For the last time, thankfully, our governor is trying to sell us a pig and a pony…excuse me, I mean a pig in a poke.

The overriding theme of his State of the State message was “jobs, jobs, jobs.”  Oh really?  Frank Mecca, executive director of the California Welfare Directors Association, took a closer look:

“The Governor says he wants to create jobs, but devastating cuts to the social safety net have killed jobs and dimmed the employment prospects for tens of thousands of California families and children. The Governor’s cuts to child care and support services for CalWORKS families will diminish the chances of finding work for almost 40,000 families, and his threatened elimination of the In-Home Supportive Services program will put 350,000 people out of work instantly and increase California’s unemployment rate from 12.3 to 14.2 percent…”

Maybe he thinks he can create 350,000 “new” jobs by selling off the prison system?  

You can check the speech at the California Channel.  More details to come. Full text of the speech over the flip.

Some instantaneous notes:

I don’t know who is the pig and who is the pony, but he keeps talking about them.

Tax reform, tax reform, tax reform: the rich pay too much of the tax burden.

CA Forward gets a shout out for their reform plan.

Budget system is cruel, because it pits worthy people against each other.

We face more cuts. This means more pain. “We have no choice.” He pledges to protect both K12 and higher education. Wants to limit prison spending.

Wants a constitutional amendment that will not allow prison spending to higher education. Prison spending wouldn’t be allowed to go above higher education. Wants prisons to be privately run…thinks that would save the state money.

Wants more money from the federal government. Points to states that get up to 2x the amount they send to feds back. We get about 80 cents on the dollar.

California is paying for undocumented immigrants, the feds should be paying for these. Wants to fix formulas.

Worries about funding for health care reform, says California gets a bad deal. THinks CA delegation should either vote no or get same deal as Sen. Nelson of Nebraska.

Pension reform. Wants to meet current promises, and reduce burden going forward.

UPDATE by Robert: Already some interesting stuff:

• Arnold says “I will protect education funding in this budget. And we can no longer afford to cut higher education either.” No word yet on whether that means he’ll back an oil severance tax to restore some of the previous cuts.

• But Arnold is proposing a constitutional amendment that says prison spending can never exceed education spending. Is this an effort to get CCPOA to join forces with CTA so they both get the money they want? Wouldn’t it be better to reform sentencing laws?

• Arnold is also reportedly going to propose giving some sort of EIR lawsuit protection to 20 big projects as part of a jobs measure. Will high speed rail be one of them? I’ve written before about the flaws with CEQA but I’m not sure exemptions are the right answer.

• He’s also proposing to spend $500 million on job retraining as an effort to put people back to work. As Steve Levy points out, that doesn’t make sense – employers are more likely to hire those recently laid off who have experience at a certain job rather than someone newly trained.

• Further, if job creation is one of Arnold’s goals, why not just expand the state employment rolls? It’s a tried and true method of economic stimulus and job creation. Every state worker helps create jobs through their spending in their communities.

• Now he’s calling for private prisons. Oh lovely. Those have had some truly awful records in other states and countries.

• Arnold’s now attacking the federal government, opposing the federal health care reform. Way to score points with the vast majority of Californians who support the bill.

Text of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s State of the State address

I want to begin with a true story from which we can draw a worthwhile lesson.

As you might guess, the Schwarzenegger household is something of a menagerie.

An Austrian bodybuilder, a TV journalist, four children, a dog, the normal goldfish and hamsters and so forth — and in recent years we added a miniature pony and a pot-bellied pig.

It’s not unusual for me to look up from working on the budget or something to find a pig and a pony standing there staring at me.

Now, the dog’s food, which we keep in a canister with a screw-on lid, sits on the top of the dog’s kennel.

The pony has learned to knock the canister off the top of the kennel, and then he and the pig wedge it into the corner.

There’s this ridge on the lid of the canister, and the pig with his snout pushes this ridge around and around until it loosens, and then they roll the canister around on the floor until the food spills out.

