A few days ago, we mentioned Arnold’s TV ad. It was rather sketchy, considering it drew a bizarre line in the sand. However, it turns out there is something else sketchy about the ad.  Namely, that it violates regulations laid down by the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Specifically, the money for the ad came from Arnold’s ballot measure account “Governor Schwarzenegger’s Dream Team California” Under FPPC regulations (Title 2 of the California Code of Regs, Sec. 18521.5), such ballot measure committees must only spend money on ACTUAL ballot measures, whether to gather signatures or what not. But while that is a bit murky, the one thing that is clear is that spending has to be in the furtherance of a ballot measure.

If you recall, the ad said nothing whatsoever about any ballot measure. In fact, the only thing it does mention is the budget negotiation process. Thus, Arnold will have to find some other slush fund to run this ad. The CDP is asking for the FPPC to seek an injunction to block the airing of the ad or of its continued existence on a website paid for by the “Dream Team” Committee.

If you are a big nerd like me, you can get all the details from this letter from the CDP to the FPPC and from the actual complaint filed with the FPPC.  

Meetings of the Big Five lasted late into the night, and reports are that a deal is very close.  Now, that deal won’t be any good.  The secretive Big Five process, which Democrats actually tried to counteract with 30 hours of public meetings, ends up leading to a deal that nobody reads and gets pushed through in the dead of night.  And the very structure of the California system, with its super-majority requirements, will never yield a good deal for anyone but the well-connected.

Any final deal is expected to include some of the sharpest cutbacks in government services the state has experienced. Programs that have not been cut deeply in years are likely to shrink considerably, with tens of thousands of Californians losing access to programs they have relied on. Some programs may be wiped out entirely. Large numbers of low-income Californians receiving healthcare through the Medi-Cal program are expected to be moved into managed care, and thousands of seniors who receive home healthcare would lose it.

That said, it looks as if the Governor will lose on many of his priorities.  He’ll lay back with a stogie in his Jacuzzi anyway, but he’s not going to get everything he wants.  For instance, a proposal to cut public employee pensions has been scrapped.

California will not impose a two-tier pension system promising lower benefits to future state workers as part of any wide-ranging deal to solve its $26.3 billion budget shortfall, The Bee has learned.

The controversial proposal by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been shelved in budget talks, but options for cutting pension costs are expected to be discussed again in coming months.

I’d expect that to come up again, but it should not have been wedged into a budget deal when it would offer almost no short-term fiscal benefit.

In addition, the Governor will not be allowed by the courts to slash worker pay for IHSS employees.

A federal judge on Monday ordered California to pay In-Home Supportive Services workers up to $12.10 per hour in wages and benefits immediately, suggesting the state had dragged its feet in response to her earlier injunction.

California lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had agreed to drop the state’s contribution to IHSS wages and benefits to $10.10 per hour as part of their February budget deal.

In a lawsuit filed by the Service Employees International Union, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland ruled last month that the state did not analyze the impacts of the wage cut before approving it, running afoul of federal law. She blocked the wage drop to $10.10 that was supposed to take effect July 1.

This saved a pittance of money relative to the overall budget gap, around $100 million, and, you know, violated federal law.

As I speculated yesterday, the Governor’s foregrounding of “no new taxes” in his TV ad, a point already conceded by Democrats, was an effort to claim victory on something as the rest of his shock-doctrine agenda goes down in flames.  We’ll see if the anti-fraud measures stay in there as well.

As I said, this is going to be a horrible budget deal, and under the current system there can be almost nothing else.  But I don’t think the IOU issuance had the desired effect for the Governor.  He ended up having to play defense because his indifference to the state’s plight was seen as cruel.  And just like in 1992, the refusal of bailed-out banks to honor the IOUs led almost immediately to marathon talks arriving at a solution.

Arnold could have avoided all this and saved the state billions of dollars, with almost no difference in the final result.  

The Sacramento Bee committed an act of journalism today, taking a look at the consequences of the legislature failing to act on various bills in favor of solving the budget.

Merced County beekeeper Gene Brandi says he had enough problems before getting ensnared in the nasty war of words between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature over California’s failure to cure its staggering budget deficit.

