As Conservatives play games with the former President’s legacy, what would Ronald Reagan do in today’s California?

I probably wouldn’t have known it was “Reagan Day” but for the helpful tweets of @GeorgeRunner. The former legislator and current member of the Board of Equalization isn’t really much of a tweeter, but on occasion he gives us such helpful words as “Happy Reagan Day!” after a few weeks of silence other than an announcement of his “e-newsletter.” (By the way, if you call it an “e-newsletter,” you are doing it wrong.)

Anyway, I thought I would take a moment to remind Mr. Runner and his #tcot friends about a few facts of the Gipper’s tenure here in California. In a blog post, Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan domestic policy adviser, points out some of the false tax mythology:

Reagan’s record on raising taxes began almost the moment he entered politics. Elected governor of California in 1966, he inherited a large budget deficit from his predecessor, Pat Brown. Although a conservative, dedicated to shrinking government, Reagan nevertheless found the magnitude of spending cuts that would have been necessary in 1967 to be beyond reach. This led him to endorse a $1 billion per year tax increase, equivalent to a $17 billion tax increase today – an enormous sum equal to a third of state revenues at that time. Journalist Lou Cannon recounts the circumstances:

“No amount of budget reductions, even if they had been politically palatable, could have balanced California’s budget in 1967. The cornerstone of Governor Reagan’s economic program was not the ballyhooed budget reductions but a sweeping tax package four times larger than the previous record California tax increase obtained by Governor Brown in 1959. Reagan’s proposal had the distinction of being the largest tax hike ever proposed by any governor in the history of the United States.”1] ([CG&G Feb 2011)

Let’s stop with all the beatification and think about what really happened 45 years ago, and what is happening now.  Like Reagan, Gov. Brown inherited a big deficit from his predecessor. Schwarzenegger’s mish-mash of policies left the state without direction and with a huge deficit to show for it. Brown the Younger in his third time has a similarly daunting challenge as he did in 1978 after Prop 13 and as Reagan did in 1978. And like Reagan, he understands the impracticality of a cuts-only budget solution.  And the tax increases that Brown is proposing today is less than half of the Reagan 1967 tax increases.

Runner and his fellow Republicans need to really take a deep look about their presidential saint and how he was able to objectively look at a situation and be more than ideologically dogmatic.  Perhaps then we could really govern the state, and the GOP could return to relevance.

If you’d like to see more debunking of the religion rapidly building around Reagan, read the entire post. Think Progress also has a great post about Reagan’s real legacy last year for his centennial.  Let’s

A while back, I mentioned Sen. George Runner's idiotic VoteSAFE initiative. It is pretty much an effort to disqualify some pretty Democratic-leaning constituencies from voting. Basically, it is a law to require photo ID and disqualifies voters with a felony conviction, even after they have completed parole. Here's how Jerry Brown titled the previous draft Runner submitted:

Limits On Voting. Initiative Statute.

Summary Date: 04/09/09 Failed: 09/21/09

Proponent: George Runner c/o Elizabeth Hansel (916) 648-1222

Prohibits citizens from voting at the polls unless they present a government-issued photo-identification card. Establishes provisional voting for citizens at the polls who fail to present government-issued photo-identification. Requires that provisional ballots and mail-in ballots be deemed invalid unless the accompanying envelope is marked with the last four digits of a citizen’s California driver’s license, state identification card or social security number. Eliminates the right to vote for citizens on probation for a felony offense. Establishes that ballots from absent military personnel are timely if postmarked by election day. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Some increased government costs associated with voting in elections. These costs probably would not be significant. (09-0005.) (Full Text – PDF)

 See, all of this is designed to make voting harder, at precisely the time when we should be making voter easier. We should be providing new ways for voters to register, and breaking down barriers. We should be allowing same-day registration so that there aren't any artificial barriers to entry based upon some silly arbitrary deadlines.

But that's not the way George Runner would like to see it. So, he's gone and sued Jerry Brown for telling it like it is. Surely, Runner would prefer some incendiary anti-immigrant language, but the description is completely valid and describes the initiaitve to a tee.  This kind of litigation happens frequently, and usually it gets tossed pretty quickly. The AG has substantial latitude on how to write these. This case will also get tossed pretty quickly.

