When the summer budget deal went down, I’ll admit that I was a skeptic and suggested that we would be back in October/November to fix it.  Hey, I was wrong, it looks like we might make it all the way into mid-winter!

Of course, those glad tidings may just be a temporary respite. But for now, buoyed by a resurgent stock market and other signs the recession is on its way out, the state’s fragile revenue and spending projections ought to hold up until at least mid-January – and maybe even beyond, analysts and economists say. (SJ Merc 9/28/09)

So, who is jumping for joy like me right now.  Sure, the budget deal left us with more questions than answers, but we get to ignore it for a few weeks. Hoo-ray! Sure, there doesn’t seem a realistic option for getting that $1 billion sale of the “State Fund”, a quasi-governmental workers compensation fund. And the budget backloaded a whole litany of spending items and frontloaded tax intakes.

But, we get to wait until winter! Hoo-ray! And don’t listen to those nattering nabobs of negativism like former Assembly Budget Chair John Laird. Just because he knows the budget system inside and out doesn’t mean he, umm…

Should the economic turnaround prove short-lived, “I just don’t know where they go,” said Laird, who helped draw up last year’s budget. “They’ve already done some of the worst possible things, and to still have to go further “… It’s just a nightmare.”

Aww, let’s just say it, we’re screwed.

John Laird kicks a little Republican tail on the budget.  The backstory here is that the Reeps have been demanding a vote on the Democratic proposal despite their leadership offering other options in secret.  In addition, the Republicans have consistently opposed the budget without marking out what their alternative would be.  Here’s Laird:

“One of the great joys in serving in this body is when some of my colleagues take firm stands on both sides of an issue.

“We stood here on this floor just a couple of months ago and we wanted to take just an itty-bitty portion of windfall profits from the oil companies-where last week they reported $11 billion in profits-and use it to keep from laying off teachers. And speaker after speaker on this floor said, “Don’t waste our time with a drill. We’re against drills. Debates with foregone conclusions are of no value.” Now from the same quarter it’s “We demand a drill.”

“If I had gone 7 months into the budget process and not made a public proposal, not shared what my point of view for balancing the budget was with the people of California, I might want to change the subject as well.

“We have a situation where the voters of California have been taken hostage but we can’t get a ransom note.

“Because it’s been said on this floor today, people are having a tough time with gas prices. Well, if you are going to take their public transit away, they have to know. People have to have the courage to tell them.

“People are struggling with education. Well, if we’re going to take their retraining away at a time of economic downturn, we should tell them.

“People are having trouble making ends meet. Well, if their health care is going out the door, shouldn’t we tell them?

“Because the governor-it’s interesting people were making comments against the sale tax on the floor. Well, that is not in the conference report. That is the Governor’s proposal. And the reason the Governor has make the proposal is he originally said you can’t just do cuts. He says you have to have revenue. He had $7 billion of revenues in his proposed budget, and with $7 billion of revenue he still wanted to close 48 parks. He still wanted to cut health care by 10%. He still wanted to take the overwhelming majority [sic] from transit. He wanted to cut schools by $79 per student in California and what’s been demanded on the floor is that we have cuts that are higher than that because we won’t have revenue.

“Because if that’s the case, of course, there wouldn’t be a public budget. You have to level with the public. It’s time to have a budget in public. You can’t compromise with nothing.

“And we want to drive this down the middle. We want to get it done. We want the people to know what the issues are.”

They’re complete cowards.  They don’t want to explain their scheme to hurt struggling and vulnerable Californians and make them suffer.  So they play these games every year.  The 2/3 requirement must be demolished so we have a legislature that’s slightly more mature than the average elementary school playground.

Yesterday’s news that Democrats were considering borrowing to balance the budget, specifically the plan to raid transportation and local government funds, brought a  vigorous response from Democratic leaders in the legislature. Don Perata, Karen Bass, and John Laird all issued statements claiming to not support budget borrowing, although the parsing of the words matters.

Perata’s statement:

Today’s Los Angeles Times story about state budget negotiations is inaccurate and misleading. Democrats have never entertained massive borrowing as a solution to this year’s budget problem. In particular, Democrats have never advocated nor believed in taking money from Propositions 1A, 42 and 10.”…

“Doing another get-out-of-town-alive budget would do nothing to help this state but rather would endanger Californians’ standard of living and economic future.”