His Gene Brandi Apiaries in Los Banos, which once produced 400 drums of honey a year, has turned out just 20 drums so far this year as a searing drought has deprived wildland plants of the nectar that bees turn into honey.

And Brandi says he is facing competition from food processing companies that market sugar-added honey products as the real thing. “We’ve got people who take advantage of the good name of honey to try to sell their product,” he says.

Now some agricultural producers and Democratic lawmakers say Schwarzenegger and his aides are unfairly exploiting the good names of honey, blueberries, pomegranate juice – and cow tails – to bash legislators for fiddling while California burns.

The dust-up stirs debate over whether the budget mess should freeze out all other matters – or whether lawmakers still have a responsibility to continue the business of legislating, no matter how mundane it can appear.

Did this guy really ask to be turned into a punchline by the Governor?  I would argue that the crap that large multinational food producers package and sell as food is a serious problem on a variety of levels, not the least of which is public health.  And given 120 legislators with different committees and responsibilities, we are perfectly able, even with a budget crisis, to deal with additional legislation, particularly that which can make a difference to small businesses and the health and safety of the entire state.  In the past several years, with budget woes in every single one of them, somehow we passed a prescription drug benefit for seniors, an increase to the minimum wage, a landmark smart growth bill, and the Global Warmings Solutions Act, just to name a few.  

Ol’ Stogie And Jacuzzi is guilty of the exact same crime of turning every program that sounds funny, that includes animals or food, into an object of derision, as John McCain when he discussed so-called “pork” in the stimulus package:

McCain’s method of indentifying waste, gleefully repeated by Dowd, is a disgrace. His technique is to focus on programs that mention animals or food, or anythign that sounds silly. He’s clearly not interested in learning whether any of the programs he targets have merit. Here is Dowd recording McCain’s twitter postings:

$1 million for Mormon cricket control in Utah. “Is that the species of cricket or a game played by the brits?” McCain tweeted. …

$2 million “for the promotion of astronomy” in Hawaii, as McCain twittered, “because nothing says new jobs for average Americans like investing in astronomy.” …

$200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program to help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past. “REALLY?” McCain twittered.

I don’t know whether or not cricket control is a necessary program. Maybe crickets are doing many times that amount in crop damage every year. Maybe it’s a boondoggle. I don’t know about the astronomy program, either, though I do think there’s a role for federal support of the sciences, even in silly-sounding places like Hawaii.

I do know that the tattoo-removal program is an effective anti-crime initiative — it allows rehabilitated former to reenter society shorn of visible markings that cut them off from middle-class culture. McCain and Dowd don’t know this, and they don’t care. What’s on display is the worst elements of political demagoguery meeting the worst elements of the instant-reaction internet culture. They think the very idea of trying to learn about something before you take a position on it is a joke.

Who could have expected that going with a chief executive this simple-minded could lead us to such a place of ruin?

Last Friday at 5:00 p.m. (which he’s apt to do when releasing bad news), San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed three pro-tenant ordinances designed to help renters facing hard times.  He even nixed a relatively mild proposal to limit “banked” rent increases to 8% – despite this being consistent with existing policies at the Mayor’s Office of Housing.  Newsom’s record on tenant issues in San Francisco has always been bad, and his latest act does not bode well for next year’s statewide elections.  California’s 14 million renters need a champion in the Governor’s Mansion after six years of a hostile Republican Administration, but Newsom currently only has one opponent for the Democratic primary – California Attorney General Jerry Brown.  Based on his record as Mayor of Oakland, Brown can be counted on to be just as anti-tenant – if not worse – than Newsom.  There is no excuse why a deep blue state like California can’t have a pro-tenant Governor, and the current field of Democratic candidates creates an opening for a new person to jump into the fray.

Sacramento Politics Out of Step With Renters

When Schwarzenegger became Governor in 2003, the tenants’ rights agenda in the State Captiol – which had made some progress in the Gray Davis years – came to a grinding halt.  Arnold owns rental property in Santa Monica, and made it clear from the very start that he views California law as too “pro-tenant.”  Besides the legislative victory of 60-day notices for “no-fault” evictions, renters have made virtually no progress in Sacramento ever since.