Tweeting is all the rage on the Right. They tweet everything. Their anger over government spending, their anger over Senate recruiting, and, um, national secrets. So, when Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster) gets in on the tweeting action, you know there's going to be some crazy going on. And, yup, that's the deal with this:

In tomorrow's #caprisons bill, Dems want a commission to change CA sentencing laws. Commission required to have a felon on it! Unbelievable!

about 7 hours ago from web 

You can get the details about the Democratic/Schwarzenegger plan in Dave's diary from yesterday, but let's focus on this “felon on the commission” thing. First, this isn't a current prisoner. It is an “ex-felon.” Presumably somebody who made it through what is left of the “rehabilitation” in the California Department of Corrections and “Rehabilitiation.” This is a valuable perspective, as who knows the failings and the opportunities of the system better than a rehabilitated prisoner? 

Of course, George Runner never was really one for making policy decisions based on actual information. He gets it from the gut. Because his gut has so far been a good decision making process. You know, like the time that George Runner thought it was a good idea to get all cozy with Henry Nicholas III, the former CEO of Broadcom. You know, the guy who allegedly built a “sex cave” under his mansion to keep his legion of prostitutes, spiked his colleague's drinks with ecstasy, and horded drugs like they were going out of style.  Yeah, the guy that funded Runner's Prop 9, another small minded and costly ToughOnCrime measure. Yeah, he and Runner are tight, tight enough that Nicholas gave nearly $5 Million to Runner's campaign.

But even if you didn't care to get a full perspective on the system by consulting somebody intimately familiar with it, Runner perhaps should consider that the reformed felon wouldn't even get a vote on the commission. Like the victim's rights advocate, the seat on the commission for the reformed felon would be a non-voting seat.  So while he or she would be in the room to discuss the issues, in the end, their voice is their only tool in the discussion.

But, hey, maybe Henry Nicholas III can be a two-fer, and nab both the victim's rights seat and the ex-felon seat after he gets out of the clink. But, you know, that may be asking a bit too much, after all, he is quite busy with his underground lair with “an underground grotto, tunnels and a 2,000-square-foot sports bar he called “Nick's Cafe.”

The 1994 election was a turning point for California. Pete Wilson cruised to reelection and Republicans won 40 seats in the Assembly in a year friendly for Republicans around the country. But that election sowed the seeds of the Republicans’ downfall in California, turning the state deep blue and sending the Republican Party into a death spiral.

The reason was Proposition 187. Scapegoating immigrants for economic problems is one of the most common political phenomena in California history, as the Chinese, the Japanese, the Filipinos, the Okies, and Latinos can tell you. The 1990s saw an upswing in immigrant-bashing and in 1994 a group of Orange County Republicans put on the ballot this attack on the rights of the undocumented. Prop 187 would have denied schooling, medical care and other social services to undocumented immigrants and their families.

It passed by a large margin in November 1994, but was never implemented. Courts granted injunctions against its enforcement, and in early 1999 when Gray Davis became governor, the state’s appeals to uphold the initiative were dropped.

It was a pyrrhic victory for Republicans. The anti-Latino attitudes voiced by many Prop 187 supporters drove California Latinos into the arms of the Democratic Party. Voter registration soared, and many Latino immigrants became citizens to protect their rights at the ballot box. Since the 1996 election Republican fortunes have been in terminal decline in California, a party that has become a Zombie Death Cult more interested in purity fights than addressing California’s needs.

Of course, anti-immigrant sentiment never really went away after 1994. By 2003 it had returned and played a role in Davis’ recall, as the recession led to renewed immigrant-bashing and Arnold Schwarzenegger ran on the “driver’s licenses” issue. Still, Arnold had little appetite for actually pushing anti-immigrant legislation while governor, and somewhat surprisingly, the anti-immigrant movement never tried to go to the ballot to revive Prop 187 or otherwise target the undocumented.

Until now.

Right-wingers have in circulation an initiative to raise Prop 187 from the dead:

Requires applicants for state, local, and state-administered federal aid to verify lawful presence in United States. Requires applications for public benefits submitted by undocumented parents on behalf of their lawful-resident children to be given to federal authorities. Denies birth certificates to children born to undocumented parents unless mother provides fingerprint and other information to be given to federal authorities. Limits benefits for children in child-only CalWORKS cases to federal minimum. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: If upheld in the courts, unknown potential one-time and ongoing costs to state and local governments due to changes in the application process for public benefits as well as changes in the way birth certificates are issued. These costs would be partly offset by additional new fees for certain birth certificates. Unknown, but probably minor, state and local law enforcement costs due to provisions in the measure creating new crimes, such as for the filing of false affidavits to obtain public benefits. If upheld in the courts, state savings of over $1 billion annually from prohibiting child-only CalWORKs cases, partially offset by state and county costs for children who shifted to Foster Care or county general assistance programs. Further unknown savings from the provisions changing the application processes for public benefits. (09-0004.)

