(Assembly Bill 23xxx, the employment benefits extension bill, passed the Assembly. I added the Speaker’s video discussing it. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

There are two bills likely to come up for vote this week that would allow California to receive billions in stimulus funding, both of which have been subject to Yacht Party obstruction thus far of the Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin variety.

First up is the unemployment benefits extension bill which Republicans rejected last week.  There are actually two separate measures, one which would extend benefits and one which would increase the pool of people eligible for those benefits, but the extension is the one that will be voted on as soon as today.  Kudos to the SacBee for noting that the Governor has taken no position on these bills, despite the bromance rhetoric about the President and the stimulus.

The Assembly is expected to vote this week, probably today, on a bill that would pave the way for California to extend its lifeline for out-of-work residents by five months at federal expense.

The measure would ensure an extra $2.5 billion to $3 billion in federal funds for emergency benefits at a time when California is mired in recession, with an unemployment rate above 10 percent.

Passage would mean $6,140 in additional benefits for an out-of-work person receiving the state’s average benefit of $307 per week. Benefits range from $65 to $475, based on previous income earned […]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger supports both concepts but has not taken a position on specific legislation, aides said.

Schwarzenegger has “no position” because the Chamber of Commerce doesn’t like anything that could lead to higher corporate taxes, and they hold the puppet strings on our last action hero.  The vote on this has yet to be recorded in the Assembly, so we shall see what the Yacht Party decides.

The second bill, currently in the State Senate, concerns Medi-Cal eligibility requirements that would open up even more federal funding.

Although California is slated to receive more than $31 billion in federal money, a change in eligibility rules for Medi-Cal made as part of this year’s budget prevents California from qualifying for more than 25 percent of those  federal funds.

In order to do so, the state must have the same Medi-Cal eligibility rules today as those in place July 1, 2008.

The problem was caused by an attempt to save $70 million by changing eligibility rules for children receiving care from Medi-Cal was contained in the 85-day record late budget signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last September.

Under the change, children must fill out a report every six months confirming their continuing eligibility along with their parents who were already required to fill out such a report prior to the change in law.

Critics of the requirement say that most of the children who lose eligibility do so because they forget to turn in the paperwork, not because they actually lose eligibility. Sorting out such issues increases Medi-Cal costs to counties, who administer the program locally.

To get the federal money, the state must change the law before July 1, 2009 so that kids don’t need to fill out the report. The bill would do that.

Let’s be entirely clear – the Administration was banking on oversights from poor families who qualify for Medi-Cal to save the state money.  That’s borderline immoral and it ought to be addressed.  Elaine Alquist is carrying the bill in the Senate, and on this one, Schwarzenegger has seen the error of his ways and promises to sign it.  Will the Yacht Party follow suit, or prefer budgeting by forcing bureaucratic red tape on the poor?

The Yacht Party wrapped up their convention in Sacramento yesterday, and while they didn’t censure the members of the caucus who voted for tax hikes, they did deprive them of support in future elections.  There’s a problem with this, of course – only Dave Cogdill and Anthony Adams are running for their seats in the next election, as everyone else is termed out.  In addition, what this really prevents is slate mailers, not really anything else.  It doesn’t prevent mailers that candidates can buy a spot on, or funding from individual members of the party, etc.  This measure is good for the “heads on a stick” crowd but not for much else.  You can already see the Yacht Party trying to run away from the insanity they’ve enabled for 30 years.

Shortly before the voice vote, a banner reading “The Six Losers” was unveiled listing lawmakers who voted for the budget. State Republican chairman Ron Nehring quickly closed curtains to cover the sign, which was displayed behind the table of party executive officers.

Hilarious.

I eagerly await seeing how the suicide cult reacts to a gubernatorial candidate who will try to buy the election.  Meg Whitman is certainly an economic conservative but differs with the base on a few social issues.  Unlike with an Assembly or Senate candidate, the state party delegates will have no chance of holding the purse strings over someone like Meg Whitman.

Ms. Whitman predicted that her campaign could cost $150 million, much of it coming from her own fortune. (Forbes most recently estimated it at $1.4 billion.)

This doesn’t make her unbeatable, even in the primary – Ms. Whitman, say hello to Al Checchi.  But it does mean that the base will have less leverage and less relevance.

