making.  

Governor to address legislature as new leadership team emerges. I’ll be on KALW Your Call at 10AM to discuss the State of the State.

by Brian Leubitz

There was a bit of controversy surrounding what was slowly coming into focus last week surrounding the legislative leadership races. Sen. Steinberg said last week that Sen Kevin de León was going to be the next Senate President Pro Tem. That was met with some worrying tones from Northern California, especially from the Bay Area Council:

We respect the importance of Southern California and often work closely with leaders there on key issues, but for the good of California, we must continue to share leadership.

As a region, therefore, we face an enormous and historic political test. Northern California’s senators and Assembly members should stand up for their districts, their voters, their region and this historic balance of power, and ensure that the next leader of either the Senate or the Assembly is from this part of the state. Once we lose that position of power, it’s very difficult to get it back. (Jim Wunderman, CEO of Bay Area Council , op-ed)

While this is a fuzzy kind of truth, you don’t really have to go all that far back to find contra cases. Willie Brown and Bill Lockyer were leading both chambers in the mid-1990s, but it has been something of a recent practice with the fast changing faces of the Legislature since term limits.  

At any rate, the BAC and other northern allies will have another shot at this race in two years. Atkins is term limited in 2016, while de León will face his Senate limit in 2018.

Meanwhile, the Governor has a plethora of topics to discuss at today’s State of the State. Water, climate change, the budget, and HSR all may come up.  I’ll be on KALW Your Call (91.7 in SF) at 10 AM, right after the speech to discuss it.  

Former Treasury official looks to take on Brown

by Brian Leubitz

Who, you may ask. Well, indeed Neel Kashkari intends to be the next governor of the great state of California. Kashkari, the former head of the TARP program, announced today that he will take on Brown (presumably) in the June election (and November if he gets that far.)

Former U.S. Treasury official Neel Kashkari announced Tuesday that he is running for governor of California, staking his campaign on his ability to create jobs and improve public schools.

“Here today, on this stage, I am announcing that I’m running for governor of California,” Kashkari told a few hundred people at a luncheon at Cal State Sacramento. “That’s my platform, jobs and education. That’s it. That’s why I’m running for governor of California.”(LA Times)

Fortunately for Kashkari, the caption writers of the LA Times are a bit out of date when they write under a photo that he is attempting to win the GOP nomination. Because, let’s be realistic here, he would have a much tougher route if that was his path. Instead, given that we now work in a Top-2 system, Kashkari will attempt to woo enough Republicans, independents and a smattering of Democrats in the June election to be the second highest vote getter and move on to November.

It is probably a better path than the one that Meg Whitman had to trod in 2010. She had to cater to the far right to get her party’s nomination, say some stuff about immigration she probably didn’t believe and all that. Kashkari can hope that the nativist vote won’t overwhelm the “moderate” coalition that he aims to build. Of course, in Tim Donnelly, the nativists have just the candidate to rally around.  Kashkari will have to hope that he can build a big war chest from the corporate Republicans to build an operation that can deal with the right wing ground game. It is doable, but a strong showing from Brown in gathering independent support could mean that Donnelly is the man that gets through June.

And even if he can get through June, what then? Brown is still sitting at an impressive 58% approval rating in the last Field poll. That includes 58% approval among independents, a figure that could go higher if the economy continues to recover. Brown has a big chunk of cash sitting in the bank, and an impressive operation in a Democratic state. In other words, unless Brown opts out in a stunning turn of events, he is a strong favorite to retain the job. Kashkari will do well to replicate the results of Whitman in 2010. (Spoiler: Whitman lost by 13 points after spending $140 million)

UPDATE: A tip of the hat to the Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci for checking out his voting records. Turns out that he’s not doing so well on that front:

Former Treasury Department official Neel Kashkari, a moderate Republican who is expected to run for governor, has failed to vote in nearly half the elections in which he was eligible since 1998 – including the 2012 presidential primary and the 2005 special election called to decide the reform agenda of then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger – public records show.

Oh, that’s ok, no big deal. I mean, you are only trying to get millions of people to show up for you, what’s a measly voting record anyway? Voting isn’t nearly as powerful as the big checks, right?

