For a while, Speaker Bass and others (including lots of posts here) have pleaded with Governor Schwarzenegger to stand up to the Republican obstructionism.  He says he is for revenue increases, but he’s not knocking heads like past Republican governors have been willing to do. Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan did it, surely Arnold could bang out some sort of compromise.

But up to now, he’s just been sort of attacking the legislature in general and really failing to recognize the underlying unwillingness to work for a solution from the Republicans. Now, surely we can agree that today’s Republicans are a lot more partisan than those of 20 years ago.  However, that’s just not a sufficient excuse for the Republican governor to fail to bring a single vote over.

At yesterday’s press conference, Arnold slighlty altered his tune.  He began to acknowledge what this is: Republicans are holding the state hostage.  They are simply not negotiating in good faith.  Take this for example, from the transcript on the Bee:

But I think that what is important is to come to the meeting and to be prepared and to propose those kind of issues. I have been to many meetings; none of those things were discussed. So I think it’s very hard for the Democrats, in a way, to negotiate when no one puts that on the table and says here is the list of things that we ask for and if we have this list then we’re willing to increase taxes and to come up with extra revenues. But it’s always very vague and nothing specific and I think that makes it sometimes frustrating in those negotiations.

Ok, well it’s a start, Governor, and the legislative inaction clock is very cute. But this simply isn’t enough. But today it seems that criticizing Republicans is too much.  After a Big 5 meeting, Senate Minority Leader Dave Cogdill decided to take his frustration out on the Governor:

I believe that the Big 5 process has been irreparably compromised as a result of comments in the press over the last couple of days, and it’s pretty difficult to negotiate in good faith in that situation. My personal belief is that any resolution to this that is going to be negotiated will result from efforts with the Big 4 similar to what we were able to accomplish with the budget last year, because, again, I just don’t see this process as being productive or helpful. (SacBee 12/11/08)

The thing is that the Republicans in the Legislature have grown used to one Arnold. The post-partisan Arnold that tries to make nice with everybody. The Arnold that we’ve basically had since the 2005 Special Election.  Then some new Arnold dared to nudge the Republicans for failing to negotiate in good faith, so Cogdill is going to take his marbles and go home. Boo-hoo Dave, there’s no crying in politics, Hillary Clinton aside. You are being intransigent, and you got called out on it. You know what else? Nobody likes you, so go cry about that too.

In actuality the problem here isn’t that Arnold is being too tough now, it’s that he’s not being tough enough. We need the Governor to play hardball with these Republicans. The real problems is that he already missed his chance to really break the logjam a few months ago. If he wanted to get reform, well dammit he should have been hanging out in Audra Strickland’s district and campaigning against Tony Strickland in the Senate. He should have gone to Stockton and argued to the voters there that John Eisenhut would work to fix the budget and that Bill Berryhill would not.  But it seems that post-partisanship doesn’t extend so far as to electing people who will actually pursue sound policy, regardless of party.  

Oh to be a fly on the wall of that Big 5 Meeting, but Sen. Steinberg gave us a clue about the atmosphere:

“There was no lunch served,” Steinberg said.

The leaders are signaling that perhaps there will be a deal next week, but I won’t be holding my breath.  The recent behavior of Cogdill and Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines don’t give much reason for hope.

UPDATE: Speaker Bass released a statement on Cogdill’s little tantrum:

“They said that they came up here because of what they believed in and they believed that there should never be a tax increase. All of us came up here for what we believed in. I came up here to make sure that I would protect programs that now I have to recognize have to be cut.  We all have to do things that we never thought we would do because California is in a catastrophic situation.”

It’d be nice if the Republicans could at least pretend to care that our state government is about to collapse.

Speaker Bass, perhaps annoyed by the clock, acknowledged that the Governor is going to have to provide some real leadership here:

Gimmicks aren’t going to keep transportation projects moving, let schools stay open or provide public safety. The fact remains Democrats are the only ones who have been serious about compromising to find a budget solution. We have stepped up to the plate and support both the deep cuts and new revenues it will take to help close the budget deficit. It is past time for Governor Schwarzenegger to break the logjam created by his own party and produce Republican votes for a package of cuts and revenues. The 2/3 vote requirement means Democrats can’t do it alone. With 51 Democrats we only need three Republican votes in the Assembly. But we need real leadership from Governor Schwarzenegger to convince even a few of his Republican colleagues to compromise. Other Republican governors have done that in time of emergency. This governor has to deliver as well.