And it has been a nightmare.  The Governor has vetoed legislation to help tenants in foreclosed properties, and single-handedly killed the renters’ tax credit.  We can’t get the state legislature to pass desperately needed Ellis Act reform, because too many Democrats are afraid of angering realtors in their districts – if they know Schwarzenegger would not sign the bill into law anyway.  We are at a standstill.

For a state whose voters soundly defeated Proposition 98 last year, there is no excuse why we can’t have a pro-tenant Governor.  A wide coalition opposed Prop 98 (it was so extreme that even Pete Wilson and the Chamber of Commerce opposed it), but polling throughout the campaign repeatedly showed a majority of Californians support rent control – suggesting we should be making more progress.

Unfortunately, neither of the two Democratic candidates for Governor are pro-tenant.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom

San Francisco tenant activists know that throughout his career, Gavin Newsom has not been an ally.  Newsom was a landlord when he served on the Board of Supervisors, and the City’s conflict-of-interest rules prevented him from taking a stand on many pro-tenant ballot measures.  But his consultant, Eric Jaye, made his mark in June 1998 by running the unsuccessful campaign to pass Prop E – which would have repealed rent control and eviction protections for owner-occupied buildings with four units or less.

In 2001, Newsom was one of three Supervisors to vote “no” on Jake McGoldrick’s T.I.C. legislation – which was designed to curb Ellis Act evictions.  In 2002, he signed the main ballot argument for Prop R – the measure that would have resulted in mass condominium conversions.  The SF Tenants Union prioritized its defeat, and Prop R lost by 20 points.

As Mayor, Newsom has vetoed most pro-tenant measures.  In 2004, he vetoed the Housing Preservation Ordinance – which stopped the mass demolition of rent-controlled properties.  In 2006, he vetoed two measures designed to curb Ellis Act evictions: (a) one that would have allowed the Planning Commission to weigh in on such cases, and (b) one requiring real estate brokers to disclose a prior Ellis Act eviction to potential T.I.C. buyers at open houses.  The voters passed the latter ordinance in the next election, a “veto override” that remains law today.

But Newsom has been willing to do the right thing – if it serves his political purposes.  In 2006, he signed into law a measure that effectively halted condo conversions on buildings with a prior Ellis eviction.  He also let an ordinance preventing landlords from arbitrarily taking away services become law.   Newsom did this because: (a) tenant activists effectively publicized an eviction epidemic and (b) Supervisor Bevan Dufty – who had been the fourth vote to sustain the Mayor’s vetoes – was up for re-election, and he hoped to deter a serious challenger.

What does this prove?  Newsom may not be “pro-tenant” – but if renters organize to shift the political dynamics, they can occasionally push him to respond.  A Governor Newsom would probably not advance legislation to curtail the Ellis Act or strengthen rent control, but by working with friendly Democratic legislators tenants could score the rare victory.

It’s instructive to see what occurred in San Francisco after tenant issues died down in prominence.  Besides vetoing the “renters’ relief” package, Newsom is pushing a very dangerous idea to fast-track thousands of condo conversion applications.  Billed as a way to “raise revenue” for the City’s coffers, the measure would encourage more Ellis Act evictions down the road – and cannibalize our rental housing stock.  Newsom even ditched recent City budget talks to meet at Medjool’s with the pro-gentrification group Plan C to discuss this proposal.

Newsom opposed Proposition 98.  At the time, he said it would “effectively gut local land use planning and severely weaken environmental protections,” and a “disaster for cities and counties.”  But now, his gubernatorial campaign has taken $25,000 from Thomas Coates – a real estate investor who gave one million dollars to the Prop 98 effort.  Expect landlords and realtors to heavily fund Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign.

California Attorney General – and former Oakland Mayor – Jerry Brown:

Progressives who remember when Jerry Brown was Governor – from 1974 to 1982 – are inclined to believe he would be pro-tenant, and thus better than Gavin Newsom.  And it’s true that in 1976, he vetoed AB 3788 – which would have pre-empted rent control in California.  (Other states were not so lucky, where the legislatures have forbidden cities from doing so.)  But Brown waited until the very last minute to veto the legislation, and it was a very tough call what he’d do – he opposed blanket preemption of local governments, but was against rent control.

