This is not going to happen often, folks, so get it while it’s hot.

Republican Assemblyman Todd Spitzer thinks calling California’s termed-out lawmakers back to the Capitol after the Nov. 4 election is “absurd.”

“With the philosophical differences still firmly in place it is unlikely anything will be finalized” before lawmakers are forced from office on Dec. 1, Spitzer writes on his blog.

“As a termed out legislator, I feel it is absurd that my termed out colleagues and I could potentially be called back to try and fix the ever increasing budget deficit. Both sides have no incentive to reach across the aisle and accomplish anything, especially since Election Day will be in our past.”

He happens to be absolutely right.  As CapAlert noticed yesterday, a special session beginning on November 5 would have to reach agreement before the December 1 swearing-in of new lawmakers.  Throw in Thanksgiving and you’re talking about 10, maybe 15 business days, tops, to hammer out a deal.  And Yacht Party charter member Spitzer would know – the Republicans aren’t likely to agree to anything.

Why not let the will of the people express itself on November 4, and let the new solution to the budget mess flow naturally from that?  If the public wants Democrats to hold 2/3 of the legislature, so be it.  They would be making the choices on revenue and spending that they wish the legislature to enact.  To have a lame-duck session invalidates their wishes.  So much for the Governor of the people.

(bump. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Because, you know, they are ToughOnCrime^TM.  31 Assembly Republicans have filed to intervene, a legal procedure that would allow them to participate in the case, in the prison class action lawsuit. 

Thirty-one Assembly Republicans filed the motion in U.S. District Court asking, in essence, for more time to solve the crowding problem. According to the motion, a prison bill approved in May will help improve conditions in California's 33 prisons, where more than 173,000 inmates live in facilities built for 100,000. The $7.8 billion plan calls for 53,000 new prison and jail cells. Last month, federal judges in two class-action suits involving the impact of crowding on inmate medical and mental health care ordered a three-judge panel to recommend solutions to the crisis. In the process, the judges rejected the state's proposal and suggested that it would make matters worse for the prison system.

*               *            *

“We're the ones who appropriate the money. We're the ones who write the laws with respect to corrections, and we're not even at the table,” [Asm. Todd] Spitzer, R-Orange, said Monday. “That is unconscionable.”

 More of the same from Spitzer over the flip

Spitzer, for his part, is doing his best to make sure he can play to his reactionary constituents. Of course, the fact that the Republican party, and the Assembly Republicans, and really the Legislature as a whole, has made the situation so bad, has no impact on his thinking. He can't fathom the possibility that just locking more and more people up can't be a good thing. That's being ToughOnCrime^TM! That must be good!

 “The three-judge panel is getting set to act under a federal prison cap statute that has never been tested in any state in the nation to date. California would be the first,” Spitzer said in a written statement. “Any early release would jeopardize public safety and make a mockery of a system where sentences are expected to be fully served.”

Sentences must be served! We made irrational sentences for these people and they must serve them! Must! I am Tough! I drive a Dodge Stratus! 

Poor Mr. Republican Insider Jubal. His good friend Todd Spitzer has been asked to move from his current office into a smaller office, since other Assembly Members are in need for larger offices to house larger staff. However, good ol’ Jubal won’t take the simple and logical explanation… No, this whole damn thing is one big, evil conspiracy of Fabian Nunez to punish poor Todd Spitzer for not “coddling to criminals” like all the evil left-wing extremists who control the Capitol!

You just have to see Matt/Jubal’s wild rant at Red County/OC Blog to believe it.

OC Register’s Brian Joseph has a series of posts about whether or not Assemblyman Todd Spitzer is being punished by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez — here, here, here and here.

Spitzer was moved from a 758-square foot office to one that is 391-square feet (known as “the doghouse” and “the closet”, but Nunez’s office denies Spitzer is being punished and but claim the move is to accommodate other lawmakers who want bigger offices.

Yeah.

I’ll bet the latter is an excuse to engage in the former.

Oh, please. I think Chris Prevatt does a better job of putting things into perspective at The Liberal OC.

Red County’s all a buzz, and Jubal’s panties are all in a bunch, over Assemblymember Spitzer’s assignment of new quarters. It seems that Speaker Nunez needed to assign larger quarters to a member with a larger staff than Spitzer. So to that end, Spitzer was downsized to smaller quarters.

The Republicans are screaming that Spitzer is being punished, for opposing the Speaker on some legislative issues. If that were the case, I think the move would have occurred long ago. Speaking out against Democrats and the Speaker is nothing new for Spitzer, and last I checked there was no recent power shift in the Assembly.

Anyway, I cannot understand all the fuss. I thought Republicans endorsed the downsizing of government. I guess that theory doesn’t hold true in when it is applied to one of their own.

Yes, what’s so bad about downsizing? I thought that Republicans love the idea of shrinking government. Oh wait, they don’t anymore? I guess that’s why they’re so angry about Todd Spitzer’s leaner, meaner, more efficient, and less wasteful office. ; )

I have been talking about sentencing reform for a long time now, and until recently it was a dirty word in Sacramento.  That has seemingly changed, as Schwarzenegger has seemingly accepted that there must be some sentencing reform.  However, his plan for a sentencing comission was to create a panel that would recommend good public policy, and then the elected officials would ignore it.  Not so the Dems:

Democrats in the state Senate filled in the blanks Wednesday on their version of a sentencing commission by proposing a panel with the power to set prison terms that could be amended only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

The Senate Democrats’ take on a sentencing commission differs markedly from the one offered by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in his 2007-08 budget. Rather than adjusting the length of terms, the Republican governor’s commission would only make recommendations on sentencing policy and devote its first year of research to the state’s much-criticized parole system. (SacBee 3/15/07)

But don’t worry, Todd Spitzer is still holding it down for letting elected officials rule sentencing rather than a panel that would take into account actual public policy concerns.

“There’s not one Republican, and I would be surprised if there were many Democrats who are not soft on crime who would vote for that bill,” Spitzer said.

So, let’s get this straight, 17 states that have these comissions? Soft on crime? Federal judges who are about to open the doors of our decrepit and overstuffed state prisons? Soft on Crime.  That’s all they can say, “Soft On Crime.”  They have no real solutions to the questions involved in the prison crisis, so they just get up on their “Tough On Crime” high horse and galavant around town.  What has “Tough on Crime” given us? Overstuffed prisons, a ballooning prison budget, and a 70% recidivism rate.  Oh, and we will soon approach 1% of all Californians in prison.

Tough on Crime is a ridiculous notion, and it’s time to start challenging Spitzer and the other hooligans on the right to actually explain themselves.  Just saying Tough on Crime isn’t enough.