While Leftists Shoot Republicans, California Sinks Into One Party Rule

Going Hugo Chavez one better, the Democrat controlled California legislator is taking action to ensure that one of their own who voted for the hated gas tax won't get recalled.  The legislator is rigging the system to make it harder and longer to recall State Senator Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) whose support for the increase made him a recall target.  From the Sacramento Bee:

Democrats are pushing late-blooming bills to significantly improve state Sen. Josh Newman’s odds of surviving an effort by the state GOP and others to recall him from office.
The proposed changes, which became public Monday morning, would add months to the existing timeline of certifying a recall election for the ballot. The measure would virtually assure that any recall election would be held at the regularly scheduled June 5, 2018 legislative primary election.
Regular election turnout historically is much higher than turnout for special elections, which helps Democrats.

How long before a third party movement among disaffected Democrats arises to resist this tyranny?  Don't hold your breath.  Meanwhile, people are voting with their feet, leaving California.

Jerry Brown: Making Hugo Chavez Proud

Is Kashkari's Approach a Winner for Cal GOP? UPDATE - Announcement

I have a lot of respect for Steven Greenhut, who covers California politics very well, and founder of CalWatchdog.  Imagine my surprise when I saw an article in which he touted Neel Kashkari (pictured) as the best Republican candidate for Governor, running against Jerry Brown in 2014.

Enter 40-year-old Neel Kashkari, an Orange County financial executive of Indian descent who led the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) during the Bush administration. He has been canvassing the state, meeting with Republican leaders in Sacramento and building the foundation of a campaign. He has garnered a little insider-GOP buzz, although he has yet to announce his candidacy.
It’s odd that the Republicans’ most promising potential contender is a political novice who once voted for Barack Obama and is best known for heading a federal bank bailout program that generates much hostility among GOP voters. It’s either a sign of the party’s desperation or proof of its new-found openness to new messaging.

Something has to change for the Republican's fortunes to change in California, but running a candidate likely to antagonize your base doesn't seem the way to go. What does Kashkari have to say that does resonate with the base?  From the Mercury-News:

He  [Kashkari] claims that Brown hasn't adequately tackled California's biggest problems: the nation's highest poverty rate, the fifth-highest unemployment rate, and schools that rank toward the bottom.
"The narrative that 'California is back' is outrageous,'' he said. "The people on the street definitely know better."
He likened Brown to a teenager who shovels the state's mess under the bed to make the room look clean.

Making the connection between Democrat/leftist policies and greater unemployment is very important.  Those at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder make the mistake of voting Democrat, often because they think it will help them.  Of course, when jobs, especially entry-level jobs, dry up, those at the bottom are hurt worst.  Democrats believe that promised generous government benefits promised will turn these voters into reliably Democratic voters. Pointing out the flawed logic is important to breaking the left's grip on this state's politics. From the same article:

HIGH-SPEED RAIL: Kashkari calls it “the biggest example we have of misplaced priorities in our state.” He calls Brown’s plan to divert carbon emission cap-and-trade revenue to the project a “gimmick,” nothing more than a Band-Aid on an imaginary financial plan.

Some of the articles I have read on Kashkari emphasize the fact that no Republican is likely to unseat Brown for Governor, and go on to say that what matters is the primary message from the top of the GOP ticket.  Emphasizing economic issues and being a social moderate make Kashkari attractive to Greenhut:

On the surface, Kashkari seems right out of the moderate camp reminiscent of failed multimillionaire candidate Meg Whitman. He is advised by former aides to Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mitt Romney. A former Goldman Sachs vice president in San Francisco, he favors abortion rights and gay marriage.
But, after a 45-minute interview with him on Monday, I thought he had something lacking in many California GOP moderate candidates: passion. Most interestingly, Kashkari is packaging Republican issues in a way that’s designed to appeal to people who wouldn’t normally vote for Republicans.

I am not ready to endorse Kashkari, especially given his involvement in TARP and his vote for Obama, but his approach to California politics is worth considering.

UPDATE

It's official.

It will take a lot of work to turn CA around, but we can do this. And we must. Join us at http://t.co/rXUUjDZQsl pic.twitter.com/9ETneEaXmD
— Neel Kashkari (@neelkashkari) January 22, 2014

What You Should Be Reading

• Negocios Loucos describes the absurd lengths to which the government is involved in verifying the source of his down payment for a home.  More police state nonsense revealed in what should be a source of joy, buying a home. It is indeed crazy business.
• Dean keeps us updated on the Governor Brown's latest antics with his High-Speed Choo-Choo Update.  Could this get repealed at the ballot box?
• Leslie predicts that the Drought Crisis will bring new regulations.  