Brown is notorious for being quirky and unpredictable, and his politics have drastically changed over a very long career.  Therefore, it’s not very helpful to look at his career as Governor in the 1970’s and 80’s.  A more accurate prediction is to see where he’s been since 1998 – when he made a political comeback by getting elected Mayor of Oakland.

If Gavin Newsom has been a bad Mayor for tenants, Jerry Brown was a real nightmare.  Oakland had rent control, but no “just cause” protections – which meant a landlord could simply ask a tenant to leave in thirty days for no reason at all.  In the late 1990’s, as the dot-com boom gentrified Oakland (and Brown promoted massive downtown real estate development), tenants pushed for a “just cause” ordinance.  When the measure qualified for the 2002 ballot, Brown vehemently opposed it – but the voters passed it, after a tough campaign.  In 2004, Brown campaigned against pro-tenant Councilwoman Nancy Nadel.

During the mass real estate boom of the Brown years, Oakland had no inclusionary housing ordinance – which meant that private developers were not required to build any “below-market rate” units.  Brown resisted any efforts to impose modest requirements, and his final act as Mayor in 2006 was to veto an inclusionary ordinance.  In contrast, San Francisco passed an inclusionary ordinance in 2001 – which over the years has been strengthened to have higher affordability levels.  Supervisor Gavin Newsom voted for it.

As Oakland Mayor, Brown was an unapologetic cheerleader of condo conversions – even if it displaced tenants.  In November 2006, City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente – who had been Brown’s endorsed candidate for Mayor to replace him that year – proposed such legislation, and attempted to pass it in a hurry while Brown was still in office.  This effort, however was thwarted by Mayor-elect Ron Dellums.  Brown’s position is disturbing, given that real estate speculators are taking the fight to Sacramento.  Would a Governor Brown sign state legislation that preempts cities from passing restrictions on condominium conversions?

As far as I can tell, Jerry Brown never took a stand on last year’s Proposition 98 to ban rent control – even though practically everyone else opposed it.  It cannot be because Brown was California Attorney General – since that didn’t stop him from opposing other propositions.  But Brown used his position as Attorney General to write the measure’s official ballot title, and opted not to mention that Prop 98 would abolish rent control in California.  A couple tenant groups sued him for an abuse of discretion, but a judge refused to require Brown to re-write it.

Can a “Pro-Tenant” Democrat Win the Governor’s Race?

Gray Davis was not exactly a “pro-tenant” Democrat, but as Governor he signed bills that the state legislature passed – such as (a) one-year Ellis eviction notices for seniors and the disabled, (b) strict habitability standards, (c) restrictions on re-renting property that had been Ellised, (d) exempting residential hotels (SRO’s) from the Ellis Act, and (e) 60-day notices for “no-fault” evictions.  The latter law expired in 2005, and it took two attempts by tenant advocates in the Schwarzenegger years to successfully have it re-instated as permanent.

It is questionable if Governors Gavin Newsom or Jerry Brown would sign such bills into law.  As for Brown, there is an added danger that he could even enact laws that would be a step backwards for tenants.  But there are “pro-tenant” Democrats in California who could get elected Governor – if they bothered to run.  Antonio Villaraigosa bowed out of the race, which is unfortunate – given his track record as Los Angeles Mayor at enacting some good legislation.  Time is running out on politicians to enter the Governor’s race.  Will anyone else jump in??

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth was an elected Commissioner on the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board from 2000 to 2004, and has been a tenant activist for years.  He is now a tenants’ rights attorney living in San Francisco, and is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, where this piece was first published.

That’s what happens you are a really big superstar.  You get to make up your own facts and reality as you go. It’s a really convenient super power, and even more super when people will simply write what you say down into pixels and ink.  Specifically, the Governator has decided that “fraud” is responsible for 25% of IHSS (in-home support services) expenses. This despite earlier failing to fund inspectors to review IHSS.