Denise Ducheny chimed in with her own statement along these lines, and later in the day Bass and Laird added their stance. Karen Bass:

“Major borrowing is not part of the Democratic budget plan, and we don’t believe it should be part of the final solution. Our proposal balances the budget with a mix of billions of dollars in difficult spending cuts and new revenues, similar to those proposed by a previous Republican governor. It’s gimmick-free and honest. It closes our budget gap in a straight-forward manner, and eliminates out-year deficits.”

John Laird:

Any proposal to borrow from voter-approved propositions is not coming from those of us who want to balance the budget without borrowing or gimmicks.

Strong words – but nowhere in them did anyone explicitly rule out borrowing from the transportation and local government funds. It’s comforting to know that Democrats did not propose these plans and that they do not wish to use budget gimmicks – but a firm rejection of the plans is what we really needed to hear.

Sure, some might say we should not be negotiating in public. But if Republicans get to say “no new taxes” then surely Democrats are able to say “no new raids.” As I argued yesterday raiding these funds would not only cause the state serious economic harm, but it would severely weaken the Democrats’ political fortunes in the process.

Californians’ opinion of the Legislature is low, and many don’t trust their politicians. That gives the right wing a major opening to push through damaging things in the guise of populism. Democrats need to stand up to Republicans and protect working Californians. Refusing to even consider raiding the Prop 1A, 10, and 42 funds is a small but necessary place to start.

The California Budget Project released a report on Friday entitled “Budget Cuts or Tax Increases: Which Are Preferable During an Economic Downturn?” Their findings? Well, let’s just say their findings have proven the Republican minority wrong once again. “Carefully chosen tax increases are preferable to cutting public spending when the economy is weak.”

The economies of states that substantially increased taxes in recent years performed as well as or better than those of states that did not. States that enacted large tax increases between 2002 and 2004 – increasing state revenues by at least 5 percent – subsequently experienced stronger average growth in personal income than states that did not increase taxes at all. Additionally, average job and wage growth was essentially the same for states that increased taxes the most during this period as it was for states that did not increase taxes. Moreover, states that raised taxes substantially are considerably less likely to face budget shortfalls this year than are states that did not.

But is the opposite true?  Well, pretty much yes.

The economies of states that enacted large tax cuts in the late 1990s and early 2000s performed worse than those of other states. States that enacted large tax cuts between 1994 and 2001 – reducing revenue by at least 7 percent – subsequently experienced weaker growth in jobs and personal income and larger increases in the unemployment rate, on average, than other states. Furthermore, the states that enacted large tax cuts faced larger budget shortfalls when their economies weakened.

In the meantime, Assembly Budget Chair John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) released the Assembly Budget Committee’s Conference Report on the 2008-2009 State Budget earlier today. The Conference Report calls for some budget cuts but proposes $8.2 billion in increased tax revenue to balance California’s budget without drastically cutting public spending on vital services. The CBP report gives ample justification for the approach that Laird and the Assembly Democrats are recommending.  

According to Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz, when the economy is weak, “economic theory and evidence gives a clear and unambiguous answer: It is economically preferable to raise taxes on those with high incomes than to cut state expenditures.”

State spending reductions could further exacerbate the weak economy. Consumers buy less and businesses produce less when the economy is weak. Therefore, the key to promoting the state’s economic growth in the short run is to encourage spending on goods and services. Stiglitz writes: “In a recession, you want to raise (or not decrease) the level of total spending – by households, businesses and government – in the economy. That keeps people employed and buying things, and makes it more likely that businesses will want to invest to serve that consumer demand.” However, state spending reductions have the opposite effect: Each dollar less that the state spends generally reduces consumption by the same amount.

Penny

Online Organizing Director

California Democratic Party

(I added the Speaker’s Web report on the budget. There’s some good information in there. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

I will be on KRXA 540 at 8 tomorrow morning to discuss this and other California political topics

I’ve been looking over the Democrats’ budget proposal and the more I see it, the more I really like it. It’s a testament to the leadership of Speaker Karen Bass and of Assembly budget wizard John Laird (not his official title but it might as well be) that they put together such a good plan. Of course it will be a starting point for future negotiations, but Californians should rally behind this plan, which provides for the public services this state needs to survive a tough economy without hurting working Californians with a tax increase.