Brown Planning Pay Raises for State Workers

At least that's my take on these comments, as quoted in the U-T article headlined "NOT ALL PROP. 30 TAX HIKE MONEY GOING TO SCHOOLS."

Brown’s proposed $97.7 billion general fund budget assumes no state employee raises beyond those already required in union contracts. But contracts for all but two of the state’s 21 bargaining units are set to expire by July 2, and the Legislature now has a supermajority of labor-friendly Democrats.
At a news conference, Brown said he didn’t budget raises for fear that it could set an expectation for any specified amount.
“Collective bargaining means you got to meet in good faith, listen to the other side, and you go back and forth,” he said. “We have to enter those negotiations with an open mind, though we have to live within our means. So, I don’t want to put too many of my cards on the table.”

The Governor is signaling that he is ready to grant pay raises by these comments.  How could anyone with a shred of common sense think otherwise?  His comments about a specific amount remind me of an old and bad joke about an older profession than politician.  The only question we are debating now is how much; how much will the governor pay back the unions for their support of him.

Meanwhile all those commercials about strict accountability to ensure that Prop 30 cash went to the schools are swept into the dustbin  like so much election day confetti.

Towards the end of the article Brown equates government spending with investing and argues that government is how a free people act together.  He claims that he will spend the increased tax revenue wisely.  Unfortunately, the budgeting process in this state is largely illegitimate.  Big chunks go to education, but the state continues to rank low in educational attainment.  Further, huge amounts of education spending never makes it to the classroom, only 61% in fact.  Higher education spending has the effect of perpetuating a left wing ideology and to stifle dissent.  How is that legitimate?

The state has made the cities and counties its vassals, providing insufficient funding for required programs, loading another $5.3 billion on them, another source of illegitimacy.  Health and Human Services is the second highest category, behind K-12, yet California never participated in the welfare reform that the rest of the nation underwent in the Clinton years.  How is unreformed welfare spending legitimate?

Here is the actual budget summary, note all the hikes in spending:

Not So Bold Prediction - Proposition 30 Will Fail

I have been watching California propositions for a very long time.  (I am a political junkie that first got interested in the politics of Barry Goldwater around age 7, I am not kidding.)  I don't have to do much research to know that Jerry Brown's tax hike initiative is going to tank.  First, there is a competing worser initiative on the ballot, Molly Munger's proposition 38.  Voters get nervous when they see two broad based tax increases.  Second, true to form, support is tanking at the last minute, even if the proposition is still leading.  Here is a picture of the support over time from Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy:

They latest numbers have support now at 49.2%.  In my experience, tax increases never garner last minute increases, and always tend to underperform at the polls.  Maybe its because some people are afraid to the pollsters that they are against good schools, or some other lofty promise, but get in the polling booth and think about how the tax increase will make everything more expensive.  Maybe they just get around to reading the fine print, like the across the board sales tax increase.  Who knows? I just know that this is the point at which supporters and opponents start conceding the tax hike is going to lose.  Here is Teacher's Union spokesperson Dan Wells, as quoted in Annenberg Digital News (of USC) on why they spent so much against Proposition 32, and therefor hinting that's why Prop 30 will fail:

“Proposition 30 and Proposition 32 are both important, but for the long range implications on the political landscape in California, 32 is going to have huge repercussions, whereas 30 is more dedicated specifically to education at this point,” said Wells.  

Wells emphasized that while both fronts are important, opposing Proposition 32 has more implications for the quality of education in the long-run. He explained that Proposition 32 would bar unions from fighting for measures like Proposition 30 in the first place.  

“As far as we’re concerned, Proposition 32 is the whole ball game,” he added.

Maybe he's right, but he sounds like he's preparing the post-election spin.

Other polling paints an even bleaker picture for the measure.  From the LATimes:

Support has plunged for Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to raise billions of dollars in taxes, a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll shows, with less than half of voters planning to cast ballots in favor of the measure.

