With all of the cuts that Governor Brown has been making, at least he found one that isn’t totally objectionable.  He just announced that he’ll be (insert bad pun here…killing, pulling the plug, …) the new death row facility that Arnold had wanted to build:

Gov. Jerry Brown pulled the plug today on plans to construct a new housing facility for condemned inmates at San Quentin.

Brown said in a statement that he believes it would “be unconscionable to earmark $356 million for a new and improved death row while making severe cuts to education and programs that serve the most vulnerable among us.” (SacBee)

Given our lack of actually putting anybody to death since the beginning of Gray Davis’ administration, this probably makes a fair bit of fiscal sense.  Of course, so would just ending the charade of a death penalty entirely, but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards for now.

But with these targeted cuts, is Jerry Brown doing what Bill Lockyer has been suggesting by targetting projects and regions favored by Republican legislators?  Earlier in the week he suggested doing just that:

State lawmakers who want an all-cuts budget because less government is better should get their wish starting with their own districts, state Treasurer Bill Lockyer said this morning.

Lockyer, visiting the Bay Area News Group-East Bay’s editorial board, said that when these lawmakers – many of whom already serve the state’s most recession-stricken areas – start hearing from their constituents about even deeper cutbacks in police and fire services, public schools and universities, social services and the like, they’ll soon think the better of stonewalling a public vote on Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to extend current tax rates for five more years. (BayAreaNewsGroup)

Indeed, Senator Steinberg has echoed the sentiment.  Of course, the question of cutting specific regions gets kind of tricky, and very dicey politically.  I’m not saying it can’t be done, but for now this is really all gamesmanship.  Gamesmanship that probably should have started a few months ago, but that’s neither here nor there.

Of course, on the flip side, Republican Senate Leader Dutton says that it is all the Democrats fault because they won’t agree to the Republican plan.  Oh right, I remember that night in November when hell froze over and the Republicans took a majority.  The fact is that the Republicans are overplaying their hand, and eventually it has to have some ramifications for them.

Cutting into the budget for the death penalty is a good start, but it isn’t going to really get to the heart of the matter.  Unless we get some movement from the Republican legislators, the cuts are going to be coming directly from classrooms.

Senator – Barbara Boxer

AKA California’s Good Senator. Boxer is a reliable liberal in a senate full of utterly useless corporate centrists, and quite unafraid to make waves in the service of doing the right thing. In a career that has mostly been dominated by Republican control of the senate, Boxer has distinguished herself by pushing back against a decade of wingnuttery. By contrast, I knew about Fiorina’s awful reputation in silicon valley a decade before she decided to make a vanity run for senate, just from techies I knew heaping scorn upon the CEO who drove HP into the ground and then walked away with millions. Thank goodness Boxer’s a formidable campaigner, and Fiorina appears to be headed for the dusty place where all the gazillionaire right wing vanity candidates go after they lose, right next to Michael Huffington.

House of Representatives

CA-01 – Mike Thompson

Mike’s generally a pretty good guy, and there have been no groaners like the credit card/bankruptcy bill. this time around. Mike’s candidate-for-life in that district, but he does a good job representing his people, and I respect that.

CA-02 – Jim Reed

This district is so gerrymandered for Republicans it isn’t funny, but I have to applaud Reed for making a serious hard run at the execrable Wally Herger, who isn’t even bothering to campaign this time around, much less debate Reed.

CA-03 – Ami Bera

I am thrilled to see Democrats finally start to compete east of the Carquinez, and Bera is certainly giving Lungren a run for his money. As a once and possibly future denizen of the 3rd CD, I really hope Bera knocks off that right wing SoCal carpetbagger. The 80 corridor has changed, and deserves a good congressman.  

Governor – Jerry Brown

I didn’t endorse Brown in the primary because he effectively wasn’t bothering to run, and did not ask for my vote. Since then, Brown has come out and made a very strong case for himself as the right candidate for this moment in time. What seemed far-out 30 years ago turns out to be just what California needs today: energy independence and a healthy green economy, bullet trains and a next-generation infrastructure, efficiency in both energy and the functioning of the state government, and a deep love of the state for who we are, in stark contrast to his opponent, who seems to spend most of her time telling us why we’d be better off making California into Texas.

By contrast, Meg Whitman is basically a failed insider trading CEO reading Pete Wilson’s cue cards, and utterly unqualified to function as governor, both experientially and tempermentally. The choice by the CA GOP to run two abrasive, disgraced CEO-turned-amateur politicians after the state has suffered through a wicked one-two punch from corrupt incompetent CEOs compounded by an amateur millionaire-turned-vanity candidate just blows my mind.