I don’t know how they ever figured all of that out.

It’s like humans figuring out how to create fire.

But it is the greatest example of teamwork. I love it.

So one lesson to draw from the pig and the pony story is what we can accomplish when we work together.

And last year we here in this room did some great things working together.

We had a pig and pony year.

Now before some reporter writes that I compared the legislature to a pig or a pony, that is not the message at all.

Together, as a team — as fractious, tentative and uncertain as it might have been — together, we got California through the front end of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Although not without pain, we closed a budget gap of 60 billion dollars!

These decisions were very hard for both sides of the aisle.

On the Republican side, we had leaders who sacrificed their careers or put them at risk.

On the Democratic side, we had legislators who were threatened by their own interest groups.

To those on both sides of the aisle who took these risks for the good of the state, you have my deepest admiration.

We did what we had to do.

We made painful spending cuts. We passed temporary tax increases. We permanently eliminated COLAs for most state programs.

We made major reforms in welfare and parole.

And there are two accomplishments in particular I want to recognize.

Just last night the Assembly passed major educational reform, reform that once seemed impossible, but now will become law as soon as it hits my desk.

For too many years, too many children were trapped in low-performing schools.

The exit doors may as well have been chained.

Now, for the first time, parents — without the principal’s permission — have the right to free their children from these destructive schools.

That is a great freedom.

Also in the past, parents had no power to bring about change in their children’s schools.

But that will now change.

Parents will now have the means to get rid of incompetent principals and take other necessary steps to improve their children’s education.

To increase accountability, we broke down the firewall so that teacher performance can be linked to student performance.

Another major accomplishment: for decades this state was in a literal war over water, with old and deep divisions, Northern California versus Southern California, Democrat versus Republican, farmer versus environmentalist, business versus labor.

We here in this room made history with the most comprehensive water package in nearly half a century.

Working together, we got it done.

And now we must work to pass the 11 billion dollars in water bonds that will be on the ballot in November.

Some people say… how can we afford these bonds in the current economic climate?

I say, how can we not?

It is the law that you cannot build a school; you cannot build a factory; you cannot build an office building or a housing development without identifying a source of water.

As a result, huge projects with thousands of jobs have been put on hold.

Our economy cannot grow without water. Our population cannot live without water. It is our state’s lifeblood.

Now is exactly the time to invest in it, so that when Californians turn on the faucet, there is safe, reliable and clean water coming out the tap — not just five years from now but 30, 40 or 50 years.

Now, the coming year.

If I had to summarize in one word our focus for the coming year, it would be the word “priorities.”

We have to get them straight and we have to keep them straight.

The first priority for the coming year is the economy and jobs.

The people and businesses of California are an engine of self-betterment and progress.

As long as government keeps the engine oiled with prudent policies — and more importantly — does not pour sand in its gears, this state will persevere and prosper.

I will come to the main thing we can do to help the economy in a moment, but there are four proposals to spur job growth that I will introduce.

First, you will receive a $500 million jobs package that we estimate could train up to 140,000 workers and help create 100,000 jobs.

Second, you will receive a measure to streamline the permitting of construction projects that already have a completed environmental report.

Third, to stimulate other construction jobs, you will receive a proposal for homebuyer tax credits of up to $10,000 for the purchase of new or existing homes.

And fourth, since we want California to be the dynamo of green technology, I ask you to pass our proposal exempting the purchase of green tech manufacturing equipment from the sales tax.

That, too, means jobs — jobs for the new economy.

While we still have a long way to go, the worst is over for California’s economy.

And the really good thing is that we have the right economic mix going forward — high tech, green tech, bio-tech, Hollywood-tech, farmer-tech and so forth.

Our economy is well-positioned to take advantage of the future.

So let me tell you the main thing that we here in this chamber can do to help the economy and jobs. We can be a better partner to the economy. To strengthen the economy, which is the foundation of all jobs, we here in this chamber must reform California’s budget and tax system. That would be a huge stimulus.