Only 46% of registered voters now support Brown's initiative, a 9-point drop over the last month, and 42% oppose it. The findings follow a lackluster month of campaigning by the governor, who had spent little time on the stump and found himself fighting off attacks from backers of a separate ballot measure that would raise taxes for schools.

This was a poll of registered voters, and likely voters are going to be more conservative.  I wonder how Jerry Brown will threaten voters next?

California Looking for New Ways to Steal Worker's Money

Well, that's not what Jerry Brown and legislative Democrats claim their bill would do, but how can we doubt that wouldn't be the effect.  Here is what they are claiming, as reported in the SacBee:

The goal is to create a savings program in which workers who have no access to a pension can count on a guaranteed rate of return for contributing about 3 percent of their salary.

Sounds laudable? But who will control the money? Who will guarantee the rate of return?  According to the article, private insurers would, because:

Money would be pooled in a state-administered fund that would be professionally and conservatively managed and invested. 

So why should anyway be nervous. All those billions will be tucked away safely in the care of the state. The governor wants to make sure that the money is safely managed by his cronies appointees.

Before committing himself to the concept, Brown sought and received the requirements placed in SB 923 – that lawmakers take a final vote before implementation and that a board overseeing the program be increased from seven to nine members, five of whom would be gubernatorial appointees or officials of his administration. 

That reassures me. And the record of CalPers in managing pension benefits for state employees has been so sterling, with 99% of private funds outperforming it, I don't see why private businesses are having misgivings.

My immediate suspicion when I read this news is that the state intends to commingle these funds with the state pension monies.  The Appeal-Democrat reports that Kevin De Léon, the main sponsor of the bill, has previously gone on record for calling for all private sector workers to be folded into CalPers. Might this be step one, and the next step taken under the disguise of "efficiency?" Of course it will. The state Democrats are determined to drive every private business out of the state. I wonder who they think will pay the taxes to pay for their hare-brained schemes.

California Tobacco Tax Defeated

In a little noticed report from the AP, Proposition 29, the Tobacco Tax initiative has narrowly been defeated. Although anticipated, this is the first news announcement I have seen on the issue.

With about 5 million ballots cast, opponents of Proposition 29 led by about 28,000 votes. The Associated Press analyzed areas where the roughly 105,000 uncounted votes remain and determined Friday there were not enough places where “yes” was winning to overcome the deficit.

Noted doping suspect, Lance Armstrong, was a key supporter.

If a tobacco tax, that only effects 12% of California adults can't pass, Jerry Brown's taxes on the ballot in November are in for a tough time. Because his measure includes a 1/4 per cent sales tax increase, it will affect everyone, not just the families making over $250,000 per year. Given the Democratic control of the re-districting process and lack of comptetive seats, I predict that defeating this tax will be a key priority for tea party types this fall.

No Reforms, No Taxes Increases

As a matter of fact, if there was some real pension reform, there wouldn't be any need for tax increases. California is drowning under the burden of employee pension costs. Even the modest reforms offered by Jerry Brown are making no progress in the Democrat union controlled legislature. A couple of key parts of his proposal:

• Equal sharing of pension costs: Require all new and current employees to contribute at least 50 percent of their retirement costs, shifting the burden from public employers, some of whom currently make the entire contribution.
• Hybrid pension plan for future employees: Form a mandatory "hybrid" risk-sharing pension plan for new employees. New plan would include a reduced, guaranteed defined benefit, a defined contribution portion such as a 401(k)-style plan and Social Security.
• Cap for high-income public employees.
• Higher retirement age for future employees.

My personal belief is that this is a bait and switch. Brown knows that the legislature won't pass these reforms or would slowly repeal them in the future; but he wants tax increases. His November ballot initiative calls for:

• Increase the state income tax levied on annual earnings over $250,000 for five years.
• Increase the state's sales and use tax by 1/2 cent for four years.
• Allocate 89% of these temporary tax revenues to K-12 schools, and 11% to community colleges.

But of course this money will actually be funding teacher pension benefits not improving education. Meanwhile the state legislature is barely making a pretext of passing pension reforms proposed by their fellow Democrat, Governor Brown.

"It's not as fast as I would like, but it's complicated," Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said this week during an appearance before the Sacramento Press Club.

He said Democrats have an obligation to deliver pension reform, particularly as they will ask voters in November to approve hikes to the income and sales taxes. But he also said they have "a different take" on parts of the governor's plan.

