Over the weekend the CDP resolutions committee endorsed the recall of Jeff Denham in SD-12. The Republicans have thrown a massive hissy fit over this, similar to the hissy fit Yacht Party regulars like Sam Blakeslee have thrown, denouncing those who dare to identify his record in public. All of a sudden we’re seeing op-eds throughout the region and across the state decrying what is routinely identified as a “Don Perata-engineered power grab.” The latest comes from the fount of conventional wisdom in the California political media, George Skelton:
This is the time of year when the northern San Joaquin Valley is actually bucolic. Temperatures are bearable. The hills are green and the orchards are in full bloom — almonds gussied in white, peaches in pink.
Too bad that this spring there’s also a foul odor of Sacramento political pollution.
In a nutshell, the local state senator — Republican Jeff Denham of Merced — didn’t vote for the state budget last summer. That contributed to a 52-day stalemate and angered the Senate leader, Democrat Don Perata of Oakland. So Perata now is trying to recall Denham.
Not just a payback, but the political death penalty.
Funny, I don’t remember such high dudgeon back in 2003, when the recall of Gray Davis was viewed as a victory for democracy and an opportunity for the people to have their say.
Here’s what’s actually going on. Professional hack Kevin Spillane is good at getting his propaganda into the papers. And the media obliges without any historical perspective whatsoever. If Republicans want to put forth a measure ending recall petitions and allowing any state officer to finish out their term, go ahead; I’d probably support it. But they don’t. They want to use the recall when it suits them and whine about “fairness” and “power grabs” when it doesn’t. There could not have possibly been a bigger power grab than the Darrell Issa and Ted Costa-funded recall of Gray Davis. Anyone in the so-called liberal media dumb enough not to understand this notion of asymmetrical warfare isn’t worth reading.
I fear that the Spillane hack-o-thon is bearing fruit in scaring off Democrats from pressing forward on this recall; there certainly wasn’t a lot of talk about it or enthusiasm at the convention, nor was there any potential challenger in sight pressing the flesh. The Denham recall, in fact, is what the process was invented for: when legislators protect their own or their party’s interest at the expense of the people they should be held accountable. Jeff Denham is part of an effort to stop California lawmakers from doing their jobs and eliminate, for practical purposes, the role of government in the state. The Iron Law of Institutions dictate that “people within institutions act to increase their own power rather than the power of the institution itself.” The only way to deal with that from the outside is use the legal tools available to exact leverage on the institution. If it was OK for a Republican to use, so too for a Democrat.
So these media types and their hacktastic Republican spinmeisters can shut their whiny little mouths and defend their role in the shutdown of democracy in California to the voters. Jeff Denham ought to be able to defend himself instead of crying about the “process.”
“Now even though I was criticized by Sen. Perata, who said, ‘Boy, he should not mind our business. We know exactly what we are doing.’ Well, obviously they don’t know exactly what they are doing because otherwise we wouldn’t have a $14 billion deficit. If everyone knows exactly what they are doing, we wouldn’t have the budget mess in 2003 which created the recall election.”
and
“Sometimes you see schools protesting out there or sending me letters,” Schwarzenegger said. “I’m with them. I wish I could stand there protesting, too. Because we have to protest the budget system. Not this year’s budget. The budget system is the failure. That is what has to be corrected as quickly as possible.”
Now, try to pick just one direction to run with in those brief words. Will you talk about the Governor throwing stones from his glass budgetary house? Will you talk about how this is the perfect summation to your thesis on how the Governor talks like a moderate reformer but acts like a through-and-through (occasionally insane) fiscal conservative? Will you talk about how productive it usually is when resolving disputes to point fingers and call people names? Will you talk about the absurd, both-sides-of-the-mouth, ‘I support education above everything except that it’s the first to go’ rhetoric?
Those are just a few conversation starters for you. Reflect on them, offer your own, whatever.
So you expect a couple of conservative bitter-enders like KFI shock jocks John and Ken to depict Italian-American Don Perata as a Mafia boss. Slightly less expected was that the same graphic would make its way onto local news in Sacramento.
A televised graphic depicting Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata as an apparent Mafia leader, pointing a gun skyward, has angered Italian-Americans.
Bill Cerruti, who is chairman of a state Italian-American task force and leader of the Italian-American Cultural Society, blasted the characterization today and demanded an apology.