This is not just a revival of Prop 187, of course – it goes after CalWORKS as well, an effort to scale back the safety net couched in an attack on the children of the undocumented. This is an especially sick and unconscionable attack on Californians in a time of crisis, especially the deliberate targeting of children in order to cause them pain and suffering.

Obviously this is part of the Republicans’ 2010 election strategy. Despite the fact that earlier efforts in 2006 to ride anti-immigrant sentiment to victory failed spectacularly for Republicans, and despite the massive political price they paid after 1994 for backing Prop 187, they are at it again.

And although we’d like to think that Californians would reject this kind of horrific attack on our neighbors and community members, the wide margin of victory for Prop 187 in 1994, the passage of Prop 8 last fall, and the long history of immigrant scapegoating in California suggests to me that these have a very high chance of passage.

Progressives and Democrats will have to start organizing NOW to fight this, starting with a “do not sign” campaign.

And in a related move, George Runner has an initiative in circulation to mandate voters bring a photo ID to the polls. This maneuver has been used by Republicans to suppress the vote in several other states, including Georgia, and is of dubious constitutionality. I include it here because Runner is almost certainly going to sell this as a crackdown on the undocumented, who don’t have that kind of photo ID.

Republicans nationally and here in California appear determined to treat 2010 like 1994. Progressives and Democrats need to be ready to fight back.

My inbox is abuzz right about now.  I figure as long as I’m posting the well-sourced rumors, I might as well go ahead and post this bombshell.  It seems Sen. George Runner has gathered the votes to topple Sen. Dave Cogdill as Senate Minority Leader.

The tension was visible between the two men for a while now, and given the speech that Runner gave a couple of nights ago this shouldn’t shock anybody.  If anybody has video of that speech, let me know, I’d love to post it.  Basically Runner argued that the Democrats were trying to create this budget crisis so that we could raise taxes.  Riiiight, that’s what happened. George Runner is basically insane, and negotiating with this man in the future will make negotiating with Cogdill a walk in the park.

Obviously, this throws a wrench in the gears of the budget deal.  It seems likely that the three Republican votes for the deal are still there. (Ashburn, Cogdill, and Cox) But given that the Governor has left the building, I would expect this to continue on until at least tomorrow.

UPDATE: I see from my twitter feed that Capitol Weekly has heard about the Runner coup, but I can’t find anything online yet.

UPDATE2: Now the LA Times has the story, but without Runner’s name on it.

UPDATE3: Chuck DeVore tweets that it’s Runner for 45 days, but DeVore lost his own coup attempt, so take it with a grain of salt for now…

UPDATE4: Dave here.  Apparently Cogdill, Maldonado, Cox and Asburn abstained from the leadership vote, which remains unclear as the other 11 are still meeting.  Meanwhile, Dean Florez called a vote and Cox asked for a 30-minute continuance at 12:45am.  John Myers is claiming there’s no deal on a 3rd vote for the budget as currently configured, so the big question is this – would Dems have to re-negotiate with a new Senate Minority Leader on this, or are the 3 votes locked up?  Everybody knew Cogdill was a goner (including Cogdill, he offered his resignation over the weekend), but what’s crucial here is if the negotiations are already over.

UPDATE5: Via Myers, Cogdill confirms that he’s no longer the leader but says that he will vote for the budget, saying he thinks it’s the best deal out there.  He also said he believes there are now three GOP votes.  Actually I think this putsch might make passage MORE likely.

UPDATE6: Confirmed – new Senate GOP leader is Dennis Hollingsworth, SD-36 (Murrieta-Temecula).

And both are skyrocketing. That we are unable to control our prison spending will lead to just one more in a laundry list of budget disasters in the coming years, but nothing in our budget has been so spectacularly mishandled like the prisons. They are our third rail: we are terrified of doing what is best in terms of public policy because the issue might be misunderstood by the voters. But ignorance of the voters can’t be a justified excuse if we are drilling the wrong policy messages into the minds of voters.

There are a number of reasons for the growth in the prison budget, but not all of them are necessarily tied to the growth of the prison population:

The prison population has grown by 8% since 2003, to more than 173,000. But the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s budget has exploded, increasing 79% to $8.5 billion, and is expected to top $10 billion next year.