We figured that when Darrell Steinberg assumed the leadership post in the Senate, there would be less accommodation and more risk-taking from the Democratic caucus.  Well, this potential deal floated in today’s LA Times would certainly fit that description.

State lawmakers began moving toward a deal this week to close California’s deficit with the help of steeper car fees that would cost many drivers hundreds of dollars annually, according to people involved in budget talks.

Under the plan, GOP lawmakers — most of whom have signed anti-tax pledges — would vote to triple the vehicle license fee that owners pay when they register their cars every year in exchange for a ballot measure that would impose rigid limits on future state spending. Motorists’ annual license fees would rise from 0.65% of the value of their vehicles to 2%. For a car or truck valued at $25,000, the increase would be $336.

The higher fees would generate $6 billion annually, helping to fill a budget gap that is projected to reach nearly $28 billion over the next year and a half.

The proposal is being championed by incoming state Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento). Democrats and advocates for the poor have opposed strict state spending limits, saying they would cripple government services.

Steinberg may be gambling that voters would reject the limits, as they have in the past.

This would be a simple restoration of the VLF to the levels put in place by Pete Wilson (yes, Wilson; the increase, which was meant to occur during poor economic times, only triggered under Gray Davis).  It is not a progressive version or a “feebate,” and it does not increase for higher emission-producing cars and trucks.  So it’s not the best way to restore the VLF, in my view.

And the exchange, a ballot measure to restrict state spending, is a long-sought Yacht Party agenda item.  I’m guessing it would be substantially similar to the version voted down in 2005.  A spending cap is simply a way to ratchet down government and eliminate needed services which the public has said time and again they not only want, but are willing to pay for.

I understand Steinberg’s reasoning on two levels:

(1) It’s probably correct that Democrats and unions would fight like hell to stop a ballot measure with a spending cap.  These are tough economic times, however, and they’re projected to continue in the near future, so cutting spending may look more attractive to voters.

(2) This would be a stake through the heart of Yacht Party rhetoric about taxes.  You can see the effect of what this would do by just listening to talk radio:

Prospects for the plan, however, immediately began to dim after details were published on the Los Angeles Times website. Angry phone calls from constituents, advocacy groups and talk radio hosts prompted lawmakers to publicly distance themselves from the proposal.

I mean, this came out on the same day when Senate leader Dave Cogdill wrote an op-ed entitled Cut, Don’t Tax.  And Arnold Schwarzenegger made cutting the VLF the signature piece of policy in his platform in the 2003 recall election.  For him to reverse it just 5 years later would be humiliating.

Ultimately, Republicans are probably too spineless to agree to this – they’d fear primary elections in 2010, although directly after an election would probably be the best time to pull this off, with the most distance between now and the next election.  But Democrats should think hard about this as well.  Is it really worth having to fight a ballot measure that would cripple the state?  It may well be, especially considering there’s probably no other way to raise needed revenue.

It’s quite a gamble.

For a while now, the federal government has been handing out money to private business. Mostly banks, but a few insurance companies and the possibility of the Big 3 Automakers.  It’s raining cash if you happen to be “too big to fail.”

Meanwhile, the state of California is bleeding red ink, laying off workers and cutting the services Californians count on in poor economic times. So, hat in hand, off we go to the feds:

Led by California with a $28 billion hole in its budget, 41 states are in financial trouble, and many of their leaders are looking to Congress to bail them out. State officials are hoping to join the ranks of the financial industry and auto manufacturers, who’ve found a sympathetic ear on Capitol Hill. They’ve found some key supporters: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats are promoting aid to states as part of a broad stimulus package that could inject more than $300 billion into the ailing economy.

* * *

Speaking Wednesday before a Chamber of Commerce group in Fresno, Calif., Schwarzenegger said that “government is really at fault” and that Washington was obligated to “get us out of this mess.” (McClatchy 11/14/08)

The economy sucks, that much we all know.  Sure, we’re tossing everything up at the wall hoping it sticks. But, here is one simple statement of fact: money that comes in to the state goes out almost immediately in the form of services to those who most need it.  It gets recycled as state employees that would have otherwise been on the chopping block retain their jobs. And of course there is the fact that by spending a little money now to retain a decent level of services, we can save ourselves a lot of money on the back end on prison and other corrective, and expensive, services.