A different take? Really? What take would that be? I'm not holding my breath for anything significant coming out of this legislature. Beating back tax increases is necessary to save California from even more businesses and wealthy individuals from leaving. Despite the Democrat lock on the state legislature, I firmly believe these tax increases will be defeated in November.

Working to Wreck California this November

Governor Jerry Brown has reached a "compromise" with the Californian Federation of Teachers (CFT) on competing tax increase measures for November's ballot. The teachers' union wasn't happy that the Governor wasn't proposing to drive enough millionaires out of the state. To make sure there weren't competing measures on the ballot, the gov reached out to the teachers, like one family of thugs to another, dividing up the spoils. From the Sacramento Bee:

The Democratic governor and CFT announced last week that they had reached an agreement to work together to try to qualify a measure that combines parts of their rival tax proposals. CFT had been working with the Courage Campaign to qualify a special tax increase on millionaires.

The "Courage Campaign?" How much courage does it take to propose a tax on a small minority of the population. Of course, this is all supposed to be "temporary", until the crisis passes.

The measure is similar in structure to the constitutional amendment initially proposed by Brown, which relied on a temporary half-percent hike in the sales tax and temporary income tax increases for Californians earning more than $250,000. The new version features a quarter-percent hike in the sales tax and steeper increases for higher earners. The sales tax increase would last four years and the income tax increases would last seven years.

What hogwash, we know that these tax increases will be permanent and rising until the state goes broke from failing to offer meaningful pension reform. Nothing is so permanent as a temporary tax increase. It took 108 years to repeal the long distance telephone tax originally intended to fund the Spanish-American war. Most shockingly, that tax was also billed as a "tax on the rich."

Political Priorities for 2012 - One SD tea party perspective

My day job has become very challenging lately, and may continue to cause light blogging. When I have little time, it concentrates my mind on what is both important and within my sphere of influence. For example, I love following Presidential politics, but as a Californian I am going to little influence on neither the Republican nominating process nor the electoral vote totals. Here are my priorities for this year and how I am feeling.

1. Defeating Governor Jerry Brown's proposed tax increases; highly confident. Getting his execrable budget killed; not so much.
   
2. Getting pension reform passed in San Diego; highly confident.
3. Getting Carl DeMaio elected Mayor of San Diego; optimistic.*
4. Reaching out to left, right and center on entitlement reform and ending crony capitalism; cautiously optimistic.**

Notes:
* The Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition does not endorse candidates, so this is a personal endorsement.
** Kelly, a liberal commenter, comments on why this is important in the comments section on my Saturday post about Rhode Island's Democrat led pension reform.

I hope for a groundswell of support for these goals.

Dang, I can't resist, here is one reason I can't stand Santorum (H/T Temple of Mut):

Promises, Promises

Governor Jerry Brown's budget promises to cut public education by $4.8 billion if his tax increases aren't passed next November. Promises, promises. That we could get some cuts in the bloated state educracy would be welcome indeed. The California school system is not performing that well, despite spending about $8,452 per pupil per year, although I think that number is low, it is the official state budget number from 2009-2010. The shock of some budget cuts would be welcome as it might force us to evaluate why we allow the government a near monopoly in delivering education.

In a previous post on Douglas County, CO I laid out why outsourcing public education at 75 cents on the dollar would still save the state money.

Let's look at the situation in California. According to the state of California's data, there is a total of approximately $50 billion spent on K-12 education. (I am approximating, because the exact total seems a little squishy depending on the source.) This results in per pupil spending of $8452 per year. A voucher to parents of about $6300 would save the state $2100 per pupil. If only one million of the approximately 5.5 to 6 million students, the state could save $2.1 billion dollars. The more parents take advantage of the program, the more the state saves. At the state level these kinds of savings shouldn't be ignored. It might have the additional impetus of encouraging a mass exodus from failing public schools. I also note that in the review of literature for this article that only 61% of spending in California's schools goes to classroom education. That means the schools have an overhead rate of 63%. It seems obvious that parents could get a more value from 75 cents of every education dollar than they get from the public system.

[ed. note: For those doing the math the overhead rate is calculated by taking the percent of dollars not spent in the classroom divided by the percent actually spent on the classroom (like teacher's salaries), 39%/61% = .639 or 64%, a ridiculously high overhead rate.]