The graphic, depicting Perata in a purple suit and white tie, was broadcast by Sacramento’s KOVR 13 – with anchor Chris Burrous – and on the website of talk-show hosts “John and Ken” of KFI radio in Los Angeles, Cerruti said.
Burrous goes on to blast Perata for suggesting the state raise taxes to help balance the state budget.
Yes, anyone who doesn’t want to see thousands of teachers fired and elderly people denied health care is most certainly a gangster.
I’m not wired for outrage, so you tell me if this slur is beyond the pale or not. What I do know and expect is that the Denham recall will provide plenty more opportunities for the “Don” Perata slur to manifest itself, and the dead-ender anti-tax forces running his recall opposition campaign are not likely to disappoint. Hopefully they have Perata shoot bullets from a Tommy gun into their “No on the Recall” logo! Hey guys, pay me for that idea before you use it!
UPDATE: I’ve got a transcript:
Chris: Got a new outrage alert for you this morning, and I think you’ll enjoy this graphic, Stephanie.
Don Perata. [laughter] You know, he’s termed out. He’s going to lose his job here in a couple months and now he is calling for a major tax increase. He’s trying to make you worry that the school…
Stephanie: That’s hilarious.
Chris: Isn’t that a great one. [laughter] I can’t stand him.
Stephanie: Nice purple suit.
Chris: He’s trying to scare you in saying the schools are going to go bankrupt, and your kids are going to be in classrooms with 50 students each, if we do not increase taxes.
Chris: Watch for him to do this major tax push. He’s already got Governor Schwarzenegger considering raising money by closing tax loopholes. So watch out. If you benefit from some of those loopholes. Don “The Don” Perata and his Ram Charger already have Governor Schwarzenegger…
Stephanie: Is that what that was?
Chris: Isn’t it the Ram Charger? Or the Viper?
Stephanie: I guess. I don’t…
Chris: He’s the one. Remember, Don Perata’s the one who got carjacked over in the Bay Area…
Stephanie: Sure.
Chris: …with the 22 inch dubs or something like that on his car.
Stephanie: Mmm hmm.
Chris: I don’t know what they call it, but I thought that was a great graphic. That’s from radio station KFI. That is Don Perata.
Stephanie: Very nice.
Chris: That’s his reputation. The valour suit is a nice touch.
Stephanie: Yes, and a shade of purple or violet, whatever you call it. It is a nice touch as well.
Chris: Nice. Gotta watch out. This guy wants to raise your taxes. That’s the thing. He’s out of office in a couple more months. Why don’t you just lay low? Take a couple lunches? Write a book like Willie Brown or something? But instead, he’s going to try and stick it to us one last time before he gets out of a job.
I didn’t know the CBS morning news was drive-time community college talk radio.
I’ve been perusing some of the reaction in the local papers on the qualification of the Jeff Denham recall on the ballot, and there’s some interesting stuff in there. From Hank Shaw in the Stockton Record, we learn that Denham has been harvesting money for months, and given the lack of campaign finance limits in a recall election, expect more Chamber of Commerce members to fork over big novelty checks.
Denham has been raising money hand over fist to defend himself. He collected a $50,000 check from Oakdale Sierra Tel, a telecommunications company, late last week and has amassed more than $300,000 so far. As the target of a recall, Denham can raise cash in unlimited amounts.
Telecom company, ay? Not that Denham has anything to do with the FISA fight, but telecoms aren’t exactly popular figures in districts with a 45-36 registration advantage for Democrats.
As for who the opponent will be, it looks like there are two potential candidates, former Assemblymember Simon Salinas and Merced County District Attorney Larry Morse. Morse claims that Perata contacted him last month about running.
After the meeting, Morse said he spoke with Denham about the offer as a courtesy because there are never any secrets in Sacramento; he didn’t want the senator learning about it from someone else.
Morse ran for Assembly in 1996 and lost to Dennis Cardoza, and also considered a run for Senate in 2002, which would have pitted him against Denham.
Since becoming district attorney, Morse said he’s made progress in office and hasn’t considered any other elected slot.
“I’m not sure what set of circumstances could induce me to leave,” he said. “When the president of the Senate asks to talk with you, you probably owe him the courtesy of talking to him.”