Yet there are those who simply see the states as profligate dens of the mythical “waste, fraud, and abuse.”  Unsurprisingly, one such opinion, by the Manhattan City Institute’s Steve Malanga, appears at Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal:

Thus, when practically every day the federal government is defining downward the very notion of what constitutes fiscal responsibility, the states know they are hardly the most reckless supplicants in Washington. Unfortunately, more federal aid all but guarantees they won’t use the current crisis as an opportunity to put their fiscal houses in order — setting the stage for worse problems to come.

While it is true that California’s 2/3 system of governance has built a budgetary house of cards, simply letting that house of cards collapse is no better than letting GM and Ford simply disappear.  Apparently Mr. Malanga would like to see the states get taught a lesson just like some would have beaten into the banking system’s hide. But while conservatives are lining up to give money to AIG, perhaps they should take some of that time to consider just who they are teaching a lesson.

Are they teaching a lesson to the 6 year old who now has a first grade class of 45 kids and doesn’t have any actual contact with his teacher. I’m sure his not being able to read will really teach the Mike Villines of this world a huge lesson.

Are they teaching a lesson to the state’s seniors? To the disabled?  I’m sure Dave Cogdill will repent once he sees a few thousand more homeless mentally ill across our state.

Or perhaps not, but the lesson’s worth a shot, right Mr. Malanga?

UPDATE: Over the flip find the letter that the Democratic Leaders sent to Pelosi, Boxer & Feinstein. (h/t SacBee)

Dear Speaker Pelosi, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer:

We write to strongly encourage the prompt adoption of a federal economic stimulus plan that will provide direct assistance to the states. During this historically challenging economic time, the states–especially California–need the federal government’s help.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), twenty-seven states will begin the 2009 Fiscal Year with deficits well exceeding $100 billion collectively. A recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that states are facing “a great fiscal crisis,” with 41 of 50 states projected to be facing budget shortfalls over the next two fiscal years. In the midst of this crisis, states are forced to drastically cut essential services (services that more citizens rely on when economic times are tough), raise taxes, or do both.

The fiscal challenges for the state of California are great. According to our non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), California is facing a 20-month deficit of $28 billion. The Governor has called a Special Session in which lawmakers are contemplating a plan that would close the deficit by imposing tax increases on all Californians and slashing more than $10 billion in essential services in education, healthcare, aid to seniors, the blind and the elderly, public safety, and transportation. The impacts of such a plan are particularly harsh in an economic climate in which each month more than 13,000 Californians are suffering job loss.

California needs its federal partner to help its citizens weather this economic storm. A “States Economic Stimulus and Fiscal Relief Act,” akin to that recently passed to assist the nation’s banking system, is what California needs now. While federal aid will not solve California’s fiscal problems, an infusion of flexible federal funds would provide necessary relief to millions of Californians, by limiting the magnitude of tax increases and cuts to essential services otherwise required to balance our budget.

In addition to the infusion of federal funds, many provisions of the $60.8 billion economic stimulus bill, H.R. 7110, passed by the House of Representatives in September, 2008, are helpful to California. For example:

1. An increase in the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage (FMAP) match with the trigger points for state eligibility like those contained in the bill (i.e., home foreclosures, food stamp caseload level and unemployment level) means nearly $2 billion for California;

2. The extension of federal Unemployment Insurance benefits provides needed assistance to Californians suffering job loss. California’s unemployment rate now stands at 7.7% and is projected to rise well above 9% in 2009.

3. The investment of federal funds to improve public infrastructure is meaningful to California. In 2006, Californians passed a $42.3 billion bond package to invest state funds to improve our roads and bridges, expand public transit, strengthen levees and improve water quality, provide affordable housing, and build or modernize school facilities. Many of the projects and programs funded by the state bond package require federal matching funds to become fully funded.

While H.R. 7110 represents a good start, we agree with Speaker Pelosi’s assessment that as the nation’s economic crisis has worsened since September, so has the need for a greater magnitude of economic stimulus. Clearly, more is better.

