As a recent graduate of San Francisco State University, I am thrilled that there is finally momentum gaining in the movement to achieve real public higher education reform in California. In particular, the Middle Class Scholarship Act is an economically feasible way to make public higher education more affordable for all Californians.

California’s public college students are continuing to struggle. The CSU Board of Trustees’ recent decision to close Spring 2013 enrollment is just one of the devastating blows that our public higher education students have been forced to endure, with no end in sight.

Luckily, help for California’s public university students and their families could be on the way. The Middle Class Scholarship Act recently proposed by California State Assembly Speaker John A. Perez is exactly the kind of public higher education reform that California’s students and their families need in these difficult financial times.

If it is approved by two-thirds of the California State Legislature, the Middle Class Scholarship Act will provide scholarships to approximately 150,000 CSU students and roughly 42,000 UC students who have family incomes less than $150,000 and whom do not already have their fees covered. These Middle Class Scholarships will slash student fees by two-thirds. Additionally, our California Community Colleges will receive $150 million to address their unique needs. The Middle Class Scholarships will be paid for in full by closing a wasteful corporate loophole that only benefits out-of-state businesses.  

The Middle Class Scholarship is an innovative solution to California’s public higher education crisis that will help students achieve their dreams, while at the same time, ensure that our Golden State has a strong workforce that is prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century economy.

I know that as a student, it is difficult just to make time to study and to work but I strongly urge all of California’s UC, CSU and Community College Students to do whatever they can to help pass the Middle Class Scholarship Act and to fight for the higher education reform they deserve. From signing and sharing this petition and tweeting and posting Facbook messages to your State legislators and Governor Brown (if you don’t know who your State legislators are, you can look them up here) to organizing on campus and gathering signatures, no action is too small or insignificant. Keep the faith and, most importantly, keep making your voices heard.

If California’s public college students continue to come together and rally the support of our State legislators to pass the Middle Class Scholarship Act, I think we will finally see the dawn of real public higher education reform in California.

But he just isn’t going to be the one to sign his name to that

by Brian Leubitz

During the intermission between paychecks for the Legislators, there were a lot of angry press releases sent out decrying the nerve of that darn Controller.  And at the time, I thought aloud that eventually somebody would challenge it, though the nerve of that particular legislator would likely be something to behold.

And I stick to that more than ever today.  Yesterday, Sen. Steinberg says that the COntroller really didn’t have the authority to decide what was balanced, and that his decision needs to be litigated.

Steinberg, a Sacramento Democrat, said the issue needs to be legally challenged, though he still doesn’t know who will pursue the case.

“In the moment, of course, it was a popular decision,” Steinberg told The Bee’s Capitol Bureau. “But over the long term, do we really want any governor of the state of California, or a controller, or it could be an attorney general, to say, ‘I demand more cuts. I demand solutions different from what you presented or else people aren’t going to get paid.’ ”

*** **** ***

“I think it was an erroneous decision,” Steinberg said. “And I think over time it will be seen as a decision with very troubling precedent for this state and our system of government.”(SacBee)

I’m not sure that it made a really huge difference this time, as it was ultimately the Gov. that tossed in the towel this time.  But next time this comes up, what if the Governor, perhaps even a Republican…gasp!, is playing Arnold-like games of brinksmanship.  Does the legislator, sans pay, really have the ability to hold out forever?

For a few years, San Francisco’s legislators have been pushing, in one form or another, legislation to allow at least that county to control additional forms of taxation.  The chief target of that has been the vehicle license fee since the time that Gov. Schwarzenegger lopped off a huge chunk of revenue from that source.  Both Sen. Migden and Leno have been keen on allowing my fair city to restore the VLF to return revenue to the City and County of San Francisco.

Now, there have been a few stumbling blocks around this.  Logistically, the taxes would be approved by different majorities depending upon the election circumstances.  That’s not an overwhelming obstacle, but certainly getting 2/3 is challenging.  Not impossible, as the slew of parcel taxes over the past few years has shown, but difficult nonetheless.

But in a larger sense, it would be something of a declaration of war against the Republicans and their ideology.  And frankly Gov. Schwarzenegger was having no part of that policy, or of the politics.  But things are different now; Gov. Brown is not Gov. Schwarzenegger, and the time for a smooth reconciliation is drawing ever smaller.

And so, the possibility of local taxation is back in a major way.  This would allow counties to tax a whole slew of items that were previously regulated only by the state, and the anti-taxers are none too pleased.  Dan Morain has an excellent column on the subject in today’s Bee:

The latest: Grant all 58 counties the power to tax everything from booze and cigarettes to oil extraction and personal income. Don’t forget cars, soda pop and more, assuming voters would approve the new local levies. … Lobbyists representing the oil, tobacco, soft drink, auto industry and many more are taking the latest tactic in California’s budget battle seriously.