Morse is apparently big on courtesy. If he did run, would he let Denham in on his ad information and oppo research because he “doesn’t want him to learn about it from someone else”?
“The bad news for Perata, who started this recall, is this vote will take place right in the middle of the debate over the 2008-09 budget,” Denham campaign consultant Tim Clark said.
Yes, exactly! And voters don’t want their schools dismantled and their teachers fired. It was also amusing to hear hired gun Kevin Spillane say in the Fresno Bee that the recall has Sacramento ties. Right, because you’re the salt of the earth from Stanislaus County, right?
I am liking the aggressive reaction from the Dump Denham folks.
Perata spokeswoman Alicia Trost referred calls to Paul Hefner, spokesman for the “Dump Denham” recall campaign.
“The voters have caught on to Jeff Denham. They’re recalling him for the same reasons people take unsafe toys off the shelf and tainted meat out of supermarkets-because they’re no good, and because we deserve better,” Hefner said in a statement.
This is a pretty big deal. I really hadn’t been paying much attention to this recall possibility, but it’s come to fruition. There have only been 8 other recall elections of sitting state legislators to qualify for the ballot in the past 90 years. Jeff Denham becomes the ninth.
The recall attempt of Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Atwater, has gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced Tuesday.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger must set the recall election for a date 60 to 80 days from today, Bowen’s office reports.
Once the Governor sets the date, (it seems almost certain that he’ll pick June 3, which is 77 days away and also the day of the statewide primary) candidates can emerge. And given Sen. Perata’s interest in this race, I think we’ll see some strong Democrats contest this seat, unlike the somewhat shameful behavior in SD-15, where apparently Abel Maldonado’s vote for last year’s budget got him a reprieve from any challenge (right now there’s no Democrat on the ballot to face Maldonado, though a write-in campaign still has time to emerge). However, this does put the Senate in play to flip to a 2/3 majority, given this race and the race in SD-19 with Hannah-Beth Jackson versus Tony Strickland.
Like the gubernatorial recall in 2003, there will be two questions on the ballot. The first will ask if Denham should be recalled, and the second will ask who among a list of challengers should replace him.
It seems to me that this is an excellent opportunity to message-test the major themes around the budget, revenues, and spending in advance of the nasty legislative fight and the November general election. While I don’t expect this recall to be as exciting as Gray Davis’, or to feature Gary Coleman, to the extent that it’s a referendum on failed conservative ideology I think it could be extremely revelatory.
Robert is our resident expert in this neck of the state, I expect him to chime in.
UPDATE: Apparently, the old No on 93 team is getting back together to support Denham. So expect them to make this about Perata and a power grab. Whatever they choose, this will be extremely costly to the CRP at a time when they don’t have the money. And they have to be extremely nervous about this stat:
The recall campaign, funded by the Democratic Party and a campaign committee linked to Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, turned in more than 61,000 signatures last month, nearly double the 31,084 need to qualify.
I would guess that 61,000 voters would be more than enough to dump Denham in June.
Give him credit: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the first Republican in California’s Capitol to begin taking off the budget blinders.
He’s actually advocating tax increases, give or take some semantics….
It was clear to Schwarzenegger that, for political and practical reasons, the deficit hole could not be filled with spending cuts alone. He decided to support loophole closings. But advisors were surprised when the governor spontaneously popped out with the idea the next morning during an audience Q&A after addressing Town Hall Los Angeles.
“I’m a big believer,” he said, “that when we have a financial crisis like this that we all should chip in. And this is why I totally agree with the legislative analyst’s office when she says that we should look at tax loopholes….
Democratic leaders should consider it an invitation to offer Schwarzenegger a tax proposal. The governor finally agrees with them, it seems, that the state does have a revenue problem — not simply a spending problem.
This is a productive development, as it is becoming obvious that catastrophic education cuts are not the answer to our budget crisis. But even this welcome news has to be tempered by some political and fiscal realities.
First, there seems to be some disagreement among Sacramento Democrats on what to do about the budget. Skelton believes that the Arnold-Núñez vs. Perata dynamic is about to replay itself:
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) wants to fashion a budget proposal through the traditional legislative process, with public hearings, and avoid closed-door negotiations between leaders and the governor. That’s fine. But this is ominous: He’s vowing “the fight of a lifetime,” threatening to block budget passage all summer if necessary to protect school funding, insisting loophole-closing isn’t enough and talking up a sales tax increase.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) is more attuned to Schwarzenegger.