The plan is smart, fair, and above all progressive. It would reverse the trend toward regressive taxation in California by finally making the wealthy pay their fair share. Just as Bush’s tax cuts have blown a hole in the federal budget, so too have the McClintock Republican tax cuts done the same to ours.

The first thing to understand is that, as Speaker Bass explained on a conference call earlier today, that we already have cut the budget. Over the last 3 years some $15 billion in cuts have been made, particularly back in February. We will hear the usual “more cuts!!!” from Republicans – but there really is nothing left to cut. We’ve cut fat, we’ve cut muscle, we’ve cut bone. We’re reduced to sucking out the marrow and leaving a bare rickety skeleton.

Second, the tax increases – some of which are temporary, some of which are permanent – are not designed to be the final solution to the structural revenue shortfall. Speaker Bass made a good point that while the income tax increase is permanent, it can and perhaps should be changed when the tax reform commission unveils its proposals next year.

Third, the increases will hardly hurt the economy. Many of these tools were used in 1991-92 with the severe budget crisis at that time and they did not prevent the state economy from going into recovery by 1993-94. Of course we need to get away from the notion that tax increases by themselves hurt economic growth – firing teachers, cutting public transportation, and closing hospitals are really what produce severe and lasting damage.

That all in mind I discuss the specific plans over the flip.

Going off the SacBee summary:

New income tax brackets

Revenue generated: $5.6 billion

Reinstates 10 percent and 11 percent tax brackets for wealthiest Californians. Income tax rates range in California from 1 percent to 9.3 percent. The new proposal would raise the rate to 10 percent for “taxpayers filing joint returns with taxable income above $321,000 and 11 percent for those with incomes above $642,000.”

This title from the Bee is misleading – the brackets are NOT new. They were created in 1991 and then recklessly cut in 1998 when Tom McClintock insisted on new tax cuts at the height of the dot-com bubble. This tax would be permanent but, as Speaker Bass noted, these wealthy individuals can deduct that amount on their federal income tax return. It’s a wash for them an a boon to the state.

In any event this revenue solution is smart, fair, and desperately needed. Even if the other proposals are abandoned, this one should stay.

Suspend “net operating losses” for corporations

Revenue generated: $1.1 billion

For three years, big business would lose its “net operating loss” deduction. That allows companies to carry forward losses from one year to the next and use them as a deduction in taxes.

This would only apply to businesses making over $5 million in profit, protecting small and medium businesses. Again it is a progressive solution that pushes the tax burden onto the rich to benefit the masses.

Suspend inflation indexing of state income tax brackets

Revenue generated: $815 million

This plan would suspend the adjustment of income tax brackets for inflation. As a result, Democrats say, a single filer with a taxable income of $50,000 a year would pay $34 more, while a taxpayer with income exceeding $97,000 would pay about $180 more.

$34 per person is a very small price to pay. Especially considering that wages are not rising much due to this current inflation – indexing of tax brackets was done in the 1970s in response to the “bracket creep” that stagflation produced.

Eliminate dependent credit for those with incomes above $150,000

Revenue generated: $215 million

The dependent tax credit was $294 last year. The LAO proposed lowering the credit to $94 — the amount of the individual exemption. The legislative Democrats have proposed lowering the tax credit for those taxpayers with adjusted gross income above $150,000.

This is a necessary tax loophole closure, but it is right to protect those middle-income families who have children.

Raising the franchise tax

Revenue generated: $470 million

The top tax rate for corporations is currently 8.84 percent. The proposal returns the tax rate to 9.3 percent, where it was in 1997.

This will finally undo one of McClintock’s reckless 1998 tax cuts that blew a hole in the state budget during the temporary dot-com boom. Republicans cut taxes during the flush times, not leaving Californians with enough during the hard times.

Steps up tax enforcement

Revenue generated: $1.5 billion

This is a plan to collect taxes already owed to the state, to be “modeled after successful tax amnesty efforts in the past,” according to legislative Democrats. They said some of the $1.5 billion in revenue “will be an acceleration of revenues that would be paid in the future.”

A no-brainer.