However, Asm. Noreen Evans is calling him out. Specifically, she points to a 2008 admistration audit that failed to show fraud anywhere near those kind of levels.

“It’s disappointing to see the governor making up ‘facts’ to suit his agenda,” said Evans.  “According to his own administration, just 1% of IHSS cases involve fraud.  The governor should not try to criminalize seniors and the disabled in order to close our budget gap.”

“The governor has been unable to produce evidence to support his claim that 25% of IHSS costs are due to fraud,” added Evans.  “In fact, this is just another proposal to gut the IHSS program using fraud as a fig leaf.  Contrary to the governor’s unsupported assertions, this recent audit is an unbiased analysis of fraud in IHSS and provides the best projection for any potential budget savings through reforms geared to reduce fraud.”

But, in the end, this is more of the same from Arnold, who is willing to use any means necessary, including turning a bunch of disabled Californians upside down, to score a point in negotiation.  However, this time it is backfiring upon him as it becomes increasingly clear that this Mr. Universe has no clothes.

Peep the full press release over the flip.

Administration Audit Contradicts Governor’s IHSS Reform Pitch

(SACRAMENTO, CA)  The governor’s claim that his in-home supportive services (IHSS) “reform” to combat fraud will reap 25% in program savings is inconsistent with the findings of a statewide audit released by his own administration in 2008 according to Assemblymember Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), Chair of the Assembly Budget Committee.  Audit attached.

“It’s disappointing to see the governor making up ‘facts’ to suit his agenda,” said Evans.  “According to his own administration, just 1% of IHSS cases involve fraud.  The governor should not try to criminalize seniors and the disabled in order to close our budget gap.”

In 2007, 41 counties performed a random quality assurance review of 23,823 cases as part of the state-mandated California Department of Social Services (CDSS) IHSS Quality Assurance effort.  This review involved intense auditing of each case to insure that state assessments are uniform and that errors are minimized.  These reviews also checked for fraud or any other inconsistencies.

“The governor has been unable to produce evidence to support his claim that 25% of IHSS costs are due to fraud,” added Evans.  “In fact, this is just another proposal to gut the IHSS program using fraud as a fig leaf.  Contrary to the governor’s unsupported assertions, this recent audit is an unbiased analysis of fraud in IHSS and provides the best projection for any potential budget savings through reforms geared to reduce fraud.”

Of the 23,823 cases reviewed, the administration’s own audit found 1,043 cases (4.3 percent of all cases) where there was some type of red flag that warranted further investigation regarding fraud.  Of this amount:

·        786 cases (3.3 percent of all cases) required some type of fraud prevention activity to investigate, like referral to a local district attorney;

·        523 cases (2.2 percent of all cases) were referred to the Department of Health Care Services anti-fraud investigators for further investigation; and

·        248 (1 percent of all cases) of the cases QA investigators found fraudulent overpayment.

IHSS is a program of in-home supportive care that was established in 1979.  The purpose of in-home care is to assist the elderly and disabled to live independently in their own homes and communities in order to avoid the state’s earlier practice of institutionalizing the disabled in state hospitals and the elderly in nursing homes.

Today’s LA Times story about a handful of prisoners released with 60 days or less remaining on their sentences probably raises hackles on the backs of the necks of the Tough on Crime crowd, but it really shows how fundamentally broken the state’s prison system remains.  Because look what the charges were on all of the prisoners released.

Reporting from Sacramento — California prison officials, facing severe overcrowding and a financial crisis, have been granting early releases to inmates serving time for parole violations.

State officials said the dozens of prisoners set free from the California Institution for Men in Chino and from lockups in San Diego and Shasta counties had 60 days or less left on their terms, or had been accused of violations and were awaiting hearings. The releases were approved by the state parole board.

At least 89 inmates have been freed or approved for early release during the last two months. Others have been sent to home detention, drug rehabilitation programs or similar alternative punishments.

It’s not an anomaly to see just 89 inmates charged with parole violations.  In fact, more than two-thirds of all prisoners admitted to state prisons in 2007 commit the crime of violating parole guidelines.  This is at least twice as many as virtually any other state.