Lt. Governor – Gavin Newsom

I’ll admit it; Lt. Governor isn’t the most interesting position, and Newsom is not my ideal candidate. And yet the Lt. Gov. sits on a bunch of commissions that determine everything from offshore drilling to UC tuition. Newsom has higher ambitions, and will be on good behavior delivering on his campaign promises to hold down tuition and not risk another Deepwater Horizon blowout off the California coast. Maldonado, similarly, has higher ambitions, and will no doubt do everything in his power to impress the usual CA GOP primary voters and fundraisers by throwing monkeywrenches in a Brown administration wherever possible. Additionally, Maldonado’s role in the annual hostage crisis that is the CA budgetary process has been to demand all manner of extortionary concessions before he finally cast his vote to pass it, months late. No way I’d vote to reward that kind of jackassery.

Attorney General – Kamala Harris

I am genuinely thrilled to vote for Harris, who by all accounts has done  an innovative, thoughtful job as DA in San Francisco, trying to prevent crime by studying what makes people re-offend and trying to disrupt that vicious cycle. For well over a generation, California has tried the “lock ’em up and throw away the key!” style of policing, and it has been an utter failure on every level (unless you’re a prison guard, in which case it’s been good for business). Additionally, Harris has vowed not to appeal prop 8, and to defend the state’s carbon trading regime against corporations trying to weasel out of paying for their pollution. Naturally, Karl Rove’s corporate-funded group is gunning for Harris with everything they’ve got, and throwing all manner of negative slogans against the wall to see if anything gets traction. Cooley, by contrast, will waste CA money defending the unconstitutional mess that was prop 8. Easy choice here.

Secretary of State – Deb Bowen

Quite possibly one of my favorite statewide politicians. Competent, progressive, and an effective advocate for the reform of California’s voting machines, Bowen has more than earned her reelection.

Treasurer – Bill Lockyear

I am not a fan of Lockyear, and still hold his endorsement of Schwarzeneggar against him. And yet he has done a good job of keeping the state bonds moving in an awful economy with a lot of speculators determined to create the false image of a California on the verge of a default bankruptcy crisis. I’m not likely to support him in any contested primary, but he’s a whole lot better a treasurer than Mimi Walters would be.

Controller – John Chiang

I really like the way Chiang stood up to the Schwarzeneggar administration’s attempts to screw state workers out of sheer spiteful malevolence, and I hope he has a long career in state politics ahead of him. Definitely earned reelection.

Insurance Commissioner – Dave Jones

I was impressed with Jones in the Democratic primary, esp. his deep knowledge of insurance policy and substantial record as a consumer rights advocate, and continue to support him for those reasons. Lord knows the Insurance corporations will eat us alive if noone’s standing up to them effectively.

Superintendent of Public Instruction – Tom Torlakson

It is beyond question that our state’s public educational system is a mess, after decades of deliberate underfunding and burdensome BS testing that robs class instruction time and fattens consultants and experts while starving teachers and programs. Who you vote for in this race depends on where you think the solution lies. If you think teachers are the problem, and that the state needs to make it easier for administrators to fire them, break their unions, and lower their pay, then you probably will want to vote for the other guy. After all, that’s the mindset of the types who are backing him.

If, though, you think that teachers are the solution, and want to give our schools better funding and treat public teachers like the treasured community servants that they are, than Torlakson is your man. As a product of the CA public school system, and as someone who has taught the kids coming out of the school system, I know the strengths and weaknesses of the status quo, and I know which side I am on. I stand with teachers and Torlakson.

Board of Equalization, district 1 – Betty Yee

She seemed nice enough, although I’ll admit I was tempted for a split second to vote for the candidate named “Borg” out of sheer Trekkie geekiness. Then I remembered that’s how the state got Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and came back to my senses.

Assembly – Mariko Yamada

Mariko did such a good job standing up for the district’s interests that she got locked out of the talks on screwing the Delta and building a peripheral canal, along with Lois Wolk. She has not only voted a solid liberal line on most stuff, but has also been there for area farmers with her votes to save Williamson Act funding, one of the few things keeping back the tide of real estate speculation on Ag Land. Deserves reelection.

Judges

Keep – Carlos Moreno, Kathleen Butz

Reject – Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Ming Chin, and especially Nicholson

No recommendation – Harry Hull

I hate the way that judicial races pose all the candidates with no political or legal information and no campaigning, and then let you vote on them. People whining about the politicization for the Judiciary miss the point – it’s already politicized. On that note, here’s my reasoning for the votes:

Moreno dissented quite beautifully to prop 8 and the various decisions to let it stand. Ming Chin OTOH argued against the decision to legalize same sex marriage, then voted to uphold prop 8 after it passed.