Defeating the tax hikes should be the number one priority of the tea party movement in California this year. Gerrymandering has essentially neutered partisan politics, but large numbers of Democrats seem willing to vote for the conservative position on ballot measures, including voting against tax increases and against gay marriage in 2008, while Obama was sweeping the state. I think the public instinctively knows two things. First, California taxes are too high. Second, when politicians threaten favored programs if they don't get their way on tax cuts, they are bluffing.

Incompetent Polling on Brown's Tax Hikes - UPDATE

Lest you get depressed over the stupidity in the headline in today' U-T that a big majority approves of Jerry Brown's proposed tax hikes, let me return you to reality, and a much better outlook. Here is the main quote.

Nearly two-thirds of Californians favor Brown’s tax hike, but fewer than half of them think he’s doing a good job as governor, according to a survey released Monday by the nonprofit Public Policy Institute of California.

First, remember that this a poll of "adults," allegedly, not likely voters, not even registered voters. Such a poll is bound to vastly over estimate the support for new taxes. Likely voters are going to be more conservative than "adults."

Second look at the actual wording of the question:

Governor Brown has proposed a plan to help close the state’s budget deficit over the next five years. The plan, which would be put before voters in November, would raise $7 billion annually through a temporary four-year half- cent sales tax increase and a temporary five- year income tax increase on those earning more than $250,000. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?

They might as well have said Do you support the heroic Governor's surefire plan to cure our deficit woes? What kind of polling is this?

Third, in my experience, polls always over estimate the support for tax increases. Remember how Proposition D, the half cent sales tax increase was supposed to be a squeaker? The U-T published a poll near election time that showed a 40% to 40% tie with a large number of undecideds. Final result? The tax increased was crushed 63-37, not even getting the 40% it polled at.

Fourth, PPIC, who performed the polling, is generally left of center. Of course they will get a result that supports tax increases.

Finally, these tax increases energize an angry public to vote no because they are sick to death of lack of accountability from government. This vote will re-energize the tea party movement in California.

UPDATE

I cross posted this article at sdrostra.com. In the comments, Tony Krvaric makes some excellent comments, here is an excerpt.

1) The question is framed in terms of deficit reduction, even though real world experience shows that there’s no correlation between raising taxes and reducing the deficit (or else California certainly would have no deficit by now.)

2) The poll tries to state as fact that Jerry Brown’s plan will, for certain, produce $7 billion in new tax revenue, even though again, real world experience shows that tax increases rarely, if ever, produce the revenue its predicted they will.

3) Is it really necessary for a pollster to underline that four year and five year tax increases are “temporary?” Doesn’t their descriptive as four year and five year tax increases already make that clear?

4) Look at the timing of this poll. It was released the same day that the Department of Finance director announced the budget trigger cuts.

His entire comments are worth a read.

Surprising Veto by Jerry Brown - SB 469

I was alerted by a tweet from my councilmember Lorie Zapf that Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed the anti-Walmart legislation sponsored by Juan Vargas, SB-469. Despite any rhetoric to the contrary, this bill was designed to make it harder for cities to approve Walmart supercenters that sell groceries, in direct competition with the largely unionized grocers like Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons. Labor's support of the legislation is the key indicator that this bill was all about protecting union jobs from competition. From the U-T:

“We are disappointed but not surprised that we couldn’t defeat the millions spent by Walmart against this bill,” said Lorena Gonzalez, secretary-treasurer of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council. “We will continue to do more to work with small businesses and local decision makers to find a solution that protects local economies from supercenters.”

Protects local economies from supercenters? As long as the supercenters aren't given sweetheart tax deals, like say, sports franchises, then they will generate sales tax and property tax for local government, while saving shoppers real dollars due to increased competition. With the NY Times reporting that household incomes are continuing to drop, despite the "end of the recession," why wouldn't we want to help those hardest hit by getting more competition in the grocery business.

As an additional item that I find offensive, we have Juan Vargas explicitly using state legislation to meddle in local affairs.

The measure was introduced statewide after the San Diego City Council rescinded its ordinance that would have required superstores to undergo an extensive economic impact analysis as part of the permit process.

Despite all the rhetoric about how this is about transparency, it was not. It is commonly understood that adding bureaucratic layers of review is the best way to kill a proposed business project. Walmart's supercenters should enjoy equal protection under the law, and face the same scrutiny as any other land use proposal in any city. Is equal treatment for all businesses too much to ask?