At any rate, Kashkari has a little baggage to open up the race. Never an auspicious way to start.

Former LG struggled with fundraising and staff changes

by Brian Leubitz

St. Abel Maldonado struggled during his campaign for governor. To put it mildly. He didn’t really rake in the bucks, and went through a complete staff change. Of course, there was also the issue that most of the GOP loyalists pretty much loathe the guy. Apparently now he’s had enough:

Abel Maldonado, whose campaign for governor sputtered for months and failed to gain the support of Republican donors, has told other Republicans he will drop out of the race today, sources said. …

Then, after finishing the first half of last year in debt, Maldonado and his original team of advisers split. Maldonado assembled a new group of advisers, including Ron Nehring, the former California Republican Party chairman, and he presented the team at the state party’s convention last fall.(SacBee)

But never you worry, Tim Donnelly is still in the race, and he’s totally for reals about his fundraising. Or well, at least he had enough to buy a milkshake at In ‘N Out and still be able to afford a burger too.

However, rumors continue to swirl that former TARP administrator Neel Kashkari will enter the race soon. He has hired some advisors, but he’ll need to raise a lot of cash quickly to be competitive with a governor that had $10million in the bank in mid 2013 and a 58% approval rating in the most recent Field poll.

Potential candidates differ on many issues

by Brian Leubitz

With about one year left until the 2014 election, the GOP field for the second spot in the top-2 governor’s election seems to be a very intriguing trio.

Abel Maldonado and Tim Donnelly have more or less made their candidacies official.  On the other hand, former Goldman Sachs (and TARP administrator) Neil Kashkari has been less forthcoming on official news. However, he clearly seems to be building a campaign, and a non-traditional GOP campaign at that. He’s clearly trying to come at it from the middle, but Joe Garofoli of the SF Chronicle looks at some who wonder at how that will fare in the CRP.

Two of California’s likely Republican candidates for governor are going to put that to the test: Are voters – particularly conservative ones – ready for GOP candidates who are pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage rights and pro-pathway to citizenship for those in the U.S. illegally?

It is a long shot. Those positions contradict the Republican national platform, and they’re deal killers to the hard-core conservatives who make up the bulk of GOP primary voters.

“This is test case nationally of what the Growth and Opportunity Project (postmortem) was suggesting,” said Alex Carey, a Sausalito resident and veteran GOP strategist who was an adviser to GOP Minnesota governor and 2012 presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty.

“California could be on the leading edge of what the party wants to do,” Carey said. “But some conservatives will have to look beyond what their differences are with the candidates.”

For years, the media has been trying to shoehorn some level of moderation in the CRP. And for a while, maybe there was some there. Gov Schwarzenegger wasn’t exactly moderate, but nor was he what you would call right-wing these days.  And Duf Sundheim, a former chair of the party, worked to create a somewhat inclusive party. But in the end, if you look around at today’s CRP, you don’t find a lot of inclusion there. You find Tim Donnelly.

While the media likes to think that because we have a pretty progressive majority in the Legislature and our representatives, that the CRP must reflect that as well.  They would be wrong. The California GOP is just as hard-core and full of true believers as any, right up there with Dixie. It turns out that the fog of progressivism doesn’t really roll all the way into every California community.

Maybe Kashkari can draw enough interest to finish in second place and get to a one on one matchup with Governor Brown. But when running against Maldonado, considered to be the GOP’s legislative version of a moderate, how does he carve out the votes in what will likely be a low turnout June election? Will the two “moderates” open up a path to the general election for Donnelly?

While a moderate and vigorous GOP, or any strong second party, would be of considerable value for the state, that isn’t where the Republicans are headed right now. And ignoring the social issues tends to only work if you are a some sort of movie star. Kashkari might draw a fair share of interest, but I find it hard to believe that a pro-choice, pro-marriage equality candidate, who also happens to have spent a fare share of time at Goldman Sachs, can really be welcome in today’s GOP.