All in all these are smart and fair solutions that will protect vital state programs and services from radical Republican slashing. We cannot afford more cuts, but we CAN afford new revenues.

John Laird has always believed that Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reckless cut of $6 billion from the state budget by cutting the VLF was a bad idea. And representing the 27th Assembly district, with some of the most beautiful parkland in our state (really – ever been to Point Lobos?) he has long sought ways to improve parks funding and access.

Now Laird is proposing to address both concerns with a plan to raise vehicle registration fees by $10 to pay for parks – and to help offset the cost of eliminating day use fees.

The additional funds would be a huge boost to a parks system that has accumulated $1 billion in deferred maintenance and has struggled in recent years with ranger staffing and park security, Laird said.

“This will allow us to begin to return to the level of parks we used to know,” Laird said. “It’s in a process of dying over time. Unless we find a strong, stable source (of funding), we’re just going to fall farther behind in our maintenance and have trouble acquiring more land.”…

Because cars would be able to enter parks for free, the state would lose about $40 million in entry fees it collects every year. The net funding increase would actually be $242 million.

Also, the state parks system’s entire $150 million annual budget would be available to the state’s general fund in the first year of the registration fees. Every year after that, the state’s general fund will be allowed access to $50 million less from the state parks budget until the entire amount is designated for the parks.

At that point, state parks would have a $392 million annual budget, not including any variations in the total number of registered vehicles in California….

“We can negotiate things like that if people think it’s going to be an issue,” Laird said….

A recent poll of Californians showed 74 percent favor the registration increase, Laird said.

While I’m not sure I like the idea of leaving the parks budget available to the general fund – it’s time we stopped raiding other funds because the state isn’t willing to tackle the structural revenue shortfall – and though I’d prefer a full restoration of the pre-1998 VLF, the overall concept seems sound. California’s beaches and parks should be free for day visitors, and as they are part of the state’s natural heritage, everyone should pitch in to help keep them afloat.

Besides, at many parks, folks have already found workarounds to avoid paying the day use fee – including here in Monterey County, where folks can simply park along Highway 1 and walk into most parks and beaches rather than pay the fee. This provides a more sustainable parks budget, helps address the backlog, and all with new revenues. It’s a progressive solution.

(full disclosure: I work for Courage)

Vice President Al Gore recorded a video and wrote an email to Courage Campaign members about the importance of investing in education even during a time of economic crisis.

In it Al Gore asks for people to respond back to him directly on Current.com with either a video response or text.  They have a pretty nifty tool that will detect a webcam on your computer and let you respond right there, just scroll down to the bottom.

On Monday, I went to the capitol and filmed 18 different Assemblymembers responding to Al Gore.  Dave has been cutting them into individual videos and uploading them.  Below the fold is the rest of the email from Gore.  I had hoped to be able to embed those videos from the Assemblymembers here, but the code from Current is not playing nicely, so you will have to click the link to see.

Assemblyman Anthony Portantino AD-44, Assemblywoman Betty Karnette AD-54, Assemblyman Dave Jones, AD-09, Assemblyman Kevin DeLeon AD-45, Assemblyman Ed Hernandez AD-57, Assemblyman Hector De La Torre AD-50, Assemblyman John Laird AD-27, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine AD-40, Assemblyman Lori Saldana AD-76, Assemblyman Sandré Swanson AD-16 and there are a few more coming including Speaker Karen Bass.

Dear Julia,

I don’t write emails like this often.

But, with Californians facing a massive budget crisis and potentially devastating cuts to education, I feel compelled to speak out. As members of the Courage Campaign community, I hope you will speak out as well.

I recorded this one-minute video for the Courage Campaign on Current.com. Please watch it and let me know what you think by recording a short video or written response of your own.

Jann Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone magazine, asked me an interesting question in an interview a few months ago:

“How do we engineer the sweeping social and political and industrial change that we need in a short period of time, from top to bottom?”

My answer is that we must create a shift in consciousness — and, education is the catalyst for this shift.

That’s why I recorded this video for the Courage Campaign. Please watch it on Current.com and, if you feel so inspired, respond with a webcam video or text response of your own.

Education is not a partisan issue. It is a crucial building block toward creating a more informed democracy. We can solve the climate crisis, and every other problem facing our nation, if we begin by transforming America’s priorities on education.