The basic problem is that our tax system does not reflect our economy.

In 2009, California’s economic growth declined 2.8%…but our tax revenues were down more than 8 times that much.

Our economy is diverse, whereas our tax system is not.

144,000 taxpayers pay almost 50 percent of all personal income taxes.

Think about it. 38 million Californians have to rely on 144,000 people for their schools, their fire protection, their health care, their public safety and many other services.

That makes no sense.

Here is what we need to accept: our economy is 21st Century, but our tax system is 20th Century.

It’s stuck in the wrong century.

The Tax Reform Commission did its work and came up with a plan for reform that was praised by both Willie Brown and the Wall Street Journal.

How often does that happen?

The Commission proposed major, radical reforms.

Some people say they are too bold and thus they would be too hard to enact.

What do they mean too bold?

Bold is what we do in California.

What do they mean too hard? If I had hesitated to attempt something because it was too hard, I’d still be yodeling in Austria.

We must begin work on these tax reforms because we simply cannot wait for the rich to bounce back.

State revenues are not expected to return to where they were until 2013 to 2014.

I sent you the Tax Reform Commission’s plan in late September, but it seems to have disappeared somewhere under this dome.

Where is it? Maybe the pig and the pony have taken it.

But I am looking forward to working with the legislature to get this done.

Budget reform is just as important.

The budget crisis is our Katrina. We knew it was coming. We’ve known it for years. And yet Sacramento would not reinforce the economic levees.

In addition to taking action on the Commission’s plan, I ask you to also take action on the Best Practices Budget Accountability Act, which has been drafted by the reform group, California Forward.

I especially support its proposals for performance-based budgeting and applying one-time spikes in revenues to one-time uses, such as debt reduction, infrastructure and the rainy day fund.

The leaders of this body have said that the legislature should be given a chance to enact reforms before reforms go directly to the people.

Here is that chance. I urge you to take it.

And as we struggle to overcome our differences, what I ask you to remember is that the current tax and budget system is cruel.

It is cruel because it is forcing us to make a Sophie’s choice among our obligations.

Which child do we cut? The poor one? The sick one? The uneducated one? The one with special needs?

That is cruel.

We overcame the divisions on water. We can do it on the tax system and budget systems. I will address our immediate budget situation more fully in a few days, but let me give you an overview.

We face a $19.9 billion deficit — $6.6 billion for the rest of this budget year and $13.3 billion for the upcoming budget year.

Big picture, let me tell you what will be required.

First, as bitter as the words are in my mouth, we face additional cuts.

We know what that means.

We know the pain it entails.

What can we say at this point except the truth? That we have no choice.

But I am drawing this line. Because our future economic well-being is so dependent upon education, I will protect education funding in this budget.

And we can no longer afford to cut higher education either.

The priorities have become out of whack over the years.

Thirty years ago 10 percent of the general fund went to higher education and 3 percent went to prisons.

Today almost 11 percent goes to prisons and only 7 1/2 percent goes to higher education.

Spending 45 percent more on prisons than universities is no way to proceed into the future.

What does it say about a state that focuses more on prison uniforms than caps and gowns?

It simply is not healthy.

I will submit to you a constitutional amendment so that never again do we spend a greater percentage of our money on prisons than on higher education.

The way we get this done is to find more cost-effective ways to run our prison system and allows private prisons to compete with public prisons. Competition and choice are always good.

California spends $50,000 per prisoner.

By comparison, the ten largest states spend $32,000.

They spend less, and yet you do not see federal judges taking over their prison health care.

Why do we have to spend so much more than they do?

If California’s prisons were privately run, it would save us billions of dollars a year.

That’s billions of dollars that could go back to higher education where it belongs and where it better serves our future.

Choosing universities over prisons: this is a historic and transforming realignment of California’s priorities.