As we continue our work to develop a comprehensive plan to close this state’s staggering budget deficit, we hope we can count on our federal partners to provide needed relief to millions of Californians suffering through an economic crisis of historic magnitude. Working together, federal and state policymakers can help the country and the state get through this difficult period.

Your prompt attention to this request is certainly appreciated.

Respectfully,

Don Perata

President Pro Tem

California State Senate

Karen Bass

Speaker

California State Assembly

Darrell Steinberg

President Pro Tempore-elect

California State Senate

You know this whole mini-Depression/Mega-Recession that we’re going through right now? Well, it’s hit our revenue coming into the state coffers.  Hard:

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata estimated Tuesday the state will face a $3 billion to $5 billion deficit this fiscal year without corrective action, a significant gap that increases the possibility lawmakers will have to consider new spending cuts or tax increases in a special midyear budget session.

State Controller John Chiang, meanwhile, announced California has taken in $1.1 billion less through the first quarter than state officials projected earlier this year.(SacBee 10/8/08)

So, there you have it.  This is where we are. Broke, and slashing at the very heart of our government.  Perata and other state leaders are further estimating that next year’s budget deficit could be another $15-20 Billion. There is nothing left to cut. We’ve already cut services that shouldn’t have been cut. We already on the hook for about $8 Billion in prison building thanks to “ToughOnCrime”.

Of course, the Republicans continue to fiddle while the walls of our government come crashing down in flames.  There is no more choice, there is no more chance to hedge. We either raise taxes or our government will end up like Lehman Brothers.  Well, you can call Dave Cogdill the new Richard Fuld.

“As this continues to get more serious, it’s going to take even more drastic action on the part of the state to rein in spending,” said Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill of Modesto. “We’re not supporting any additional tax increases. It makes less sense today than it did the day we put the budget out.”

Besides raising taxes, Perata suggested the state could save money by releasing low-level prisoners who committed nonviolent crimes. But Cogdill said the state could find other ways, such as selling off excess state-owned land.

We need capital, ie cash, just like some of these big banks. Unlike Lehman, however, we have a means of getting it. It’s called taxation.  All of Cogdill’s little techniques are merely tricks that won’t bring in anywhere near the amount of money that we need.

Perhaps it is time to start gathering signatures for a progressive budget reform measure on the special election ballot? The outlines of such a plan are still hazy in my mind, but the general concept of going to the ballot to avoid the legislature might end up, unfortunately, being the only way to save the state from Dick Fuld the legislative Republicans.

This is really kind of incredible, what “law and order” Republicans have been reduced to.

Saying the ailing economy is putting enough stress on taxpayers, Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill said Tuesday that Republicans will oppose any tax hikes to bridge California’s budget deficit.

Cogdill suggested the deficit, which he pegged at $16 billion for the fiscal year beginning July 1, could be wiped out through service cuts and tapping into the reserves of voter-approved initiatives intended for early childhood education, mental health services and transportation […]

Democrats, meanwhile, are likely to oppose Cogdill’s suggestion to borrow money from three initiative-created funds: the county-based First Five commissions for children, established by Proposition 10; Proposition 63 to expand mental health services; and the Proposition 42 gas sales tax for transportation purposes.

Sen. Darrell Steinberg, the Senate’s incoming president, said “no way” will he allow proceeds from Proposition 63, which he sponsored, to be used to defray the budget deficit.

“The voters of California passed an initiative which specifically prohibits the state Legislature from taking the money to balance the budget,” said Steinberg, D-Sacramento, adding that such a raid on the initiative would be “unlawful.”

The idea here is that if we only overturned three initiatives and defied the will of the people, and broke standing law in the state of California, then everything would be fine and we could place a gold brick in everybody’s mailbox.

In other words, the Republican budget strategy is based entirely on embezzlement.

Frank Russo got out of a Yacht Party press conference and they basically said the same thing.  From his notes:

This is their play:  You need to have “reforms” in order to save money and balance the budget without raising taxes.  All the Democrats do is talk about raising taxes.  We are the only party that is talking about reforms and something other than taxes. The dems literally have no proposals.  We’ve been criticized in the past for not being specific and forthcoming with our proposals (I lambasted them last year mercilessly for this) so here we have these ideas.

Take a look at the ideas and you find they are proposals to change the substantive laws in a number of areas and they are using the 2/3 vote requirement and the extreme financial emergency we are in as leverage to get things passed that they otherwise don’t have the votes for.