As parents, teachers and students speak out about these proposed cuts, they need your support, now more than ever. Please forward this message to your friends who care about the future of California and our country as much as you do.

I hope you will take a moment today to record a short webcam video or write a response to my video. Your voice, and the voices of your friends, can change the conversation in California.

Thank you,

Al Gore

Lots of thanks to Steve Maviglio for help getting the legislators to come give their responses to Gore.

Greg Pettis, in his 14th year as Cathedral City Councilman, former-Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City, and Candidate for the CA 80th Assembly District, has now received the endorsements from every member of the California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Caucus in Sacramento.  Pettis has widespread support in the LGBT community Nationally, State-wide, and locally because of his progressive stands on issues important to the LGBT communities: Pettis fully supports the HIV/AIDS communities, universal healthcare, a strong local economy, good local schools and responsible academic oversight, a healthy environment, equality and justice for all Californians, and mentoring other members of the LGBT community.

More below the flip…

Pettis’ support in the National, State, and local LGBT communities includes but is not limited to:

National:

U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA)

U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

State:

Every LGBT Caucus Member in Sacramento:

CA State Senator Christine Kehoe

CA State Senator Sheila Kuehl

CA State Senator Carol Migden

CA State Assemblyman John Laird

CA State Assemblyman Mark Leno

Local:

Palm Springs City Councilmember Ginny Foat

Palm Springs City Councilmember Rick Hutcheson

Cathedral City City Councilmember Paul Marchand

Desert Hot Springs City Councilmember Karl Baker

LGBT Organizations and LGBT Community Leaders:

Desert Stonewall Democratic Club

Vice-President Desert Stonewall Democrats Roger Tansey

Treasurer Desert Stonewall Democrats Bob Silverman

Secretary Desert Stonewall Democrats James Reynolds

Membership Chair Desert Stonewall Democrats Lynn Worley

Public Relations Chair Desert Stonewall Democrats Donald W. Grimm, Ph.D.

Steering Committee Member Desert Stonewall Democrats Bob Mahlowitz

Steering Committee Member Desert Stonewall Democrats Richard Oberhaus

Steering Committee Member Desert Stonewall Democrats Greg Rodriguez

Steering Committee Member Desert Stonewall Democrats Robert Lee Thomas

Steering Committee Member Desert Stonewall Democrats Lynn Worley

Political Action Committee Member Desert Stonewall Democrats Bond Shands

Desert Stonewall Democrats Member Bill Cain-Gonzales

Equality California

HRC Board Member Andy Linsky

Inland Stonewall Democratic Club

Co-Chair Palm Springs Democratic Club Sandy Eldridge

Co-Chair Palm Springs Democratic Club David Pye

Secretary Palm Springs Democratic Club Peter East

San Diego Democratic Club

Victory Fund

Pettis is the only Democratic candidate who has indicated publically and consistently that he fully supports issues important to the LGBT community, including Marriage Equality.  In fact, two of his opponents, Rick Gonzales and Richard Gutierrez, have indicated publically that they will vote ‘nay’ on any Marriage Equality bill if elected as Assemblymember to represent the 80th AD.  Victor Manuel Perez has stated publically that he supports equality for all, but consistently avoids stating whether he will or will not vote for Marriage Equality.

Thus, Pettis is not only most qualified to represent the Coachella and Imperial Valleys as per The Desert Sun, but is also the most committed and will most represent all of their interests in Sacramento as Assemblyman (forty percent of the population in Palm Springs are members of the LGBT community, sixty percent of the population is LGBT-identified during the ‘season’).  Recently, most of the major electeds in the West Valley have been openly-gay or openly-lesbian, including former Mayor of Palm Springs Ron Oden, Mayor of Palm Springs and former-Palm Springs City Councilmember Steve Pougnet, Palm Springs City Councilmember Ginny Foat, Palm Springs City Councilmember Rick Hutcheson, Palm Springs Unified School District Trustee Justin Blake, Desert Hot Springs City Councilmember Karl Baker, Cathedral City Councilmember Greg Pettis, and Cathedral City Councilmember Paul Marchand.  Other electeds in the West Valley have endorsed Pettis for the 80th AD, including Palm Springs Unified School District Trustee Meredy Schoenberger and Cathedral City Clerk Pat Hammers.  The only ones of these mentioned not endorsing Pettis for 80th AD are Oden and Blake, the latter not endorsing anyone thus far.