On average, the nation’s state and federal prisons took in almost two new offenders for every parole violator, but in California, the reverse is true. In 2007, California prisons took in 139,608 inmates and 92,628 of them were parole violators, almost a 2-1 ratio. In only one other state, Washington, did parole violators outnumber those being jailed by the courts, and that was only by 126 inmates.

If Arnie Antionette were truly talking about reform instead of policies that destroy the social safety net, he’d talk about completely overhauling a parole system that is clearly too constrictive, that fails Californians and makes us all less safe.  When you warehouse 170,000 inmates in jails that only fit 100,000, you turn them into institutes of higher learning for violent crime instead of rehabilitation centers.  In addition to the cost of overtime for parole officers and prison guards, the costs to the criminal justice system naturally increase with the revolving door for inmates, not to mention the societal and human costs.

Unfortunately, we don’t have a reform agenda in this state, just a bunch of lawmakers trying to get across the line to the next budget, to the next election.  If there was such a thing as innovation and leadership we would have revamped this failed parole policy long ago.

As the Governor has tried to hijack the budget crisis to serve his own ends of punishing union workers and shredding the social services net, over the last couple days we’ve seen Democrats fighting back.  For example, Dean Florez surgically took apart the Governor’s idiotic smear attempt on legislators for doing their job of legislation.  Considering that the Governor has never invited all 120 lawmakers into his smoking tent for a pow-wow, I think there’s room for multitasking here.  But understanding that would involve basic knowledge about how government works, as Florez said:

Assembly bill 606 creates a commission to serve the marketing interests of the blueberry industry. Another bill defines “honey” to mean the natural food product resulting from the harvest of nectar by honey bees, and a third bill adopts regulations establishing definitions and standards for 100-percent pomegranate juice.

“Look, we’re pro-condiment, we’re pro-fruit, but the focus needs to be on the budget crisis,” McLear said.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Fresno) called Governor Schwarzenegger’s criticism “childish” and said he is fed up.

“The governor’s turned from an action hero into just another politician,” Senator Florez said. “He should really, really take a course on fundamental government on how the legislature works.”

“The fact that he doesn’t understand these things worries me,” he added.

Asm. Nancy Skinner held a press event with small business owners, again using the imagery of Arnold Antionette smoking a stogie in his Jacuzzi to contrast with the state’s struggles:

Skinner called a news conference at the corner of Solano Avenue and The Alameda in Berkeley, outside the vacant storefront formerly occupied by A Child’s Place. Near her podium was a poster of Arnold Schwarzenegger with a cigar in his mouth, with the headline “While the state drowns in IOUs ARNOLD DOESN’T CARE” and featuring a quotation from this past Sunday’s New York Times Magazine article on the governor’s method of coping with the stress of the budget crisis: “I will sit down in my Jacuzzi tonight. I’m going to lay back with a stogie.”

Skinner said that’s pretty cheeky talk for a governor who nixed bills that would’ve helped solve the state’s cash crisis, avoided the need for the IOUs now going out and kept the deficit from growing by another several billion dollars. And it’s particularly distasteful, she said, to small businesses that are struggling through this recession even as Schwarzenegger proudly talks about vetoing a plan to collect sales tax from large online retailers doing business through California-based affiliates.

You can debate AB 178, the plan to collect sales tax on affiliate sales (I don’t sell enough in affiliate sales to have much skin in the game, but there are decent arguments on both sides), but aligning with small business to attack a supposedly business-friendly Governor has good optics.

For the wonks, the Assembly produced an analysis of the Governor’s so-called “reform” agenda, showing that most of it would be completely irrelevant to the current budget year, and all of it uses math that magically eliminates implementation costs but assumes outrageously oversized savings years down the road.  These are cuts to social services pretending to be reform.  I guess it’s a step up from completely eliminating programs like CalWorks, but it’s fundamentally dishonest.