“I know it has gotten the attention of a lot of people, and I’m glad,” Steinberg told me Wednesday. “The majority party needs to begin, appropriately and intelligently, using the power of its majority.  One way or another, it is our responsibility to do everything we can do to avoid $5 billion in cuts to education, and billions in cuts to public safety.” (SacBee)

As this doesn’t actually raise any taxes, it is a majority vote measure. No Republican votes are necessary.  Tony Strickland was suitably apoplectic, but really nothing new there.  And as the budget fight grows longer, and more teachers get pink slips, county supervisors are going to find this ability extremely attractive.  While voters won’t have the right to vote on statewide taxes, they may get the chance to vote on local taxes.

As Morain suggests in his column, this really isn’t the ideal situation.  It’s one more way to draw the line between the haves and the havenots of the state.  What we’ll end up with is Bay Area counties with more stable revenue streams, while the Central Valley faces ever deepening cuts.  The inequality would be both troubling, and possibly violate some laws.

On the other hand, counties that choose a more reasonable fiscal path shouldn’t necessarily be bogged down by an obstinate minority in the Legislature.  And if this is what it is coming to, then so be it.  The state, and the counties, need additional revenue.  There are several counties that have shown themselves ready to tax themselves, and we shouldn’t rule that out right away.  If the decision is between inconsistency across counties, and keeping thousands of teachers in classrooms, I suspect many Californians would opt for the inconsistency.  Heck, at least that way our kids can learn about inconsistency at school.

Perhaps this is just a negotiation ploy, but it is one that should be viewed from a serious policy perspective.  It’s certainly not the best alternative, but it is among the best options that we have remaining, given the Republican Minority.

Sen. Steinberg looks pretty peeved in this little impromptu press conference.  His frustration with dealing with the Republicans is plainly visible, and for that you really can’t blame him.  After all, if you can blame him for anything, it is being too patient with them.  The question that is worth pondering now is whether we should have seen this coming three months ago?

Look, the Republicans are content to sit there and let the clock tick down.  As we proceed now, Gov. Brown becomes less popular, and there is a decreased sense of unity of purpose after the disaster that was Gov. Schwarzenegger.  Really, if your goal is to beat the government into submission, at this point you are just playing the long game.

And so the Republicans just sit there, taking their salary, taking that per diem, and sitting around playing tiddleywinks.  They haven’t even proposed anything resembling a full solution to the budget plan.  They keep talking about pension reform, but any economist or budget analyst can tell you that even if you did slash into public pensions, the savings wouldn’t come for at least 5-10 years.

In other words, the Republicans aren’t serious about balancing the budget.  They are content to watch the teacher layoffs and the elderly lose assistance.  It is all one big piece of white noise to them.

So, will the Democratic leadership give up? Well, at some point they won’t have a choice, but the Republicans are aware of that and have their own plan:

As Gov. Jerry Brown mulls his options on how to bring an election on taxes to the voters, Republicans are readying election measures of their own. GOP operatives filed two initiatives with the attorney general’s office Thursday — one to curb public employee pensions and another aimed at capping future state spending — in the event Brown walks away from talks with Republican lawmakers and opts for a November special election.

“I want to make sure appropriate reforms join any potential November election,” said former Assemblyman Roger Niello, the sponsor of the pension initiative. Niello, one of the Republicans to support tax increases in 2009, said he supports the five senators who are trying to broker a compromise with Brown. “My preference is that they work out a deal,” he said. (LA Times)

If it comes to a November ballot, it’s going to be pricey, and there are going to be a lot of ugly measures.  This just might end up being 2005 all over again. Whether it will defeat Gov. Brown like it did to Schwarzenegger is a whole other question.

(Cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)

This morning Assembly Speaker John Pérez and Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg announced the Clean Energy Jobs Initiative, a package of four bills that focus on green jobs and clean energy growth.

CLCV is excited to see the leaders of both houses focusing on the environment. We have not yet fully reviewed the proposed legislation so we're reserving comments on most of the package details.

The one bill we wholeheartedly support is Senator Simitian's 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) bill. We've been working on this issue for years because a 33% RPS would have huge environmental and economic impacts, including:

• displacing nearly 13 million metric tons of global warming emissions in 2020—equivalent to removing almost 3 million cars from the road, or enough to avoid 10 to 15 new large fossil fuel power plants;
• stimulating clean technology investment and innovation, and creating “green collar jobs;”
• diversifying the state’s energy supply and protecting consumers from natural gas price volatility;
• helping to meet our pollution cap under the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32;
• promoting long-term planning for infrastructure needed to support high levels of renewable energy development; and
• improving air quality in vulnerable communities.

Thanks to Speaker John Pérez and President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg for continuing to lead on building a greener California. We look forward to working with them on this package and to passing RPS legislation in 2011!