Also, unlike other campaigns for the 80th AD, Pettis is reaching out to all communities in the Coachella and Imperial Valleys, not deigning to divide the communities along race, class, sexual orientation or other lines of distinction.  In fact, Pettis has widespread support in the wealthier cities in the District including Palm Springs, Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage as well as in the less advantaged communities like Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Coachella, Brawley, and El Centro.

Members of the LGBT Caucus endorsing Pettis include Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), chair of the caucus,

According to a press release from LGBT Caucus chair Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz):

Formed in June 2002, the role of the LGBT Caucus is to present a forum for the California Legislature to discuss issues that affect LGBT Californians and to further the goal of equality and justice for all Californians.  Formation of the LGBT Caucus made California the first state in the country to recognize an official caucus of openly-LGBT state legislators.

Members of the LGBT Caucus endorsing Pettis include Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), chair, Senator Christine Kehoe (San Diego), Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles), Senator Carole Migden, and Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).

Accomplishments and activities of the LGBT Caucus that Pettis is committed to help to further and to accomplish as a State Assemblymember representing the Coachella and Imperial Valleys:

Champion and prioritize laws/legislation that promote equality for LGBT Californians:

Equal rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples and their families

Prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender in employment, housing, and business establishments / public accommodations

Prohibit discrimination in state government

Prohibit discrimination and harassment in public school

Promote fair policies and adequate funding for HIV/AIDS and LGBT-related health and human services

Promote prevention programs and policies against hate-crimes and bias-motivated violence

Sponsor annually the LGBT Pride Exhibit every June, celebrating Pride Month.

Present before the California State Legislature the LGBT Pride Recognition Awards, which are given to outstanding individuals in recognition of their extraordinary accomplishments and leadership in their respective fields of endeavors.

Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) was first elected to the California State Assembly in 2002, and re-elected in 2004, and in 2006,  Laird represents the 27th Assembly District, which includes portions of Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Santa Clara Counties.  Prior to being elected to the State Assembly, Laird served two terms on the Santa Cruz City Council, two terms as Mayor of Santa Cruz, and eight years as a Cabrillo College Trustee.

In his role as Budget Committee Chair, Mr. Laird helped deliver the first on-time budget since 2000-a budget that reduced community college fees, restored funding for transportation and K-12 education, dramatically increased funding for deferred park maintenance and foster care, and increased the budget reserve while reducing the so-called “out year” deficit. Along with the Budget Committee, Mr. Laird also serves as a member the Labor and Employment, Judiciary, and Natural Resources Committees.

Raised in Vallejo and educated in Vallejo public schools, Mr. Laird’s parents were both educators. He graduated from UCSC’s Adlai Stevenson College. In 1981, Assemblymember Laird was elected to the Santa Cruz City Council. He was elected by the City Council to one-year mayor’s terms in 1983 and 1987, becoming one of the first openly gay mayors in the United States.

Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) was first elected to the Assembly in 2002,  Assemblyman Leno represents the 13th District, which encompasses the eastern portion of San Francisco.  He is one of the first two openly-gay men ever elected to the State Assembly.  He currently chairs the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which oversees all bills with a fiscal impact on the state of California.  Leno also serves on the Election & Redistricting and Labor Committees.  Leno was also chair of the Public Safety Committee from 2003 to 2006.  Prior to his election to the State Assembly, Leno served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors from April 1998 to November 2002.  Leno has also been in the forefront of Marriage Equality battle with the recacitrant Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in sending the Governor Marriage Equality bills each year which Schwarzenegger then terminates with a veto:

While in the Assembly, Leno has fought for better schools and access to higher education, a cleaner and sustainable environment, universal affordable and quality health care, improved transportation, renewable energy, safer streets and equal rights for all Californians.  In 2007, Leno is continuing his pioneering battle for LGBT couples and their families by authoring AB 43, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. This historic civil rights legislation would allow same sex couples to marry in California . In 2005, Leno’s nearly identical AB 849 was the first marriage equality bill in United States history to be approved by both houses of a state legislature.

