Notes from yet another long session in the Legislature:

The Senate could wait no longer for the Assembly to get their act together, so they passed a reduced prison package along the Assembly’s lines, one that falls $200 million short of projections and does not have a sentencing commission.  The Governor has announced he’ll sign the bill.  It’s marginally worthwhile for the parole reforms, but really nowhere near what’s needed.  And so the federal judges will in all likelihood order a mass release, and because little is being done to address root causes, the cost of prisons and the population as a whole are both still likely to increase.  The cowards in the Assembly who think they have designs on higher office after this travesty should know that this vote will have importance, but not in the way they think.

The bill to waive CEQA requirements (California Environmental Quality Act) to put a football stadium in Southern California – without an NFL team, mind you – did not get by Darrell Steinberg, despite lots of energy and effort from special interests.  He’s giving the various parties more time to negotiate a settlement.  Sports stadiums are among the biggest corporate welfare projects we have in America.

The much-ballyhooed water deal has been scuttled, as Karen Bass announced she did not have the votes to move it.  The Speaker may ask for a special session on water, and the Governor would probably move that as well.  The middle-of-the-night rush obviously didn’t work, so some transparency would be preferable.

Still waiting on the renewable energy standard bill, which would put California in the vanguard of the nation in terms of its portfolio (33% by 2020).

A few end-of-the-session tidbits for you:

• CapAlert reports that Karen Bass will try again to get some of the more spineless members of her caucus to support a prison reform bill better than the scaled-back effort it already passed.  Bass talked about adding the “alternative custody” provisions into the bill, which would get it to the proper level of cuts, but not the sentencing commission, which still looks dead, sadly.

• One bill we know to be dead is SB88, which would have forced localities to get permission from the state before going into bankruptcy.  This was a union-backed bill to protect their local contracts, but city governments balked.  Sen. Mark DeSaulnier says he’ll try to broker a compromise for next year.  Those bankruptcies are probably right down the pike, so he’d better hurry.

• The bill that the Governor arrogantly vetoed earlier in the week, in a hissy fit because he wasn’t getting his way on water or prisons, was a bill to initiate a Vietnam Veteran’s memorial day.  It was authored by Republican Assemblyman Paul Cook, and he’s whipping support to undergo the first legislative veto override in Sacramento in about 30 years, which is truly a sad legacy.  Only in California could securing an override on an uncontroversial bill be something that could end a political career, as Cook acknowledged today.  An override would be at least a sign of life in the Legislature.

UPDATE: And that’s going to fizzle, because the Yacht Party in the Senate won’t go along with an override.  What point is there having the law on the books?  Paul Cook is going to us a gut-and-amend to put the same bill up tonight, anyway.

• A lot of rumbling about the water bill, which is being written completely in secrecy, and without the input of politicians who represent the Sacramento Delta.  Bass hinted at a bond issue to finance whatever comes out of conference, which would cost $600 $800 million in debt service annually without any consequent gains in revenue to pay for it.

UPDATE: The Fresno Bee has more.  The bond issue seems to be the sticking point.

Could be another long night…

UPDATE: Here’s some actual good news.  SB13, the bill to fund $16.3 million for domestic violence shelters by shifting some budget accounts, passed the Assembly on a bipartisan vote of 63-1.  I wrote yesterday about how the loss of this funding was simply devastating and indeed, a death warrant, to domestic violence victims across the state.  It moves to the Senate for concurrence.

I mentioned this yesterday, but California lawmakers gave final approval to a bill that would ban the practice of rescission, where insurance companies drop coverage for policyholders after they try to use it based on alleged technical inaccuracies in their application form.  Here’s what AB2 would do:

AB 2 would require:

• Individual health care service plans to be subject to an independent external review before denying or rescinding coverage.

• The state to establish standard information and health-history questions to be used on policy applications.

• That intentional misrepresentation be shown before an individual health care service plan can be rescinded.

This language basically complies with what would appear in federal legislation before Congress banning rescission.

Now Arnold Schwarzenegger has a choice to make.  Does he side with people who are denied coverage after paying premiums for years?  Or does he side with his usual pals in the Chamber of Commerce who will push for anything, no matter how immoral, to maximize profits?

Everyone should know that Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill to this last year.  He’s always been a Chamber of Commerce sock-puppet and I don’t expect him to change now.  However, Schwarzenegger has been an alleged proponent of health care reform at the national level, and in a recent letter endorsed the concept of guaranteed issue of insurance, which obviously conflicts with allowing insurers to rescind policies.  He also supports continued state regulation of the insurance industry.

Well, here’s his chance.  The Legislature has acted to ban what I call insurer-assisted suicide, and Arnold can make his decision by either signing the bill or vetoing it.