If you have two states and one spends more on educating and one spends more on incarcerating, in which state’s economy would you invest?

I ask you to make the right choice for California.

Another major item is this: federal funds have to be part of our budget solution because the federal government is part of our budget problem.

When President Clinton was in office, California got back 94 cents on the dollar from the federal government. Today we get only 78 cents back.

Texas gets 94 cents. Pennsylvania gets $1.07. Alaska, with all its oil, gets back $1.84 for every dollar. New Mexico gets $2.03.

This should be more fair and equitable.

We are not looking for a federal bailout, just federal fairness.

Californians carry a special burden since we are a border state.

The federal government alone controls immigration policy. It alone controls border security.

While acknowledging its responsibility, the federal government is not even funding a 50-50 split of the costs of undocumented immigrants.

We can no longer ignore what is owed to us, or what we are forced to spend on federal mandates.

We are currently owed billions of dollars by the federal government for various programs.

We need to work with the feds so that we can fix the flawed formula that demands that states spend money they do not have.

Now Congress is about to pile billions more onto California with the new health care bill.

While I enthusiastically support health care reform, it is not reform to push more costs onto states that are already struggling while other states get sweetheart deals.

Health care reform, which started as noble and needed legislation, has become a trough of bribes, deals and loopholes.

You’ve heard of the bridge to nowhere. This is health care to nowhere.

California’s congressional delegation should either vote against this bill that is a disaster for California or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal Senator Nelson of Nebraska got for the Cornhusker State. He got the corn; we got the husk.

Now, another priority relating to the budget is pension reform.

The cost for state employee pensions is up 2,000 percent in the last ten years, while revenues have only increased by 24 percent.

The pension fund will not have enough money to cover this amount, so the state — that means the taxpayer — has to come up with the money.

This is money that is taken away from important government services.

This is money that cannot go to our universities, our parks and other government functions.

Now, for current employees these pensions cannot be changed — either legally or morally.

We cannot break the promises we already made. It is a done deal.

But we are about to get run over by a locomotive. We can see the light coming at us.

I ask the legislature to join me in finding the equivalent of a water deal on pensions, so that we can meet current promises and yet reduce the burden going forward.

These are serious issues we face.

Every year, in spite of whatever challenges are before us, I stand up here and tell you how much I believe in California’s future.

I tell you how much I believe in the dream.

Some people think, “Ya, ya, ya, that’s just Arnold being optimistic.”

But I am not alone in believing these things.

Time magazine recently did an article about California that sounded like one of my speeches.

I would like to read you a few sentences. Time wrote:

“(California) is still a dream state. In fact, the pioneering megastate…is still the cutting edge of the American future — economically, environmentally, demographically, culturally, and maybe politically.

It is the greenest and the most diverse state, the most globalized…when the world is heading in all those directions.

It’s also an unparalleled engine of innovation, the mecca of high tech, biotech and now clean tech.

In 2008, California’s wipeout economy attracted more venture capital than the rest of the nation combined.”

So… now do you believe me?

California has the means and the mindpower to solve its problems.

Sometimes we are just too close to the problems to see the positives, and we need to step back.

A couple months ago I was in Iraq visiting our men and women in uniform, and of course many of them were from California.

They have seen and experienced some hard things.

Many have served tour after tour after tour. As a result, some have lost homes, spouses, limbs and lives.

Too often our soldiers bring back the enemy with them in their heads.

We are seeing a lot of post traumatic stress syndrome. The suicide rate is disturbing.

California has more returning veterans than any other state, so our state, as well as the federal government, has a special responsibility.

You will see that in our agenda.

We have a fundamental obligation to anyone who has shed or risked blood for this country.

That is a priority.

Their sacrifice is extraordinary and never fails to inspire me.

And if you look to the gallery, you will see some Californians wearing the uniform of our country who have just returned from Iraq and Afghanistan.

To each of you, I say, “Welcome home.”