A native of Wisconsin, Leno attended the University of Colorado at Boulder, then went on to become valedictorian of his graduating class at the American College of Jerusalem, where he earned his Bachelor of Arts Degree. Leno also spent two years in Rabbinical Studies at The Hebrew Union College in New York . He is the owner of Budget Signs, Inc., a small business he founded in 1978 and operated with his life partner, Douglas Jackson. Together the two entrepreneurs steadily grew their sign business until Jackson passed away from complications relating to HIV/AIDS in 1990. This deep loss would not deter Leno. Instead, he redoubled his efforts in community service.

Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) was first elected to the State Senate in 2004, to represent the 39th Senate District,  Senator Kehoe chairs the State Senate’s Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee.  In 2006, Kehoe chaired the Senate’s Local Government Committee where she sponsored the most important redevelopment reform bill in more than a decade:

Senator Kehoe is a member of the Senate Committee on Budget & Fiscal Review; Natural Resources & Water; Transportation & Housing; Local Government, the Governor’s Broadband Task Force, the California Cultural and Historical Endowment; and the Sea Grant Advisory Panel.  

She also serves on the Select Committees on Defense and Aerospace Industry; the Natural Resources and Water’s Subcommittee on Delta Resources; the Joint Committee on the Arts; and the Select Committee on Coastal Protection and Watershed Conservation.

Prior to being elected to the Senate, Kehoe served two terms as a California State Assemblymember representing the 76th District (2000-04).  

During her first term in the State Assembly, Kehoe distinguished herself by becoming the second woman ever – and the first woman from San Diego, to be elected Assembly Speaker pro Tempore, the Assembly’s second highest-ranking position.  In her first year in the State Assembly, she carried the largest energy conservation bill package in the state’s history.  

Prior to being elected to serve California’s 76th Assembly District, Kehoe served seven years as City Council Member representing San Diego’s Third District. As a Council Member, Christine was at the forefront on environmental issues, serving as chair of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee. She led efforts to improve and beautify San Diego, reduce street crime, and improve recreational opportunities for families.

State Senator Sheila James Kuehl (D-Los Angeles) was first elected to the State Senate in 2000, and again in 2004, after serving for six years in the State Assembly. During the 1997-98 legislative session, Senator Kuehl was the first woman in California history to be named Speaker pro Tempore of the Assembly. Kuehl is also the first openly-gay or lesbian person to be elected to the California Legislature.  A former civil rights attorney and law professor, Kuehl represents the 23rd Senate District in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.  She is the chair of the Senate Health Committee and serves as a member of the Agriculture, Appropriations, Environmental Quality, Joint Rules, Judiciary, Labor and Employment, and Natural Resources and Water Committees.  Kuehl is also chair of the Select Committee on School Safety and Chair of the Select Committee on the Health Effects of Radioactive and Chemical Contamination.  Kuehl previously served as chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee from 2000-2006:

In her thirteen years in the State Legislature, Sen. Kuehl has authored 171 bills that have been signed into law, including legislation to establish paid family leave, establish the rights contained in Roe vs. Wade in California statute, overhaul California’s child support services system; establish nurse to patient ratios in every hospital; require that housing developments of more than 500 units have identified sources of water; further protect domestic violence victims and their children; prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender and disability in the workplace and sexual orientation in education; increase the rights of crime victims; safeguard the environment and drinking water; many, many others.  Since 2003, she has led the fight in the legislature to achieve true universal health care in California, and, in 2006, brought SB 840, the California Universal Healthcare Act,  to the Governor’s desk, the first time in U.S. history a single-payer healthcare bill had gone so far. Undaunted by its veto, Senator Kuehl continues to work to bring universal, affordable, quality health care to all Californians.

She was selected to address the 1996 Democratic National Convention on the issue of family violence and the 2000 Democratic National Convention on the issue of diversity.  In 1996, George magazine selected her as one of the 20 most fascinating women in politics and the California Journal named her “Rookie of the Year.”  In 1998 and, again, in 2000, the California Journal chose her as the Assembly member with the greatest intelligence and the most integrity.  In 2006, the Capitol Weekly picked her as the most intelligent member of the California Legislature.