Prison spending now is greater than that for any other major program except public schools and healthcare for the poor. The nonpartisan legislative analyst’s office projects 6% annual increases in prison spending for the next five years as a new prison and dozens of building additions are constructed and opened. (LA Times 12/26/07)

So, we’re trying to build out of a disaster that has served to only increase the dangers to public safety. And in order to correct our past sins, we are having to spend to fix the prison healthcare system. And spend. And spend some more. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t; we need to fix that system, it was disgusting and needed to be overhauled. But the problem is that we can’t bring ourselves to the inevitable solution: real sentencing reform.

And I have another solution that would help the budget and the prison system immensely: Stop the Legislators Runner.  Seriously, take away their pens, ban them from writing initiatives, put a cap on legislator initiatives, toss them in prison (I bet they have lots of friends there), whatever.  They are having a devastating effect on public safety and the state budget. Jessica’s Law has already had disastrous effects for cities like San Francisco, where sex offenders are now just declaring themselves homeless.  And now they are getting ready to put another initiative on the ballot:

Another initiative is being readied for the ballot next year by the authors of last year’s measure: Sharon and George Runner, two Republican lawmakers from Lancaster; she in the Assembly and he in the Senate. The proposed initiative, which has not yet qualified, would require the state to spend nearly $1 billion to combat gang crimes and lengthen some prison sentences.

“People are trying to do one-upmanship to claim ‘I’m tough on crime,’ and it has a cost to it,” said Sen. Michael Machado (D-Linden), who oversees the corrections portion of the state budget.

The Runners are idealogues who have obviously either failed to grasp that ToughOnCrime^TM has totally failed, or they are so cynical as to manipulate our prisons, the lives of thousands of Californians, and billions of our general fund dollars for their own political gain.

It is this type of cynicism that has gotten us to where we are. It is not this type of cynicism that will resolve the issues. If the Governator has the courage to address prison population, I will be duly impressed. Because if we do nothing, we are not only failing the prison system as an institution, but we are failing ourselves in the form of public safety and economic efficiency.

I was rendered almost ill by John Edwards’ stance in the debate against the decriminalization of marijuana because “it would send the wrong signal to young people.”  Chris Dodd made a strong response that cut to the heart of our failed prison policy.

DODD: Can I respond, I mean just why I think it ought to be? We’re locking up too many people in our system here today. We’ve got mandatory minimum sentences that are filling our jails with people who don’t belong there. My idea is to decriminalize this, reduce that problem here. We’ve gone from 800,000 to 2 million people in our penal institutions in this country. We’ve go to get a lot smarter about this issue than we are, and as president, I’d try and achieve that.

This, of course, is most acute in California, where we’re waiting for the other shoe to drop on a federal court order that could potentially force the release of thousands of prisoners due to overcrowding.  State Sen. Gloria Romero held her ground and didn’t allow the usual spate of tougher sentencing bills to pass the Legislature this year.  So once again, George and Sharon Runner will go to the ballot with a punitive measure designed to make themselves look tough while further battering a crippled prison system.

A year after bringing to California Jessica’s Law, the crackdown on sex offenders, the husband-and-wife team of state Sen. George Runner and Assemblywoman Sharon Runner announced Monday a new initiative that would target gang members for tougher prosecution and dedicate nearly $1 billion annually to enforcement and intervention.

The Republican legislators from Lancaster hope to collect enough signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2008 ballot, and they have the backing of the father of the state’s three-strikes law as well as law enforcement officials, including Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca.

The Legislature has already rejected this bill, and it would again constrain the state budget with another walled-off mandate while doing nothing to address the major crisis in overcrowding.  It’s feel-good nonsense for “tough-on-crime” advocates.

By the way, let’s see how the last initiative the Runners promoted, Jessica’s Law, is working out:

Hundreds of California sex offenders who face tough new restrictions on where they can live are declaring themselves homeless, making it difficult for the state to track them.

Jessica’s Law, approved by 70 percent of California voters a year ago, bars registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather. That leaves few places where offenders can live legally.

Some who have had trouble finding a place to live are avoiding re-arrest by reporting that they are homeless – falsely, in some cases.

Experts say it is hard to monitor sex offenders when they lie about their address or are living day-to-day in cheap hotels, homeless shelters or on the street. It also means they may not be getting the treatment they need.

“We could potentially be making the world more dangerous rather than less dangerous,” said therapist Gerry Blasingame, past chairman of the California Coalition on Sexual Offending.

I agree with all of that except the word “potentially.”  We felt good about “getting tough” on sex offenders, and now we have them living under bridges and untrackable.  How do you think “getting tough” on gang violence is going to work out?