With about 24 hours left in the Legislature’s current session, deals on the two main issues for which Arnold is demanding resolutions, water and prisons, do not seem likely.  On the water issues:

The water conference committee signed off last night on a five-bill package to address Delta conservation and water supply issues.

The conference report got the eight signatures needed to pass out of the committee in time for a floor vote, but none of the Republicans on the panel were on board with the plan.

Sen. Dave Cogdill, the lead Republican in the negotiations, called the conference report “an unbalanced package of bills that ignores the need for a reliable water supply and only caters to the interests of extreme environmentalists.” (CapAltert 9/10/09)

And that doesn’t even bring in the issue of how to pay for this stuff. Pretty much everybody is shying away from general obligation bonds, as our credit rating these days pretty much sucks and it is really expensive to borrow money.  May folks have been pushing the idea of revenue bonds, but it isn’t clear that we can really raise enough money to pay for everything that is on the table right now.

The prison reform issue isn’t really doing any better as the Assembly plan doesn’t have enough cost savings (or enough spine) and the Senate seems reluctant to pull the trigger on a half measure.  There may be something sort of development on prisons, but it would have to be very, very soon.

So, as Ernie Banks said, “It’s a beautiful day for a ballgame… Let’s play two!”

There’s lots of significant news in the Legislature’s last week regarding various bills, and it’s extremely difficult to keep up with it all, probably by design.  I should point out that, while the legislative calendar has an end date, there’s no actual reason for some of the forced bottlenecks that result in hundreds of bills being passed at the last minute.  It creates a shroud of secrecy in which special interests rule, and saps the public trust.  A Democratic leadership actually interested in positioning government as somewhat decent would remove these forced bottlenecks from the internal legislative rules and allow bills to be approved on a rolling basis.  That said, this is the system we have now, and here’s a bunch of news about various bills:

• A new bill would exempt non-General Fund workers from furloughs.  This would reverse one of the dumbest provisions in the budget bill, the practice of forcing furloughs on workers not paid by state government, saving almost no money and depriving people of needed services.  Of course, the Governor will probably veto this one, because he hates admitting how wrong he is.

• Democrats on that vaunted water committee have decided against floating a bond to pay for any restoration or overhaul of the Delta.  This means Republicans won’t vote for it, and very little will come of this very important committee thrown together at the last minute.  Some conference committee reports are here, but a deal looks remote, as it would need votes from some of the empty chairs in the Yacht Party.

• One bill that has cleared both chambers would set up “Education Finance Districts”, “in which three or more contiguous school districts can band together to try to increase local taxes.”  This is a small step to make it easier for districts to pass parcel taxes to fund schools, but at this point every little bit helps.  The 2/3 rule for approving such taxes would remain.

• With all the talk of health care reform, it’s notable that an anti-rescission bill has once again passed the legislature.  The bill would also simplify insurance forms.  Last session, Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.  There’s something you don’t hear much about from the Democratic leadership – Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have banned insurance companies from dropping patients after they get sick.  He sided with the forces of insurer-assisted suicide.  This is your modern Yacht Party on this issue:

“Any of those who have read the various exposés in the Los Angeles Times and others . . . is aware that health insurers have admitted and acknowledged they engaged in a form of post-claims underwriting,” said Sen. Mark Wyland (R-Escondido). “It is unethical and, considering what some of these people have endured, it really borders on the immoral.”

However, Wyland said he would not vote for the bill because the Department of Insurance has proposed new rules to solve the problem, and he wants to see how they work.

Hey, give ’em a chance to see if the immorality stops!  If not, we can think it over.

• The Legislature may extend a homebuyer’s tax credit passed in a previous budget agreement that was nothing but a bailout for developers.  It only credited new construction, and was structured only to benefit high-income households who could afford new construction.  By the way, sales of new units have fell since this was enacted, so it’s not even meeting its intended purpose.  But it’s a giveaway to a special interest, so off the money may go, even though we cannot afford it at this time.

• A bill to ban bisphenol A (BPA) from children’s products was delayed after the Assembly couldn’t muster 41 votes.  The debate in the Assembly last night was pretty fierce.

• Cities and counties reacted angrily to a proposed bill to slow local government bankruptcies until vetted by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission.  On the merits this looks to be a bill that would install more control on locals from Sacramento, although there are arguments on both sides.  But mainly it’s about the fate of union contracts in local bankruptcies, I don’t think either side would deny that.

• A roundup of other bills passed yesterday can be found here.

Last week, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration, cut the furloughs for CHP dispatchers.  Apparently, the furloughs were causing extended delays in responding to 911 calls throughout the state.  In response, Arnold and his staff looked at the situation and determined that the furloughs were hurting the state.

Yet, still, the Governor insists on maintaining the otherwise blanket theory of furloughs.  Why just yesterday, he wrote a letter to DiFi saying how important the furloughs were, despite the fact that the furloughs in question were for state workers paid by federal dollars.