No matter how big the problems are that this state faces, no matter how harsh things may seem to us in the months ahead those Californians in uniform will tell you that this is still the greatest place to come home to, the greatest place to pursue a better life.

Just ask them how often they dreamed of being back home here in the Golden State.

Ladies and gentlemen, in closing, we in this chamber must fulfill our sacred trust to keep California a great place to come home to, for our men and women in uniform and for generations of Californians yet to come.

Thank you very much.  

He’s called so many that it’s hard to remember if there is such a thing as a regular session. I’ve heard there is such thing, but for the time being, the Legislature will have to deal with this special session on the budget.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger intends to call the Legislature into emergency session to confront a nearly $6.3 billion budget gap in the current fiscal year. The governor is expected to outline his proposed solutions by Friday – when he will unveil his new budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year that begins July 1.

The emergency declaration, authorized under voter-approved Proposition 58, requires lawmakers to act within 45 days on his proposals or pass their own combination of cuts and revenue increases. There is no penalty if the Legislature fails to perform, although lawmakers are barred from adjourning or considering other issues until they act on the governor’s plan. (CapWeekly)

Not that we really needed anything to focus us back on the budget, but here it is.  Steinberg had been hinting around action in the next couple of weeks, so this essentially just fomalizes. Of course, as the Weekly points out, they will be doing this in the context of Abel Maldonado LG Confirmation hearings.  

That become increasingly important as the Governor’s plan includes some tax increases that would require 2/3 vote, and almost certainly require Maldo’s vote. Of course, that all hinges on the Assembly mustering up the three votes again and Sens. Ashburn and Cogdill coming along for the ride as well. Now, that’s some fun math.

The Governor seems to be trying to play a game of chicken with the Feds, trying to force their hands.  If what has been trickling out is accurate, Schwarzenegger wants to make the budget contingent on federal dollars coming in to the state.  While it isn’t necessarily a huge long shot, as the second stimulus is likely to include additional state aid, it attempts to put the trigger in the hands of the federal government. Rather than the state elected leaders taking the blame for the cuts (or tax increases if the votes are there), Arnold and Krew get to blame the feds. Nice move if you can pull it off.

It’s going to be yet another hellish budget season.

Kevin Yamamura has a story today on the nature of the budget fights now in the court systems.

The Republican governor openly complains about the judiciary these days for blocking budget decisions and forcing California to find billions of dollars elsewhere. Recent judgments have contributed to the state’s $20.7 billion projected deficit.

Courts have ruled that California’s attempts to divert transit and redevelopment money are illegal. They have found in some cases that the state cannot furlough workers. They have blocked rate cuts for in-home care workers and Medi-Cal providers. … “Everything that hasn’t been nailed down has been cut,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California. “What’s left is the legally questionable stuff.” (SacBee)

While legislating via the courts is really nothing new in California, there is a difference of magnitude over the last few years. Most of this is about the system. The system that denies democracy from the start with the 2/3 requirements scattered all over the constitution, yields decisions that are unsurprisingly poor. So, we get legal fights from the State Compensation Fund to the line item vetoes.  And we get a pissed off Governator:

“Whenever they agree with me, they’re right, very simple,” Schwarzenegger said wryly in a Capitol news conference. “When they don’t agree with me, they’re wrong and they’re interfering with our governing of the state.”

But sassing the courts really helps nobody, and only takes our eyes off the systemic problems. We are in legal problems because we don’t let the majority govern. We have a system that allows no one body to look at the totality of what’s coming in and what’s going out. The legislature can’t prioritize and the governor can only really posture.

And so, we get a series of judges answering large questions on the budget, questions that would, in any sort of a normal situation, be left to our elected leaders. And Governor, you have yourself to thank for that as much as anybody else.

In my long running series of anti-stupid posts, here is yet another remark on the stupid furloughs. You know, the ones that end up costing us more than we save. Yes, that kind of incredibly ridiculous stupid that can only come from the ideological black hole that seems to have taken up residence in the Horseshoe.