Moments after the Governor’s press conference yesterday about CalWorks “reform” (fact-checked here by the CBP), welfare advocates held their own press event that made most of the news items:

“I’ve never liked when people pick on the poor because they haven’t got the ability to fight back,” said John Burton, the state Democratic Party chairman and former Senate leader known as a fierce advocate for the poor. “It’s a Republican syndrome. It isn’t tough for Republicans to beat up on poor people. When finances are terrible, they go after the poor and blame the poor. Republicans constantly use that and don’t worry about all the benefits government gives to businesses.” […]

Welfare advocates countered that nearly two-thirds of recipients are working or participating in training, and that half are making some kind of income. They also said that the governor’s own May revised budget proposal estimated an annual savings of $100 million with that reform.

“He’s reinforcing negative stereotypes and scapegoating people for the failure of his own administration,” said Frank Mecca, executive director of the County Welfare Directors Association of California. “It’s a reflection of a bully mentality, to go after the problems of struggling families when he doesn’t get his way. The last thing those families need is to have a powerful figure accuse them of fraud, of not trying.”

Furthermore, the CA Democratic Party has collected budget horror stories to highlight the human cost of the crisis.  Here’s one picked at random:

I am on Social Security Disability and with the amounts allowed to get SSI having been cut, it has also cut my income. Also, my medical coverage is being hit as well as so many of the social programs all of us depend on. Fortunately, I am not homeless yet, but it is a good possibility. I just do not understand how you could make all Californians suffer, especially those of us who are very low income, in favor of giving a huge tax break to oil and tobacco. This is not just or right and I believe that the solution is to sign the compromise bill, and tax the big corporations that are not now paying their fair share! – Christine, Victorville

The structural barriers in the state are so high that I’m not sure any of this can work.  One thing is certain, however – this aggressive strategy creates energy in the grassroots, inspires changes to the system and can leverage public opinion far better than desperately seeking some compromise behind closed doors.

At some point, you’d figure, Arnold would take out his vengeance against some other group. Like, say oil companies or something.  But no, Arnold is out for state worker blood.

The governor’s latest budget proposal assumes almost 20 percent in employee wage cuts: 15 percent from the three-day furloughs that started this month, plus another 5 percent across-the-board whack.

“Three days (furlough) plus the 5 percent,” said H.D. Palmer, Department of Finance spokesman when asked Wednesday to clarify the governor’s budget proposal.

The Legislature won’t go for the pay cut, but the governor can then add a furlough day for reasons we’ll explain. (SacBee State Worker 7/9/09)

This will be a 20% pay cut. And let’s be clear, while many of these employees make a decent living, it’s not like any of these people were making CEO type salaries. These are people who put in their time, and do extremely hard work for the people of the state every day.

Slashing their salaries doesn’t create any massive cost savings, it is essentially a tool that Arnold can use for negotiations. It’s cynical and short sighted.  If Arnold does get his way, services will be slashed down to the bone. It’s impractical and doesn’t actually solve any real problems. More of the same shock doctrine attitudes and goals from the Governor.

UPDATE by Julia let me also note that these state workers have already seen their workloads dramatically increase.  Between all of the cut backs and unfilled positions, plus simply having 3 less days to do the same work these workers are overburdened and now facing huge cuts in their pay.

Yesterday’s front-page story in the SF Chronicle on the California budget crisis was shocking, dishonest and disgraceful.  The piece described Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a “steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman” – who will “hold his ground” against Democrats in the state legislature.  Never mind the Terminator has driven the state to bankruptcy – after six years of tax cuts for the rich, fiscal gymnastics and borrowing schemes.  Never mind that Schwarzenegger lied about a voter mandate in the May 19th election – and says he won’t support a “single tax increase whatsoever.”  Never mind that by vetoing last week’s budget stop-gap measure, Arnold forfeited $2 billion that the state can no longer use – and our government now has to pay with I.O.U.’s.  Never mind the Governor told the New York Times that despite the state’s disastrous plight, he will sit down in his Jacuzzi and “lay back with a stogie.”  The Bay Area’s paper of record would rather portray him as a “tough guy.”

Carla Marinucci is the Chronicle’s worst reporter, a point Beyond Chron has written about time and time again.  With all the talented printed journalists who are unemployed or underemployed, Marinucci stays on as their top political writer – with yesterday’s ode to Schwarzenegger being her most recent incarnation (although Matthew Yi co-authored to the piece.)  And it’s hard to see how much lower the Chronicle, which is on the brink of going out of business, can go in its coverage of a serious political issue.