This is not a budget fight – it’s a hostage negotiation.  The Yacht Party is playing the part of the hooded figures negotiating the terms of surrender.  And big ups to Don Perata for signaling yesterday that he’s extremely bullish  on surrender, for his part.

Last summer, Californians suffered through a period of Republican obstinance on the budget. A temper tantrum, you might say.  Expect more from the new Senate Minority Leader, Dave Cogdill (Modesto).  Cogdill was not one of the 8 Republicans to finally end the budget debacle. Cogdill felt they could have extracted another chunk of hide out of working Californians.

Right below, David wrote about the governor’s slow attempts at lowering the deficit. Hey, if we catch a bunch of people napping, they can’t use state services. Woohoo! Well, in an interview with Capitol Alert, Cogdill let’s us know he’s got some more tricks up his sleeve, namely hacking up the education system in California

So when you’ve got this type of budget problem, I don’t think you have any option but to look at the education sector of the budget. Given its size and the cumbersome nature of it, as it relates to categorical and other ways that we spend money, there’s got to be some opportunities there to find some savings. Especially, when we look at what we spend on administration, the top end of the budget, versus what actually ends up in the classroom.

Those are the biggest complaints that we hear often from teachers and others, ‘There isn’t enough dollars going into the classroom.’ At the same time, there is usually a lot of criticism that we spend too much money in administration. So if that’s the case, let’s all work together and figure out how we can achieve some savings in administration.

In 2002-2003, California ranked 26th (PDF). Yup, behind Georgia (25th) and West Virginia (18th). But, that being said, an enoromous amount of that goes into teaching salaries because California has a high cost of living. In fact, we had the highest average teacher salary in 2002-2003 at $56,283. So, the myth of these “high administration” costs is just that: a myth. Teachers have to buy supplies for their students and themselves. Parents hold fundraisers to pay for language classes, let alone arts classes. And athletics? Well, good luck to the scools competing for the San Joaquin Section/Les Schwab Tires Division I Championship. We are slowly selling our schools to corporations or whomever has a few bucks.

Furthermore, Cogdill talks a lot about pragmatism, yet, refuses to talk about the revenue side, over the flip…

How often do you see the pragmatism come together? There’s a pretty big gap between what Senator Steinberg says he wants to see to balance the budget and what you say you want to see. How do you bridge that?

Cogdill: Again, I think it’s just through an open dialogue. Because of our relationships we have an opportunity to do that. There are certain places he knows I can’t go. There are certain places I know he can’t go. So the challenge for the two of us is to find that middle ground.

In terms of working with the governor, you said you have a good relationship from (working on) the water bonds. How strongly do you believe him when he says he’s not going to raise taxes?

Cogdill: Well, he’s said it so often. He’s said it from day one in his original run for governor. He’s never wavered (on) that with anything I’ve seen, except this proposal he put forward for this surcharge on insurance for fire protection. … I think you can make that argument, but certainly, as it relates to the general fund of the state of California, I think he’s been pretty adamant about his belief that we should not raise taxes.

That’s pragmatic, how? We just keep digging the whole through moves like axing the VLF, but can’t look at fixing how we bring revenue into the system? That’s not pragmatism, that’s obstinance.

But wanna hear something really rich? His take on the recall process:

It’s extremely unfortunate that the president pro tem (Don Perata) has decided to move forward on the recall. I don’t think that’s what the folks that devised the recall law had in mind at the time. It wasn’t to take someone out because they voted their conscience as a sitting member of the Legislature. It was for such things as malfeasance or immorality or any number of other legitimate reasons to provide a mechanism whereby voters could recall their legislator.

Now, I’m sure Sen. Cogdill was vehemently opposed to the gubernatorial recall as well, right?

The pressure emanating from the Assembly, specifically the Speaker’s office, and from the Senator Perata and the rest of the Democratic Senators, and even Assembly Republicans has seemingly been insufficient to get the Republicans in the Senate to cast off the anti-government right wing of their party and their associated blogs.  So, on Monday, Governor Schwarzenegger, finally, got into the action.  I was going to title this something to do with muscles or terminating or something like that, but I’m all punned out. So, I’ll just have to settle for Arnold in battle mode.