Jerry Brown's second governorship is proving interesting if nothing else. He has vetoed legislation to allow card check to ease union organizing of farm workers, as well as legislation limiting paid signature gathering for petitions. On the other hand he signed the California Dream act legislation giving in state tuition rates to illegal aliens. He is certainly proving hard to predict. Exit question: How would a Meg Whitman governorship been substantially different?

OK, one more question, what do #OWS types think? Do they believe in equal treatment for all businesses?

No to Tax Increases in California

I closed my poll on whether or not Republicans should allow a vote on putting tax increases on the ballot over a month ago. Here are the results:
Yes - 2 votes.
No, not without pension reform - 7 votes.
No, use leverage to prevent tax increases - 2 votes.

Sorry that the screen capture is so small, click to enlarge.

Last month's action by Jerry Brown to allow prison guards to cash in all of their unused vacation days has put an additional $600 million whole in the California budget. From George Will:

Henceforth, guards can cash out at retirement an unlimited number of unused vacation days. Most California employees can monetize only 80 accrued days. Many guards will receive lump sums exceeding $100,000. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that guards possess time worth $600 million. The union contributed almost $2 million to Brown’s 2010 campaign.

So the consensus that Brown wouldn't do squat to reign in unions was correct.

Here's the official Tea Party position, "Vote no tax increases in this state."

Math Meets Political Power

Math is winning, what a surprise. (This is a recurring theme at The Scratching Post.) Today's U-T headline about the California budget dilemma is a case in point:

Democrats Confronted with the Limits of Power

In last November's election, voters removed the requirement for a two-thirds majority to pass California's budget. Democrats control both legislative houses and the governor's mansion, so their job should be easy, right? Just pass the budget for crying out loud. But wait: Democrats can pass a budget without Republican support. But they cannot pass tax increases.

And the Democrats don’t want to use their newfound clout to push through a budget that gets by only on the revenue projected for the coming fiscal year, especially after the expiration of $11 billion in temporary tax increases.

But shouldn't they be able to close the budget gap without tax increases as has been done in other states? Not if you lack the will to confront the unions.

But Brown and his allies have come under pressure from interest groups, especially the public employee unions, to oppose any spending limits or changes to the pension system. This has led to a recurrence of the same kind of partisan frustration that has marked past budget stalemates.

This is why I want the Republicans to prevent any ballot measure for tax increases to even come to a vote, Governor Brown refuses to deal with the main cause of our budget deficit, union pension promises. Don't believe me? Read Adam Summers' excellent summary at Reason. A snippet:

California’s public pension and retiree health and dental care expenditures have quintupled since fiscal year 1998-99, from about $1 billion to $5 billion this year. Retirement spending is expected to triple again - to $15 billion - within the next decade.

Since 1998, California’s state workforce has grown by 31 percent and taxpayers now pay for more than 356,000 state workers.

Since 2008, California has added over 13,000 employees to the state payroll during this recession.

California taxpayers are paying pensions that exceed $100,000 a year to over 12,000 former state and local government workers, including more than 9,000 state and local employees covered by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and over 3,000 former school administrators or teachers covered under the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS).

Without getting employees to contribute more to their retirement and medical plans and getting retirees to contribute to their medical, this will bankrupt the state no matter what cuts and tax increases are imposed. Unless Jerry Brown deals with the union pension mess, our state is doomed. The situation is little changed from the Schwarzenegger administration:


We should be contacting our Republican legislators to demand that they keep tax increases off the ballot until the unions negotiate on pension and medical care reform.

Cross posted to sdrostra.com.

Jerry Brown and the State of the Budget

Despite calling his address the State of the State, Jerry Brown's speech was really first, foremost and only about the looming budget deficit. It is unlikely to be papered over one more time, but who knows politicians are such good liars. I missed the speech, but am reading from the transcript.

The governor makes some good points.

My plan to rebuild California requires a vote of the people, and frankly I believe it would be irresponsible for us to exclude the people from this process. They have a right to vote on this plan. This state belongs to all of us, not just those of us in this chamber. Given the unique nature of the crisis and the serious impact our decisions will have on millions of Californians, the voters deserve to be heard.
. . .
But I also understand that redevelopment funds come directly from local property taxes that would otherwise pay for schools and core city and county services such as police and fire protection and care for the most vulnerable people in our society.
. . .
We have the inventors, the dreamers, the entrepreneurs, the venture capitalists and a vast array of physical, intellectual and political assets. We have been called the great exception because for generations Californians have defied the odds and the conventional wisdom and prospered in totally unexpected ways. People keep coming here because of the dream that is still California, and once here, their determination and boundless energy feeds that dream and makes it grow.