George Nicholson is a grade a right wing activist, who wrote the “victim’s bill of rights” and is a strong proponent of “strict originalism.”

Kathleen Butz, from her information, seemed pretty middle of the road.

As for Cantil-Sakauye, I could not find any information on her legal stances, much less political ones, and I don’t trust Schwarzeneggar further than I can throw him. Better to let the next governor appoint someone else, with more of a record.

Davis School Board

Honestly, I’m still pretty upset with the way the Valley Oak closing went, and am not inclined to vote for any of the incumbants. None are crazies, and all will probably coast to reelection. I voted for Mike Nolan, for his refreshing statement that there comes a point where schools cannot be cut beyond, and that he would go to the public and ask them what they would be willing to pay for, and then float a bond well ahead of time to pay for it. I do not buy the “People in Davis don’t have the money for schools” line, not with so many Lexuses and Mercedes parked around town. Pony up, yuppies.

Ballot Initiatives

For an explanation, vote by vote, check out this diary. In a nutshell, I endorse:

YES on 19 – Let Timmy Smoke!

NO on 20 – beware of trojan horse redistricting schemes

YES on 21 – $18 a year for free entry to state parks is a great deal

NO on 22 – the budget doesn’t need yet another complicated set of restrictions

NO on 23 – Beat Texas Oil and protect CA’s green industry

YES on 24 – repeal the last budget deal’s corporate tax giveaways

YES on 25 – majority rule on budgets

NO on 26 – trojan horse corporate polluter attempt to prevent paying fines

YES on 27 return redistricting to the majority party

originally at surf putah

Treasurer Bill Lockyer has been going all around the nation to sell California debt. And suffice it to say he was not one bit pleased with the so-called prediction of debt default.

The state Treasurer’s Office came down hard this afternoon on a prediction from California Lutheran University economists that the state could default on some of its debt, calling the warning “balderdash” that is “nothing more than irresponsible fear-mongering with no basis in reality, only roots in ignorance.” (SacBee)

I guess he’s a bit shy today.

While some on Wall Street would prefer that the IOUs keep coming, it looks like they will end sooner rather than later.  JP Morgan Chase, one of our “too big to fail” banks, has decided to step in to the fray and loan the state some cash to cover expenses for the next month.

Treasurer Bill Lockyer says JPMorgan Chase & Co. has agreed to lend California $1.5 billion as part of Controller John Chiang’s plan to begin redeeming IOUs on Sept. 4.

The IOUs, which the cash-strapped state began issuing July 2 to pay many of its business vendors and other creditors, were supposed to mature Oct. 2. But Chiang said last week that the budget passed by the Legislature produced enough savings to allow for earlier redemption of the scrip — provided the state could get a $1.5-billion short-term loan by Aug. 28. (LA Times 8/19/09)

The risk here for Chase is almost zero, so what ever interest they get should be set at some sort of reasonable cost.  The state should begin issuing revenue anticipation notes soon, and Chase will then get its cash back.  I suppose it must be nice to have a billion or two to loan out when the mood strikes you.

At any rate, the ending of the IOUs was getting critical for small business that contract with the state.  They’ve been essentially financing the state during this round of the budget debacle, and these aren’t really people that can afford to do that.

Treasurer Bill Lockeyer issued a written statement today, and you can practically hear the tone in his voice: (h/t John Myers)

“With every passing day, the State’s credit rating moves closer and closer to the junk pile. If the Governor and Legislature dump us on that pile, they will end indefinitely the State’s financial ability to build schools, highways, levees — all the critical public works we need to rebuild California. If our credit rating sinks to junk status, the State will find the door to the infrastructure bond market locked shut.

“If we’re denied the ability to sell bonds, financing for infrastructure projects will cease. It won’t slow. It will stop. Many thousands of California workers will lose their jobs. Thousands of businesses will lose billions of dollars in revenue. At the precise moment our best economic recovery effort is most needed, we will fail.

Now, you would think this is an equal castigation of all parties. And I think that is the spirit in which it was intended. However, Lockyer did dip into Arnold’s bag of tricks on the question of dealing with non-budgeting issues.

I ask them to stop devoting energy to any issue that does not directly relate to closing this year’s budget gap without adding to out-year liabilities. Give Californians and the world a pleasant surprise, for once: Balance the budget now, and get back to the work of getting our state back to work.