“If other Democrats want to beat up the governor, I respect their views,” he says. “But I think the governor is a good man and doesn’t want to make cuts any more than I do. Now it’s up to us to show him a road map to a balanced budget.”
Nuñez isn’t ready to support a general tax increase, like on sales. That should be a “last resort,” he says. For now, he advocates closing business loopholes. For example, he’d impose an oil severance tax — California is the only state without one, he says — and raise $1 billion.
Núñez is simply wrong to believe that a general tax increase can be avoided. An oil severance tax has its place, but even with loophole closures, something like a sales tax increase – or sales tax modernization – or the restoration of the VLF is a necessity if we are to avoid crippling cuts. Tax loophole closure and an oil severance tax would bring in around $3.7 billion, but that leaves over $4 billion in cuts. The VLF sits as a fat target, with the potential to bring $6 billion a year into the state’s account. It would be nice if someone in Sacramento started talking more loudly about that.
Of course, it’s by no means clear what role Núñez, who has grown closer politically to Arnold over his term as speaker, will actually play in these negotiations. Whereas the Senate handover of power from Perata to Darrell Steinberg is scheduled for August 21, the transition from Núñez to Karen Bass is much less clearly defined. And we don’t yet seem to know where Speaker-elect Bass stands on the tax issue.
We do know where the Yacht Party stands. Capitol Alert reports today that Dick Ackerman and Mike Villines have both come out strongly against any new taxes. They’ve decided to stake their party’s future on the construction of an aristocracy in California, where low taxes are paid for by permanent inequality as our education, transportation, and health care services are destroyed and with it, the state’s economy.
A united front is going to be necessary to break the Republicans. Democrats need to work out their differences soon and present that unity, for the sake of Californians and the state’s future.
(This is the story of the week here in California, and deserves front and center attention on Calitics today. Updated with a YouTube of the press conference and a transcript of some of Perata’s remarks. – promoted by Robert in Monterey)
The headline, State Democrats determined to raise taxes, is kind of ridiculous, but the meat of the story indicates that Democratic leaders are drawing a line in the sand.
Democratic legislative leaders declared this morning that they are prepared to delay the state budget this year if that’s what it takes to get tax increases, which they called the only reasonable solution to California’s multibillion-dollar shortfall.
“This is going to be the fight of a lifetime,” Senate leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) declared at a news conference on the steps of a Sacramento high school that faces teacher layoffs and bigger classes under the governor’s proposed budget, which closes the deficit with spending cuts, borrowing and deferrals.
“We are not going to be going anywhere this summer,” he said, referring to the annual midyear process of trying to agree on a budget by the July 1 start of the new fiscal year. “I told everybody that wants to go to the Democratic [National] Convention, … TiVo it. That is close as you are going to get.”
Perata drew his line in the sand while standing with his successor as Senate chief, Democrat Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento, and other Democratic senators and school leaders. Perata said the governor’s proposal to cut school spending by 10% is unacceptable, and Democrats will reject any budget that includes less for education next year than this year.
There was a big press conference with a union coalition and the LAUSD today that essentially had the same purpose. The Democrats are going to use this proposed slash to the education budget – with which will impact almost every county in the state – to demand a sensible resolution to our broken revenue structure. Here’s Perata’s message:
Asked how Democrats propose to make up the difference, Perata said: “Raise taxes. That clear enough? Raise taxes.”
Given the state’s dire finances, he said, “no one is going to tell me . . . the average Californian would not be willing to pay pennies on the dollar more for an education system . . . that is worth what we believe California is about.”
The second statement is exactly the way to play this. California is worth paying for. This state deserves a better education system than it’s getting, a better health care system than it’s getting, better infrastructure than it’s getting. Because of the broken revenue model, we can’t even fund the landmark global warming law that got the Governor on the cover of all those magazines. Paying for this state to have the society everyone generally wants is a patriotic act. That’s exactly the frame the Democrats are using.
There’s a hint of a “go-for-broke” strategy here, which I believe is sped up by the transition in the leadership. We’ve needed to have this fight for 20 years. Despite legislative majorities, the conservatives have been leading the way on fiscal issues for far too long. It’s time to have this conversation once and for all, out in the open so that every Californian knows what’s going on. Let’s put on our helmets. This is going to be a long, tough slog.