I’m reading the accounts of delusional maniacs from across the state with not a little bit of bemusement.  The lack of economic thought is matched only by the lack of recognition that Republicans got far more out of this budget than they deserved to get, thanks to the anti-democratic 2/3 requirement.  Here’s a sample of this Algonquin Roundtable:

“The Republicans should have stood their ground,” fumed 70-year-old Tony Dragonetti. “Abel Maldonado is sick, and so are the other Republicans who voted for this. They give the you-owe-me crowd everything they need, but the poor slob who is working day after day paying taxes gets nothing.” […]

“I think they could have held out. There are a lot more cuts they could have made,” said Steve Pyle, 61, who said he was so unhappy with the country’s direction that he seriously was considering moving to Australia. “They could start by getting rid of all the illegal immigrants and the teachers unions.” […]

“I don’t believe everything would have stopped if this budget wasn’t passed,” Sanders said. “I support what the Republicans did.”

Local GOP activist Adele Harrison predicted new taxes would push the state and country into a depression […]

Terry Carter, 65, just smiled behind the counter and kept pouring coffee. The boisterous regulars have helped keep him in business for 22 years. As for his own opinions, he keeps those to himself.

“Sometimes the smartest thing you can do is listen,” he said.

Well, that depends on who you’re listening to.  For example, listening to talk radio is most definitely NOT the smartest thing you can do.  I’ve been tuning in to a lot of this down in Southern California, and the ignorance abounds.  A typical commenter is a well-off suburbanite bitching about $700 bucks in new taxes for their $126,000 salary (that was an actual conversation).  Roger Niello, one of the Yacht Party’s own who voted for the budget, got hammered on a Sacramento station.

John in Sacramento warned, “You’re going to bankrupt the state with taxes.”

And Dave in Cameron Park told Niello he was “outraged that you, as a Republican, caved in and voted with Democrats.” […]

“You should have let (California) fall off a cliff,” John from Sacramento told him. “Then, we pick up the pieces and put this state together, the way it used to be.” (emphasis mine)

This is the suicide cult politics played by the GOP.  And it features a lot of righteous anger and talk of censure and recalls and primary challenges.  There’s even some Ventura County Supervisor and anti-tax nut who’s mulling a run for Governor as the conservative alternative.

But I’m not sure it’s such a force anymore.  The John and Ken show ended Thursday with the two musing that “somebody should do something about this” and asking listeners to find each other to fight against the turncoats.  In other words, they’re not going to lead it.  Ultimately, these are lazy people shouting at the end of the bar.  Independents have turned dramatically against them, and the leader of the party won’t show up at their convention.  I don’t know that they’re entirely coordinated, after years of mismanagement and an almost broke state party apparatus, to even pull off the enforcer role.  If someone like Anthony Adams survives a primary challenge, that would be a powerful signal that the Yacht Party is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

In fact, in maybe the most pathetic rallying speech I’ve ever heard in my lifetime, neo-Hooverist South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford argued for losing now, losing tomorrow, losing forevah!

“We are at the incredible gut check point for what happens next in American civilization,” Sanford said in the introductory address for the state party’s three-day Sacramento convention […]

“Would you be willing to lose? Would you be willing to support folks who may likely lose,” Sanford told the gathering at the Capitol Hyatt. He went on to say that it was paramount for party members to support the GOP “at a time when it may look like a losing cause” because their efforts will be “pushing the ball forward in the larger conservative movement.”

California Republicans: Willing To Lose.

Two months ago I wrote about how Mike Villines’ threats on the budget were illegal under Section 86 of the California Penal Code:

86.  Every Member of either house of the Legislature, or any member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district, who asks, receives, or agrees to receive, any bribe, upon any understanding that his or her official vote, opinion, judgment, or action shall be influenced thereby, or shall give, in any particular manner, or upon any particular side of any question or matter upon which he or she may be required to act in his or her official capacity, or gives, or offers or promises to give, any official vote in consideration that another Member of the Legislature, or another member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district shall give this vote either upon the same or another question, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years and, in cases in which no bribe has been actually received, by a restitution fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) or not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or, in cases in which a bribe was actually received, by a restitution fine of at least the actual amount of the bribe received or two thousand dollars ($2,000), whichever is greater, or any larger amount of not more than double the amount of any bribe received or ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever is greater.

It appears that the California Labor Federation includes some readers.  Yesterday, they sent a letter to the Attorney General calling for an investigation into illegal vote-trading.

The charge by leaders of the California Labor Federation, State Building and Construction Trades Council, Sierra Club California and the Planning and Conservation League stems from reports that Republican legislative leadership are withholding their votes on a state budget as they attempt to extract votes on policy matters unrelated to the budget.

“Republicans are holding the state budget hostage in a shameful attempt to gut vital workplace and environmental standards that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget,” said California Labor Federation Executive Secretary-Treasurer Art Pulaski. “These actions aren’t just unconscionable, they may be criminal.”

According to a release from the California Labor Federation and the Sierra club there are several examples of actions that may be in violation of California Penal Code.

“Specifically, (Republican leaders) have demanded that legislators vote for proposals to weaken labor and environmental standards as a condition for any ‘aye’ vote from Republican caucus members on the overall budget,” the letter states.