On Monday, the Governator visited the districts of Sen. Abel Maldonado and Sen. Dave Cogdill.  Arnold praised Maldonado, so we should expect to see the Governor in his Monterrey district if there is in fact a primary challenger in June.  Cogdill seems an unlikely Senator to flip his vote in favor of the budget, so instead Arnold focused his musculatory power at Sen. Jeff Denham, a “moderate” (that’s a wee bit generous) whose district leans towards the middle.  Denham, for his part, apparently didn’t appreciate the attention.  From the LA Times:

“He should get a lot of heat,” Schwarzenegger said of Denham, prompting the healthcare clinic workers who were standing behind the governor to break into applause. “If you think of one person who can make the budget pass, Sen. Denham could do it. I hope everyone here today calls the senator. Call him. Say, ‘It is up to you now. You are our man.’ “

Denham later issued an angry written statement.

“Governor, let me repeat myself again, since perhaps you are not listening yet,” he wrote. “I will not be bullied, intimidated or pressured into voting for a budget with inflated revenues, unaccounted expenses or accounting gimmickry.” (LA Times 8/14/07)

Well, perhaps this is it. Perhaps this is where the rubber hist the road for the California GOP. The Democrats in the legislature seem unlikely to grant the GOP a reprieve in the form of an emergency spending measure, and the Republicans must now choose. Do they continue to rebuff the will of the vast majority of California voters? Will this be Arnold’s Last Stand? Is this Arnold really standing up the right wing of his party?

We discussed the possible immolation of a tenuous coalition on a thread a few days ago.  More moderate, you might call them “BusinessReeps”, Republicans who are interested in, you know, plundering a large government bureaucracy might be feeling growing pains with the far-right Social Conservatives.  It’s a tent built by Bush and Rove, and like much else of their doing it seems to be crumbling.  And, like many things in politics, California seems to be leading the nation.  The souring relationship between Schwarzenegger, the former poster boy of the GOP, and the far-right, could have long-lasting effects for political alignment both in California and the nation as a whole.

We might just be blogging a turning point in history right now.  Keep your eyes on the ball, because where this one bounces, nobody knows.

State Sen. Gloria Romero, a.k.a. the only one in Sacramento who gets the prison problem, is really sticking her neck out to deny the rapacious fearmongers more sentencing laws, and she deserves our support.

Republicans are outraged that more than two dozen bills in the Legislature that would create new crimes or lengthen sentences will languish until next year in a committee controlled by Democrats.

Sen. Gloria Romero, who chairs the Senate Public Safety Committee, imposed a one-year moratorium earlier this year on all Senate and Assembly bills that would worsen crowding in California’s prisons and jails.

That’s what you do when there’s a CRISIS.  And considering that there have been nearly 1,000 laws in the past 30 years raising sentences for criminal offenders, I would guess that every additional law is completely unnecessary.  Of course, that’s the bread and butter for those so wedded to the “Tough on Crime” label.  So Republicans are miffed:

But Sen. Dave Cogdill, vice chairman of the committee, maintains the panel “shouldn’t be holding the safety of the people of California hostage to this situation.”

The Modesto Republican concedes prison crowding “is very real, but the reality is any bill that we take action on this year wouldn’t become law until January 2008.”

Right, because new prison facilities can be conjured in a matter of months.  Who’s the architect, Merlin?

over…

Romero, the chief force behind the bill to create an independent sentencing commission, is dead right on the optics of the whole prison crisis.

Romero noted the prisons’ medical system already is being run by a receivership established by the federal courts. And two federal judges have indicated they are leaning toward creating a judicial panel charged with setting a population cap for the entire system.

“We can try to look like we’re tough on crime, but how tough are we if at a certain point the receiver takes over the entire system?” she said, noting that 30 of the state’s 58 counties already have established population caps for their jails.

That’s all some of these legislators care about, looking tough while in actuality squandering our tenuous hold on the prison crisis, increasing recidivism rates, destroying rehabilitation and treatment, and making everyone in this state less safe.  It’s a simple-minded approach that neglects the very real issue of overcrowding.

Romero is really putting herself out there on this.  It may not be a popular position but it’s the right one.  And she should be applauded, as well as supported in her efforts to create a sentencing commission outside of the political sphere so that this “Tough on Crime” nonsense can be muted.