Governor vetoes a few notable pieces of legislation on last weekend

by Brian Leubitz

When you have both the legislative and executive branches controlled by the same party, you would expect a pretty high percentage of legislation signed. However, while the odds have been better for Democratic legislation under Gov. Brown than the previous administration, some Democratic legislators have been a little frustrated with Gov. Brown’s vetoes of major legislation.  With that being said, the two year session that ended last year ended up with the Governor vetoing about 13% of the 1,866 bills that reached his desk.

That’s about half as many as Schwarzenegger, but his rate went down this year to 10.7%, something of a record. And some of those he signed are pretty important:

Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday wrapped up action on bills for the year by approving a measure aimed a protecting against false confessions by minors in homicide cases and giving some non-violent felons the ability to have their records expunged.

In all, Brown acted by Sunday’s deadline on 896 regular-session bills sent him by the Legislature this year, down from the nearly 1,000 bills that landed on his desk last year. He vetoed 10.7% of the bills, the lowest rejection rate for any of his three years this term. (LA Times)

He also acted on a few other bills of note. He signed Sen. Hancock’s SB 54, which had caused a dustup in the labor community (including a “Save Our Jobs” campaign), however he vetoed some of the so-called “LIFE Act” gun safety legislative package. Needless to say, many progressives are disappointed.

Their key issue: the veto of SB 374 by Senator Darrell Steinberg,” which conservatives called called “draconian” – but which progressives supported for its ban on future sales of most semi-automatic rifles.

We just talked to Paul Song, head of the progressive Courage Campaign, who told us that his group was “devastated” by Brown’s actions.

“We expected that in a solidly blue state, where he doesn’t have to worry about recall, he would have shown a little bit of courage or backbone – and set an example for the test of the country. He let us down,” Song said. “And just like the prison expansion (issue), he’s been to the right of a lot of Republican governors.” (SF Gate)

He did sign some of the package, including banning kits that enable magazines to hold more than 10 bullets, but the vetoes gathered more attention. While this does move the ball forward, ultimately we need federal gun legislation in order to really be effective.

You can find more information on the status of specific bills at the Legislature’s bill information site.

Law will go into effect in 2015

by Brian Leubitz

Well, it took many years, and Gil Cedillo wasn’t the one to pass it, but drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants is going to happen in California.

Two decades after California barred illegal immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses, Gov. Jerry Brown Thursday signed legislation that restores the privilege, ending a policy battle that liberal Democrats had been fighting — and losing — for years. (Oakland tribune)

In the end, this bill makes Californians safer. It makes all Californians who use the roads safer, as there aren’t a big group of drivers without licenses. And it makes people feel more human:

Governor Jerry Brown waited until late Friday to veto legislation requiring coroners to report to the medical board whenever narcotics cause deaths. The medical establishment has opposed the bill, which is aimed at weeding out the small number of dangerous and drug dealing doctors who are responsible for the vast majority of prescription drug overdose deaths.

Brown cited state costs as his reason, but it just doesn’t add up.  The bill would have cost no more than hundreds of thousands of dollars. The power of the medical establishment is the real motive here, and their distaste for any accountability or transparency.  The arrogance of medical-pharmaceutical complex is astounding, but what’s really disturbing is that they have Jerry Brown’s ear and pen.

The Los Angeles Times did a groundbreaking investigation of prescription overdose deaths and dirty doctors based on obtaining coroner reports like the ones that SB 62 would have required to be reported to the medical board. The fact that such a simple measure cannot get past the governor’s desk shows why we need to go to the ballot with the Troy and Alana Pack Patient Safety Act, which requires mandatory drug testing of physicians and other patient safety measures.

Drug testing physicians is not only critical to protecting the public from substance abusing doctors, but it is also remedies another epidemic — the belief by the doctors lobby that they are above it all.  Make them pee in a cup and some of the arrogance we have been witnessing in response to common sense measures like SB 62 will be reduced too.

After today, it might be wise to make Governor Brown pee in a cup too. The loss of judgement and clarity in the deliberation of SB 62 makes one wonder.

Posted by Jamie Court, author of The Progressive’s Guide to Raising Hell and President of Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government and politics. Visit us on Facebook and Twitter.