Furloughs of the state workers who carry out federally-funded benefit programs have delayed delivery of monthly checks to people with disabilities and impeded an already slow system for getting cash assistance to jobless Californians, according to a new report by the Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes.

The oversight office found great frustration among federal officials, one of whom decried the furlough policy as a “ridiculous” impediment to benefits that can keep the most vulnerable Californians from homelessness.

The report analyzes the effect of furloughs on the unemployment insurance program and two Social Security Administration programs that serve people with long-term disabilities.

All three programs are paid for with federal dollars.  So cutting by 14 prercent  the pay of the state workers who administer them does nothing to help the state’s general fund or cash flow.  In fact, the report concludes, the three-day-per-month furloughs will cost California an estimated $18 million to $31 million in lost state worker salaries by July 2010, when furloughs are scheduled to end. (CapWeekly)

Of course, Arnold will come back with something like this: we can’t shield state workers from the hard economy. Yada, yada, yada. Yet, this isn’t about shielding anybody, it is about delivering services that Californians desperately need. And if these federally funded workers are furloughed, they can’t provide these services.

We save no money, none, zip, zilch, by having these furloughs, yet we reduce the capacity of our state government. Sounding pretty Shock doctrine-y there, isn’t it? Long story short, we have Arnold once again putting his ideology over the best interest of the state. Same ol’ story, I guess.

Earlier this week I announced that Courage Campaign was going to produce an ad showing how Meg Whitman is California’s Sarah Palin when it comes to global warming legislation. Palin and Whitman both oppose laws that mandate reduction of carbon emissions. Whitman has even said that she will order an indefinite suspension of AB 32 as her very first act as governor.

The Courage Campaign thought Californians should know about that. And our members agreed, putting up the money to get this ad produced and now aired on stations in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and the Silicon Valley.

You can hear the ad by clicking this link. And you can donate to help support and expand the ad buy at the same link. Just a few dollars – $25, $50, $100, whatever you can give – will help spread the word.

We’ve already been getting some earned media attention on this ad. Last night Candy Crowley mentioned it on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° show. And on Tuesday, Carla Marinucci covered it at the SF Chronicle blog.

We’d love it if you could help us expand the buy. Meg Whitman is blanketing the state with her ads. The Courage Campaign doesn’t have those kind of resources, but with your help we can get this ad on more radio stations and hold Whitman accountable.

Over the flip is the transcript of the ad.

Note: I’m the Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign

There is something rotten in Denmark.

At the climate change conference in Copenhagen, world leaders — including President Obama and Governor Schwarzenegger — are working on real solutions to global warming.

But Meg Whitman, who wants to be Governor of California, is standing with Sarah Palin and a group of extreme right-wingers in attacking solutions to the climate crisis.

Whitman wants to reverse California’s groundbreaking effort to address global warming — stopping a measure Governor Schwarzenegger went to Copenhagen to defend.

Why do out-of-touch ideologues like Sarah Palin and Meg Whitman oppose common-sense solutions to stop global warming?

Talk about “going rogue.”

Go to CourageCampaign.org to learn why Meg Whitman is California’s Sarah Palin.

We don’t need another extremist “going rogue” on Californians.

State Senate President Darrell Steinberg has announced that the Senate Rules Committee will not hold a hearing on CPUC Commissioner Rachelle Chong before the end of the year – effectively killing her confirmation.  For low-income residents and consumers, this is wonderful news.  Chong used her position at the CPUC to sponsor an AT&T-backed proposal to de-regulate the state’s Universal Lifeline program – which would have meant thousands of Californians losing basic telephone service.  The Central City SRO Collaborative spent months turning out tenants against this proposal (with invaluable help from TURN), and Chong paid a heavy price for it by losing her job.  An Astroturf campaign by Verizon and AT&T wasn’t enough to save her, and the message it sends to the CPUC is – “Don’t mess with Lifeline!”