UPDATE: From an Education Coalition press release:
Today a local coalition of concerned parents and educators held a press conference to discuss the real impact on local schools of the Governor’s proposed $4.8 billion cut to education funding, including more than $1.3 billion in projected in cuts to Los Angeles County schools. They called upon members of the Legislature to uphold Prop. 98, the minimum school funding guarantee, and reject the draconian proposed cuts to schools and students.
“Schools in Los Angeles are striving to meet the needs of a diverse student population while working to improve student achievement,” said LAUSD Superintendent David L. Brewer III. “Our state’s leaders cannot continue to cut back on students’ education, without expecting to undermine our state’s most valuable resource and shortchanging California’s future.”
The proposed cuts are the equivalent of cutting more than $24,000 per classroom.
They’re planning on running ads about this, too.
UPDATE 2 [Robert]: Some of Perata’s remarks are transcribed below:
Perata: Well it’s not enough. He’s cut about 5 billion and he’s only half way there. We’re looking at everything including the tax breaks. The governor recanted a day later so I don’t think he’s there yet. Got snapped at by the Republicans and went to the right corner. We want to fund education consistent with the need. First thing got to do and Tom McClintock says when in a hole got to stop digging. We’re in a deep hole. I will settle for being eye level with street.
Q: How are you not going to cut the school classrooms?
[Robert: this is the best part of Perata’s remarks, IMO]
P: Raise taxes, is that clear enough. Raise taxes. No one is going to tell me what’s at stake that average Californian wouldn’t be willing to pay pennies on the dollars more for an educational system here that is worth what we believe what California about. Let’s face it sending more people to prison and paying $60,000 a year because we don’t have enough opportunities for kids when younger . We’re backwards. It’s not going to get any better if keep doing this. I don’t care if it is a temporary tax increase, a long term tax increase, the longer we stop talking about the need to have more revenues and say that’s a nice anticeptic phrase for raising taxes the longer we are going to be here. And I tell you we’re not going home, we’re staying here, we are committed, if the Reeps can hang out last year for 30 days to undue the state budget we will do no less to make sure we will preserve the one institution that is the cornerstone of democracy. If we believe it have to show we believe it.
Q: What taxes, cuts?
P: Hard enough for people to come to grips with saying the words. Now we are wet and you can’t get more wet so we are going to do what we have to do. We are going to have to make cuts but we are not going to make cuts out of the classroom. There’s a lot of services Californians want that if you put that next to classroom education pales in comparison so they will be put on the table…And say let’s eliminate these things because we can’t afford them….the Governor thought he would try that with parks, that didn’t last too long, lasted about an hour. There are other things we do around here people don’t know about we are going to have to stop doing them. Make hard choices. But Savaging 10 percent of the school budget is not a hard choice it’s no choice at all. Not going to make that choice.
Q: What can schools count on?:
P: That this is fight of a lifetime. Not going anywhere. Democratic Convention. Told them Tivo it, close as you are going to get. Dems in 90’s hung out until October and election year. We won and we won seats. [Robert: this likely refers to the 1992 budget fight with Pete Wilson, which dragged into October. Interestingly 1992 was a very Democratic year at the ballot box, just as 2008 is expected to be.]
Q: What types of taxes, temporary?
P: Two things have to consider, temporary is, we love sunseting things around here. We don’t have the best record for the way we spend people’s money. So maybe temporary better. We may want to do more allow local districts like this one to have more flexibility, more opportunities to go to their own parents, own voters have kind of schools we used to have before Proposition 13. Before Prop 13 school districts’ board members would decide what kind of budget they wanted to reflect their students and set the tax rate. While here ought to be thorough look at everything.
What people seem to like best is a sales tax or raising taxes on others.
Capitol Alert is alerting, as it does that after a budget meeting yesterday that may have gotten a little dicey, Don Perata stripped Dem Sen. Joe Simitian (Palo Alto) of his chairmanship in the Environmental Quality Committee. Simitian apparently had some dissenting notions on how education money should be apportioned. Rising Senate Pro Tem Steinberg told the tale:
“We ran into a little bit of a controversy, if you will, with the Prop 98 issue and one of our members had a very legitimate, Joe Simitian had a very legitimate point of view about whether or not we rebench Prop 98,” said Steinberg. “You know Senator Perata and Senator (Denise) Ducheny (the chair of the budget committee) did not want to rebench Prop 98 down as a result of one of the cuts we were making.”