Note to Lockyer: there are 120 legislators. About 10-20% of those legislators are tied up full-time with budget stuff. There are other serious issues that need to be dealt with, ignoring them doesn’t make them any less real.

I’ve been wondering what the federal government plans to do if California really cannot pay our bills any more? Will they allow us to descend into further cuts to already bottom dwelling public services? Will we be forced into it by the Republican minority in the state Legislature?  And more importantly, if we cannot come to an agreement, and we actually see the Republicans pull the trigger on the gun they have had to pointing at California for years, what will the feds do? Will there be a bailout? Must our state leaders crawl on glass or something to prove our desperate we really are?

Well, perhaps there is an indication in the situation with our revenue anticipation notes (RANs).  There is indication that the feds might help out.

“We’re going to need cash-flow borrowing the likes of which California has never seen, at a time when market and economic forces are stacked against us,” said Tom Dresslar, spokesman for state Treasurer Bill Lockyer. “That’s a recipe for calamity.”

*  *  *

A spokesman for the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., confirmed that Lockyer had met with Frank in late March, and that Frank was in the process of drafting legislation designed to aid states and local governments with problems similar to California’s.

“There is something in the works,” said spokesman Steve Adamske, “and that should be drafted by the end of this month … there are several ideas being considered.”(SacBee 4/15/09)

RANs are the state’s version of commercial paper. The money that the state needs to operate comes in unevenly throughout the year, so we have to sell bonds based upon our expected revenues. Usually it works quite smoothly, but because of the credit squeeze and our poor credit rating, things aren’t expected to be as easy this summer.

So, we go a-calling on the feds to guarantee our loans or something else to get our credit moving.  Perhaps this is revealing as to what will happen the next time we come a-calling.  If the feds don’t back us now, well, our day of reckoning will come sooner rather than later.  If they do help us out, perhaps the pattern, co-dependent as it may be, will continue.

Either way, it is important that we get this loans, but the tea leaves aren’t quite clear as to the future.

Now that you’re truly titillated, allow me to explain.  Today, Director of Finance Mike Genest and Treasurer Bill Lockyer meet to discuss the amount of money California can expect to receive from the federal stimulus package.  The meeting is public and will begin at 10am.  Some of our Twittering favorites like Anthony Wright and John Myers will be on hand.

Why is this important?  Well, if you’ve been following things, at issue is the budget “trigger” that would be reached if the state meets a threshold of $10 billion dollars collected from the federal government that can offset General Fund spending.  That trigger would reduce tax increases and eliminate some of the worst cuts from the budget deal in February.  While there lurks the spectre of a continuing deficit for FY 2010, meaning that any cuts and taxes saved by the trigger would just increase that deficit, the consequences of particularly these cuts are very real as well.  They are almost all focused on health care for the very neediest members of society.  The aforementioned Anthony Wright explains:

More directly, about three million low-income California parents, seniors, and people with disabilities will lost dental, optometry, podiatry, psychology, and other benefits. A full run-down of the lose benefits, and their economic and human impacts, is available in a handout on our website.

As the chart shows, the list of Medi-Cal benefits to cut share one striking characteristic: elimination of these benefits is not cost-effective and instead is likely to cost the state more to provide care to the same population. For example, the elimination of optometry services means that Medi-Cal beneficiaries will go to ophthalmologists.

The elimination of podiatry means more expensive and less expert care from physicians. The elimination of incontinence creams and washes will lead to Stage 3 and 4 bedsores—bedsores that would be reportable as adverse events or “never events” if they occurred in a hospital. But because they will happen to persons with disabilities trying to live in the community, they will result in the institutionalization of those who could otherwise have remained in the community. Penny-wise and pound-foolish does not begin to describe these cuts.

Those cuts could be entirely offset by the massive corporate tax cut which could go as high as $1.5 billion dollars a year, so I suggest the legislature look elsewhere for their pound of flesh.  Not to mention that a failure to get the most out of the stimulus funds would do a disservice to the state.  It is unacceptable at this critical time that any money gets left back in Washington.  And the tools are in place to cross the $10 billion dollar trigger point, as The California Budget Project has ably shown.  

It sets up to be an interesting meeting, as the Treasurer has not made many public comments about the trigger, while Finance Director Genest’s reports show the state falling short by $2 billion dollars.  Thanks to the poor drafting of this provision, there’s no telling the outcome if Lockyer and Genest disagree.  Don’t expect a resolution today – the participants have two weeks before a final solution.