SRO tenants never thought they would venture in the world of CPUC appointments, but the campaign to save Universal Lifeline inevitably took them there.  For a flat monthly rate of $6.11, low-income people can get a basic “no-frills” phone line that helps them keep in touch with doctor’s appointments, job interviews and loved ones – or to handle emergency situations.  The Central City SRO Collaborative has signed up tenants onto Lifeline for years – so when TURN told us it was in jeopardy, we jumped into action.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is one of the most powerful state agencies, but its Commissioners keep a low profile.  And when there isn’t much public attention, companies that the Commission regulate and stand to gain billions run the show.  Rachelle Chong has functioned as the CPUC’s unofficial telecommunications “expert” – and is close to telecom giants Verizon and AT&T.  When AT&T wanted to de-regulate Lifeline, Chong was the Commissioner they asked to submit their proposal.

For the Central City SRO Collaborative, testifying at the CPUC was a new experience.  We would bring Lifeline customers out to their hearings to speak against the proposal, and at every meeting the Commissioners would postpone the vote.  It began to look like a common delay tactic we see in many corrupt government bodies – keep putting off the decisions until the poor people get tired of always having to come back.  Problem is, we just kept turning out every time.

The CPUC finally realized in July that we weren’t going anywhere – so Chong temporarily “shelved” her proposal to re-write it.  Of course, she was hoping the issue would quiet down until after her confirmation sails through.  After all, most people don’t know who is on the CPUC – so who’s going to stop her from getting re-confirmed in Sacramento?  With AT&T and Verizon lobbying heavily on her behalf, she could take up the proposal later.

The Governor appoints CPUC Commissioners, but the State Senate must confirm them.  Chong had provoked us by attempting to de-regulate Lifeline, and it turns out that she had angered other grassroots organizations as well.  We may have blocked her proposal to de-regulate Lifeline temporarily, but our leverage depended on blocking Chong’s confirmation.

TURN did an excellent job assembling a grassroots coalition to lobby the State Senate Rules Committee.  It was the first time that all three major consumer rights groups in the state (TURN, UCAN and Consumer Federation of California) worked together to oppose a CPUC Commissioner.  Seventeen groups (including our organization) that represent low-income communities and people of color sent letters against Chong’s confirmation.  We were joined by 3 faith-based organizations, 3 environmental justice groups, five small business organizations and three labor unions (including the Communication Workers.)

Chong had her own set of trade associations and non-profits write letters to the Senate Rules Committee on her behalf.  What did virtually all of them have in common?  They took generous donations from AT&T.  When the Los Angeles Times interviewed one of these non-profits, the director admitted he endorsed Chong upon the advice of AT&T executives – who had given the group money.  It was an Astrotruf campaign.

We expected the Rules Committee to hold a hearing this week – and were prepared to bring a busload of Lifeline customers to testify.  Then, we heard the hearing would be postponed until next week. Yesterday, Darrell Steinberg’s office announced there would be no confirmation hearing for Chong. “We felt it was important to have a commissioner with a little more enthusiasm for consumer protection,” said a spokesperson.

“This is exactly the way the confirmation process is supposed to work,” said Sam Kang, managing attorney of the Greenlining Institute, which had been part of  our coalition.  “Rather than rubber stamp the Governor’s choice the Committee investigated and reached its own conclusions.  The evidence was overwhelming that Ms. Chong’s decisions have had a disastrous impact on low-income communities and people of color.”

Without a confirmation hearing, Chong will be off the CPUC by the end of the year.  It’s true – of course – that Governor Schwarzenegger will now get to appoint someone else, and we don’t know who that will be.  But the Senate Rules Committee would have to confirm that person, and we are grateful that Darrell Steinberg stood up for consumers.

Regardless of who replaces Chong, the message for the CPUC is clear.  If you mess with a program that helps thousands of low-income residents have basic phone access that the rest of you take for granted, we will take you out.  Remember that you serve the people!