Of course this is more or less par for the course with Perata and handing down time-outs to misbehaving legislators. He locked Dems out of their offices last year for wavering a bit too much on party loyalty and booted Rep. Sen. Jeff Denham (now being recalled thanks to Perata) from the Senate Governmental Organization Committee for not passing a budget.
I’m not gonna venture a guess as to what went on exactly in the meeting, but one wonders if/when these maneuvers will come with a stool in the corner and a dunce cap. And whether, long-term, the party/Perata loyalty is improved or not.
Well, that didn’t take long. Yesterday, we pointed out a Capitol Weekly story indicating that Sen. Steinberg was planning to run to be the Senate Leader. Today, it appears to be a done deal. The CA Majority Report is now citing “several legislative sources” that Senator Perata has “orchestrated” a smooth transition to Senator Steinberg, a fairly progressive Sacramentan. Sen. Steinberg will take over as leader on August 21, a few months before Perata is termed out of office.
Now, I guess we’re left with watching the Assembly for all the “palace intrigue.”
[UPDATE by Dave]: And if this part of that intrigue is true, there’s going to be some serious pushback:
Meanwhile, very reliable sources tell me that Democratic Assemblymember Charles Calderon has been trying to put together a deal with the Republicans in the Assembly-who number 32 in all-and to cobble together at least 9 Democrats in the body to get to 41, the magical number to become Speaker.
If we have a Lieber-Speaker in the midst, that’s not going to work out well, to put it charitably. This needs some attention.
It looks like the dream of major health care reform is over in California, at least for this year. The LA Times reports:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s yearlong effort to arrange medical insurance for nearly all Californians will be rejected by a state Senate panel this afternoon, according to people familiar with the decision.
The move would effectively kill one of the governor’s most ambitious policy goals.
Senate President Don Perata (D-Oakland) made the decision after canvassing Democratic senators over the weekend and finding almost no support for the measure, which the Assembly passed last month.
There was some thought that Perata would use some parliamentary maneuvers to ensure the bill’s passage, but apparently he couldn’t find anyone to create a majority for the measure.
Anthony York openly wonders whether or not this spells the end of the current leadership structure in the state Legislature.
But watching the California Legislature in action last week felt like watching the end of an era — and bearing witness to the creation of a power vacuum. In a political ballet that played out over several days, the prospects for two seemingly unrelated but intimately connected political issues — a healthcare reform bill and a change in the state’s term-limits law — withered simultaneously. And as their fortunes sank, so did the power of the current legislative leadership […]
Then more bad news for the healthcare bill. Mid-afternoon Wednesday, Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino) announced that she too was voting against the legislation, citing concerns about the affordability of the mandated insurance.After her vote, a senator who sits on the committee characterized the situation as a “total implosion.” He told me that the rumored poll numbers on Proposition 93 were making it harder to get the healthcare bill out of committee. If the prospects for the initiative’s passage were as bad as the numbers suggested, he said, the stigma of a lame duck, and a corresponding loss of influence, might attach to Perata and Nuñez.
Let me say that health care reform may end in California for now, but it does not end nationally, and indeed one has little effect on the other. This is still something in which Americans are broadly in favor. And it’s still a framework that every Democratic candidate has laid out. With a new Democratic President, health care reform will be at the top of the agenda, and at the federal level it has a far greater chance of being fiscally sustainable. There are still significant measures that could be taken in California that would improve conditions, in particular mandating guaranteed issue and expanding public programs. But the perils and pitfalls of balancing an enormous overhaul on an unsteady budgetary picture proved too great.
I’m not shocked, or even particularly saddened, by this. It never really looked to me like the finances worked out, and though the political coalition around the bill was heartening and impressive, the rabid dead-enders of the Californian GOP (they’re actually worse than national Republicans) wouldn’t allow even a cent of new money, and without a truly stable funding source, you really can’t do this at the state level. Indeed, money is why all these state plans fail. For fiscal reasons, this has to be a federal initiative. Because states are more politically flexible than the federal government, they can often seem a more viable arena for health reform. But the policies always collapse.