According to the release, “This conduct appears to violate Penal Code Section 86, which prohibits any legislator from offering to give his or her vote in exchange for another legislator’s vote on the same or a different matter.”

Some would call this the criminalization of politics, but in this state, politics is too often a criminal enterprise, and it’s high time somebody was taught a lesson.  Like the Yacht Party.  

AG Brown should do this.  There’s already a Facebook group set up; I urge you to join it.  End the Blagojevich-ization of the California legislature.

Two nominations here.  By the way, since it recently came up in comments, the reason we here at Calitics call the California Republican Party the “Yacht Party” can be best explained here and here.

Nominee #1: Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield, who introduced a bill that would eliminate IOUs for tax refunds.

State Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, has introduced legislation requiring California’s controller to issue state income tax refunds in cash.

Controller John Chiang has announced his office will have to delay refunds for 30 days starting Feb. 1 because of the state’s cash-flow problems. He has threatened he may have to issue refunds in the form of IOUs if a budget addressing the $41 billion shortfall the state’s projected to have by mid-2010 isn’t passed.

Chiang has said refunds will resume when he’s sure there’s enough state cash on hand.

Ashburn has said tax refund money belongs to the taxpayers, not the government, and taxpayers should get it back in the form it was paid – “cold, hard cash.” California’s constantly taking in cash, he’s said.

Hey Roy, I know a bill you could pass that would get cold hard cash back in the hands of your constituents.  It’s called the budget, and without it California is out of money, and fiduciary responsibilities (sorry for the $1 word) stipulate that other priorities must be paid first.  It’s called “how government works,” and though you’re a State Senator I’m not surprised at your ignorance.

Nominee #2: Faux-moderate Abel Maldonado, angry about the Controller’s office “requesting new furniture” even though the current Controller, uh, didn’t do that.

“I don’t like the fact that hard working people in my district are getting IOUs and he’s buying millions of dollars worth of furniture,” Maldonado said in an interview. (For the record, taxpayers due refunds from the state and others missing payments aren’t getting IOUs just yet. They’re simply not receiving anything at all.) […]

Chiang’s office struck back, calling Maldonado’s accusation “pathetic.”

“Had he done any homework, the senator should have realized that the expansion project, including furniture,…began before Controller Chiang took office,” his office said.

Further, Chiang’s office argued, the controller “demanded that staff cut down the costs, and by changing financing, materials, design, and construction, reduced the overall expense of the project by more than 50 percent” – a $4 million savings.

Next for Maldonado, he’ll lambaste Arnold Schwarzenegger for Prop. 187.  Wanker.

Good ol’ Jon Fleischman is at it again. It seems Jon is getting a bit worried that some of his fellow Republicans aren’t willing to throw the state off the cliff.  Yup, Jon wants to break the unions, break the state, and break the government for all but the wealthiest amongst us.  Developing nation status here we come!

What did he do today? Why he brought a resolution for consideration by the California Republican Party, of which he is one of the vice chairmen.

Fleischman, who publishes the conservative FlashReport Web site, said the resolution is meant as a “stick” to dissuade GOP legislators from agreeing to any budget plan with higher taxes crafted with majority Democrats and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“I think it is fair to say that if you are a Republican and, between now and the February convention, you vote for tax increases, you are likely to be censured by your party and cast out among the unwanted,” he said.

The resolution goes one step further than a censure. It calls for changes in party bylaws to allow the Republican Party “to campaign and contribute funds against these pro-tax Republican legislators in primaries, and in general elections.” (CapAlert 2/2/09)

As a member of the resolutions committee on the Democratic side, my guess is that this will face substantial heat.  But, as Nate Silver pointed out for the national GOP, the Yacht party is in a death spiral in California to an even greater extent.  As it loses supporters, its base clamors for more attention.  And, as you can see, the base is a rigidly ideological beast in search of a failed state.  That in turn turns more voters off, and the spiral continues.  This is a generally progressive state, with only one party that speaks to anything resembling a majority of the state.

So, who knows, maybe this will pass, and Fleischman will be touted as a hero as he seeks to become some sort of Chief Wingnut. But as he bloviates about bringing the state down, at least we get a peek at his real agenda:

Of course, the state should run counter to the economic times.  Anybody with an introductory economic class knows that.  The government is most needed when the state is in bad shape, and now is not the time to be slashing budgets, firing teachers, furloughing workers that are trying to process unemployment claims, and destroying workers’ rights.  No, this is the time to increase government spending, and doing it through the least economically painful method. Unfortunately, Republicans are barring every possible escape route. It’s like Dwight Shrute is playing games with the fire drills or something.