Consider Marinucci’s first paragraph: “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has played an astonishing range of roles in California’s budget dramas – bipartisan peacemaker and people’s advocate among them. Now, the governor is reprising a classic familiar to millions: the steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman.”  Bipartisan peacemaker?  The only thing Arnold ever succeeded in getting Democrats and Republicans in Sacramento to agree on is that they both dislike him – prompting many commentators to label him a “party of one.”  As for a “people’s advocate,” Schwarzenegger twice called a special election to have the voters decide – and in both instances, he was soundly rejected.

And while old movie posters from Conan the Barbarian, Terminator and Total Recall could make him out to be a “steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman,” it’s hard to see the Governor’s current posture as nothing but the pathetic bluster of a deranged bully.

Here are the facts: declining revenues due to a severe recession have bankrupted California – leaving us with a $26.3 billion deficit.  The state can lay off every employee tomorrow, and it still wouldn’t balance the budget.  On May 19th, the voters rejected a complicated set of ballot measures that Arnold championed – after opponents on the left and the right campaigned against them.  There has been very little analysis about what “the people” were saying, except a poll that found only 36% of voters (and 24% of Californians) want a cuts-only budget.

Nevertheless, Schwarzenegger has made common cause with right-wing extremists at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association – and Republican in the state legislature.  He says the voters on May 19th wanted the state to pass an “all-cuts” budget, and that he won’t support “any tax increase whatsoever.”  Arnold has proposed a budget that will shred our social safety net, and up-end the California Constitution by raiding school funding.  He wants to open up the ocean for drilling to get revenue, but opposes a tax on oil companies that would make that profitable – even though Sarah Palin’s Alaska has one at 25% of profits.

As June 30th approached, Democrats in the state legislature proposed using $2 billion in reserves to start plugging the hole – money that must be used before the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal year, or else it’s gone.  They couldn’t pass a comprehensive solution because of the two-thirds rule, but this – along with a few budget savings and closing tax loopholes – would have prevented the state from issuing I.O.U.’s.  How did Arnold respond?  Repeatedly veto the package, and insist we must resolve the “whole problem” all at once.  As the midnight deadline loomed, Schwarzenegger offered no solution besides the veto pen.

Apparently, the Governor is emboldened by his rising poll numbers – from a pitiful 30% to a dismal 43% – which may be attributed to a more aggressive posture with the state legislature.  But no one stops to ask if those 13% are right-wingers who want to shrink the size of government and drown it in a bathtub.  I suspect the legislature’s Republican minority is getting along better with Arnold these days, now that he’s backed off on all tax increases.  For a while, he was persona non grata in the Grover Norquist Fan Club known as the GOP caucus.

But you wouldn’t know any of this by reading yesterday’s Chronicle – although the piece briefly mentioned the state’s bond rating has collapsed, and banks are refusing to cash the state IOU’s.  The article quoted Schwarzenegger’s communications director, who said the Governor has “the luxury” of being near the end of his term – and not having to face the voters again.  Marinucci could have mentioned (but didn’t) that Arnold’s legacy – from slashing the vehicle license fee to solving each budget crisis by borrowing more money – will be driving the state to bankruptcy.  If Gray Davis was still Governor, we might not have a deficit.

In last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Schwarzenegger said he was not letting California’s fiscal crisis get to him personally.  “I will sit down in my Jacuzzi tonight,” he told reporter Mark Leibovich. “I’m going to lay back with a stogie.”  There are so many analogies that come to mind with the Governor’s quote.  You could say it’s just like “Nero fiddled while Rome burned,” or another “let them eat cake” moment.  A more recent comparison would be George W. Bush, who said he was getting plenty of sleep at night during the Iraq War.

As an R.E.M. fan, however, Arnold’s callous attitude reminds me of the following:

It’s the End of the World As We Know It,

It’s the End of the World As We Know it,

It’s the End of the World As We Know It

And I Feel Fine …

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.