So, why the inconsistency? Why is it acceptable to make changes in the furlough policy for 911 dispatchers based on safety and not for tax collectors whose furloughs end up costing the state money.  This isn’t policy making, it’s just plain Stupid^TM. (Photo from WSJ. Arnold found some dumbbells in a burned out house…so he had to pump up a little bit.)

The Legislative Leaders have now submitted a kindly request to the Governor to cut one of the furlough days. You can read Senator Steinberg’s letter in full in this diary, he is simply asking for some reasoned policy analysis and to consider how it is affecting the state. It is a wonkish letter to be sure, but it highlights opportunities for cost savings and ways that the state can improve services to Californians. Of course, he is still a politician, and can finish with a rhetorical flourish with the best of them:

Information we have gathered indicates that California will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in our general fund at the state tax agencies alone. The current furlough policy has become a “penny saved, a dollar lost” approach that can be corrected immediately.

*** *** ***

You recently re-examined the furlough policy as it applied to dispatchers employed by the California Highway Patrol, and exempted these employees from the furlough.  I applaud you for that action.  Now is the time to re-examine the policy more broadly. Please find attached information the Senate has gathered on the furloughs.

On the flip side, the Governor’s policy goal seems to be simply punitive.  

“Senator Steinberg and Governor Schwarzenegger have a fundamental difference when it comes to furloughing state workers,” said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear. “The governor believes they should cut back like all California families and businesses. Senator Steinberg believes state workers should be shielded from the economic realities the rest of the state faces.” (LA Times 9/3/09)

A few things here, first the role of government isn’t to punish its workers for the sake of punishing workers.  If we aren’t saving money with these furloughs, then why are we doing them? Why are we furloughing tax collectors, federally funded employees, and prison guards, when the furloughs will end up costing us more money in the long-run? This isn’t about shielding state workers, it is about providing services that Californians pay for. State workers don’t need to be taught a lesson that will cost the state millions of dollars to impose.

I would also point out that being a state worker is a trade-off. You take generally lower pay than you would in the private sector, but you get benefits and supposed job security.  Demonizing state workers will make it increasingly difficult to recruit quality state workers as we hopefully move beyond this crisis.

And beyond the fact that it causes inconvenience for Californians, it doesn’t really address the underlying problems with the budget: more money going out than coming in. We need a more flexible revenue and budgeting system to allow the state to respond to its needs.  But if we are going to furlough state workers, can we at least be sure that we are saving money in the process? Anything less would be, well, Stupid.^TM

The message from the panel of judges to Sacramento yesterday was, you broke it, you bought it:

Reporting from Sacramento – A panel of federal judges, accusing California officials of obstruction, on Thursday denied the state’s request to delay an order to produce a plan for reducing its prison population by 40,000 inmates.

Aides to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said they would take their request to the U.S. Supreme Court today.

The judges issued their order on Aug. 4 in two long-running lawsuits by inmates. The state asked for a delay pending its appeal of the order to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was filed separately Thursday.

In rejecting the state’s motion for the delay only two days after it was filed, the judges said they had been “more than patient with the state and its officials” and harshly criticized them for “conflicting representations” in court that have caused the cases to drag on.

It’s getting comical at this point.  Thelton Henderson initially found California’s prison system to violate individual rights in 2005.  Over those four years, state officials have resisted, bargained, shouted, and appealed their way into oblivion, trying all along to do as little as possible about the clear crisis.  The judges are asking for a plan that essentially mirrors the Senate’s version of prison reform working through the legislative process right now.  For all the protests about “wasting taxpayer dollars” to come up with a workable plan, the judges are essentially asking for a copy of what’s already being done.

The state doesn’t want to give them one, because they now it’s insufficient to conform with the clear guidelines on reducing the inmate population.  And they’d rather appeal and appeal and be forced to respect Constitutional rights than do it themselves.  With the taxpayer money and effort spent to studiously ignore this problem, we could have already solved it.

For a few weeks, we’ve been highlighting some of the efforts of various lawmakers to highlight some of the out and out stupid with Arnold’s furloughs. See, the thing is not the actual furlough policy: he’s already pretty much wrapped up mostly winning that fight in the courts. The problem is that Arnold’s blanket furlough process doesn’t take the actual circumstances on the ground. Sen Ducheny pointed out that when you furlough the tax collectors, we take in less money and there is no net cost savings to the furloughs. Asm. Skinner points out that when you furlough workers that are entirely paid by the federal government, you get no cost savings and end up costing the state federal dollars.

And both of these are all kinds of stupid.  Sen. Feinstein, seeing the problem that Asm. Skinner pointed out, passed along a letter from Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue raising concerns that the furlough policy was delaying payments.

Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue says disability claims are rapidly increasing and furloughs could postpone another $15 million in federal payments – worsening California’s economic problems. …

The governor will review the concerns in the letter, but furloughs need to be applied universally to generate savings, regardless of departments’ funding sources, {Schwarzenegger spokesman} Cameron said. (AP 8/25/09)

Well, today we get the Governor’s response (PDF) to Sen. Feinstein.  It spouts some data showing that the delays are minimal and that California is right around average processing time.  But what it doesn’t address is how exactly furloughing workers.

I get that the workers can schedule their furloughs, and I suppose that is a step in the right direction, but that doesn’t really address the issue that this a) saves us NO money and b) hurts California.

Arnold’s only real defense for the general policy is that we need some kind of consistency across departments. That somehow if some departments avoid the axe we will be worse off, despite all evidence to the contrary.  In other words, he is spending money to shove the heel of his boot into the face of state workers. There will be discipline, and he will make sure of that.  To prevent an unproven and probably unrealistic problem that one department would revolt if other departments get their furloughs reduced or eliminated.

See, but that is what governing is all about. Making policy decisions.  As an elected official you must make decisions on what areas of government will get priority, and what won’t. His blanket furlough system is just lazy governance. Instead of doing the work that would provide the best possible governance for California during the crisis, Arnold thinks it isn’t really worth his time, so, on to the other issues.

It’s great that Sen. Feinstein has chosen to address this issue, but it would also be great if she would keep up the pressure on stupid as we move forward. And California has a few other figures who could speak a little more loudly on the issue as well.

The CA High Speed Rail Commission is on the hunt for a PR firm. And why not choose the firm that has Arnold’s political cronies?

California’s high speed rail commission, dominated by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s appointees, is set to award a $9-million contract today to a company led by the governor’s top political advisor and his former campaign manager.

The three commission staff members charged with recommending a public relations firm have advised the board to give the contract to Mercury Public Affairs at its meeting today. Schwarzenegger strategist Adam Mendelsohn is a partner at Mercury, as is Steve Schmidt, who managed the governor’s 2006 reelection effort. (LA Times 9/3/09)

Also of note, former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez is also a partner at the firm. Now, it can very well be argued that Mercury offered the best value proposition, but it could also just gives that whiff of a payback.

The deal still must be confirmed by the whole commission.

The Assembly’s passage of a prison “reform” bill is not the end of the line for the legislation, as the Senate simply won’t accept it in this form.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the reaction in the Senate to the Assembly’s low calorie prison bill was muted. Senate Democrats certainly wouldn’t have come out and said the plan stinks. But there’s no official timetable on a reconciliation vote in the upper house, either.

The official response from Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg came in a written statement: “The Assembly took a good first step today but it’s not a complete package. In the coming weeks, I look forward to working with (Assembly) Speaker Karen Bass and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on further reforms that will strengthen our criminal justice system.”

The key phrase in that statement: “In the coming weeks.” This one’s not going to go away anytime soon.

The main reason is that the Assembly bill costs $233 million more to the overall budget than the Senate’s, and that money simply does not exist.  It’ll eventually come out of the hides of other programs if allowed to let stand.  And the Assembly Republicans and Democrats who help up the bill can then explain why it was necessary to keep terminally ill blind people in jail at the expense of children’s health care or some other social program.

Steinberg expanded on his dissent from the Assembly bill today, calling the legislature’s inability to pass the reforms based on cuts they already passed in July an example of the legislature’s “culture of failure”.  I’ve been saying that for weeks.

Meanwhile, I’m hearing a lot of reactionaries taking the example of Phillip Garrido, the kidnapper of Jaycee Lee Dugard, and the fact that he only served 10 1/2 years of a 50-year kidnapping sentence in the 1970s, to argue for more stringent parole and prison laws in California.  This is the typical Willie Horton-ing of any sane discourse on prison policy.  Garrido was convicted of a FEDERAL crime, not a state crime.    And that federal parole policy was abolished by 1987.  It bears no application to this debate whatsoever, particularly since, under this policy, violent criminals would not be subject to release and would face more stringent parole supervision, as resources would be allocated to those who require it.  The failure of parole officers to discover Garrido’s deviance demands EXACTLY the kind of parole reform in both the Assembly and Senate bill, so officers have smaller caseloads and can focus on the most dangerous cases instead of returning nonviolent offenders to prison for technical violations.

Meanwhile, the Governor, even while promoting a real reform plan, wants to get a stay from federal judges on implementing the required reduction of 44,000 to the prison population, which even the Senate bill doesn’t do.  He plans to file an appeal with the US Supreme Court as well, and if the three-judge panel doesn’t grant the stay, he’ll ask the Supremes to do so.

Sacramento politicians are still in between the “denial” and “bargaining” stage in reacting to their immoral and unconstitutional handling of the prison crisis.