Prior to her election to the Legislature, Senator Kuehl drafted and fought to get into California law more than 40 pieces of legislation relating to children, families, women, and domestic violence.  She was a law professor at Loyola, UCLA and USC Law Schools and co-founded and served as managing attorney of the California Women’s Law Center.

Senator Kuehl graduated from Harvard Law School in 1978 where she was the second woman in the school’s history to win the Moot Court competition.  She served on the Harvard University Board of Overseers from 1998 to 2005.

Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) represents the 3rd District in the California State Senate, which includes the eastern half of the City and County of San Francisco, all of Marin County, and portions of Sonoma County.  Senator Migden was first elected to the Senate in November of 2004.

Currently, Senator Migden is chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus and also serves as Chair of the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee.  In 2004, she began serving as Chair of the Appropriations Committee:

Prior to being elected to the Senate, Carole Migden served as Chairwoman of the California Board of Equalization (BOE); the nation’s only publicly elected tax commission; represented San Francisco’s 13th District in the California State Assembly; and for five years served as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

During her tenure at the BOE Senator Migden worked to modernize the state’s outdated tax system and manage taxpayers’ money responsibly. Her accomplishments at the BOE included strengthening domestic partners’ property rights, leveling the playing field between Main Street and on-line retailers, protecting California’s precious open space, and advocating for increased revenues to fund vital services by eliminating obsolete tax breaks.

In the State Assembly, Migden served for five years as Chairwoman of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. She was the first woman and the first freshman legislator to chair that influential committee. For four years she also served as a conferee on the state’s Joint Budget Conference Committee, which writes the final version of California’s state budget.In that time Carole Migden authored legislation to create California’s landmark domestic partner registry, promote children’s health, preserve the old growth Headwaters Forrest, increase accountability in K-12 schools, protect borrowers from predatory and deceptive lending practices, protect consumers from manipulation by energy generators, and promote the use of emergency contraception.

Senator Migden has received numerous awards for her service. California Journal named her among California’s power elite of women elected officials and awarded her with their “Rookie of the Year” award in 1998, taking top honors in the categories of most integrity, most intelligence, hardest working, most ambitious, and most influential. She received “Legislator of the Year” honors in 1999 from the California School Employees Association and in 2001 from the California National Organization for Women (NOW), as well as leadership awards from prominent environmental and civil rights organizations. She continues to receive high honors in California Journal’s annual rankings, including “Quick Study” in 2002.

Carole Migden is a longtime member of, and current super-delegate to, the Democratic National Committee. She also served as chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party for eight years.

Today on KQED’s California Report, (audio can be streamed at this player) there’s a story about what seems to be a great program all around. It’s a community behavioral health court. It tracks mentally ill offenders through the system. And, in the end, it saves us money by reducing the recidivism rate (by half!).

The trouble is that only a few counties have followed San Francisco’s model. While several are gearing up to come online, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill to make these courts statewide.  The reason?

Money. Penny-wise, the Governor felt that we couldn’t afford to pay for this system. The problem is that we are now probably paying more for not having the system in the offenders we are holding in our prisons. So, he vetoed a bill that would have expanded the courts across the state.

You see, we have choices to make, and priorities to set. And we have consistently been making the decision that costs the least NOW, rather than the decision that has the best long-term consequences. It is a policy that has led us to lock up about 1% of our population, and a policy that will soon lead us to spend more on prisons than on higher education.  It is a failed policy.

But yet, we continue to protect the material concerns of now, rather than think long-term.  It’s been a consistent failure since Pat Brown left office, and been even more obvious since Prop 13 passed back in 1978. And today, we can see it ever more with the failure of the yacht tax loophole to be closed.  “It is unconscionable to not close the yacht tax loophole when we’re making cuts to public education and medical care.” Assembly member John Laird said today, “If California’s teachers and students, as well as those receiving medical care, can take cuts, so can California’s yacht owners.”

We choose this course for our state. And it has but one stark, inevitable conclusion: a downward sprial of increasing prison costs and decreased spending on programs that work. At some point we must break this vicious cycle, but today, every single Republican in the Assembly felt it better to cut health services from the poorest amongst us than to plug a loophole on the taxation of yachts. And so, let’s keep riding the merry-go-round to hell.