I knew it was unlikely that the budget deficit would be closed with spending cuts alone, even though they should be much higher priority than new taxes, or even extensions of temporary taxes now in place. But the governor mentions pensions exactly once in the speech, at the end, with a vague promise of fairness. The pensions are a big cause of the current mess; his failure to address pension reform is irresponsible. Unless this issue is addressed, any plan will not be a long term success. From Adam Summers writing in the OC Register last December:

California's public pension and retiree health and dental care spending has quintupled since fiscal year 1998-99, increasing to $5 billion in 2009. And retirement spending is expected to triple again – to $15 billion – within a decade. The coming wave of baby boomer retirements and steadily increasing health care costs ensure that this burden will continue to grow rapidly. California will be spending more and more for state retirees' benefits, leaving less and less for other budget items such as public safety, education, and transportation.

The state budget passed in October takes state pension benefits back to 1999 levels – for future/new state employees – and the Schwarzenegger administration estimates the tweak will save up to $100 billion over time. That's a minor fix at best.

The state has tried this before. In 1991, California created a second tier of lower benefits in an effort to stem rising public pension costs. Less than a decade later, the Legislature passed, with virtually no opposition, the infamous Senate Bill 400, which not only massively increased state employees' pension benefits but also made those increases retroactive. It would simply be too easy for legislators, with the support and pressure of government workers' unions, to do it again.

The Republicans are right to demand that the Governor not hold a special election on extending the current, temporary, tax increases unless he is willing to put forth serious pension reform. A crisis of this magnitude shouldn't go to waste. I know that sounds facetious, but a failure to address a crisis' root causes while it is in the forefront in the minds of the public, is a failure of leadership.

Cross posted to sdrostra.com

At Least They Didn't Call It a Promise

. . . or the acronym would be too revealing. California is launching $14 billion in bond sales called "revenue anticipation notes," supposedly funded by future revenues from the businesses now fleeing the Golden State. Calling the bonds "California Revenue Anticipation Promises" seems more appropriate. From the LA Times:

The budget deal of Oct. 8 already looks out of date: The state’s chief fiscal analyst on Wednesday estimated that Sacramento will have to plug a total of $25.4 billion in deficits by mid-2012.

That may make some bond investors nervous, but many have gotten used to scary fiscal headlines about California for the last decade. The recurring budget mess hasn’t affected the state’s ability to make interest or principal payments on its debt, and Treasurer Bill Lockyer has repeatedly reminded Wall Street that the state Constitution mandates that bond investors must be paid.

(The same can’t be said for vendors and other creditors who once again this year were stiffed by the state until a budget was in hand, 100 days late.)

I am amazed that credit rating agencies have given the bonds their highest ratings, when the link in the article points out that the budget deal is already coming unraveled.

KT has more here on the last progressive who will hold high office, Jerry Brown.

California Governor's Race Conundrum

My poll is closed and a plurality of reader's who voted said that we should vote Libertarian in the California Gubernatorial election this fall. Since the polls aren't permanent here are the results for posterity:

After Viewing Meg's Billboard, Who Do You Support for CA Gov?

3 votes. Jerry Brown, at least he's an honest liberal.
4 votes. It's still Meg, better than Gov Moonbeam.
6 votes. Have to go Libertarian, these two are hopeless.
0 votes. None of the above.
2 votes. Let's find a Tea Party write in.

I was one of the two votes for the Tea Party idea, and given the nature of readership, was surprised that this option was not more popular. Temple of Mut has already covered some of this ground, in Arsenic and Old Lace.

As a former registered Libertarian, I understand the appeal of that route, but I can't ever support that party again, given 30 years of lack of serious purpose. I really like the platform of the Libertarian candidate, Dale Ogden, but if you are seeking to vote for him as a protest to Meg Whitman's immigration waffling, you might be disappointed. Although he makes good points, but his opening statement isn't going to get your vote interpreted as a vote on immigration:

Immigration has become a hot issue, but it is not a simple issue. America is a land of immigrants,...

Meanwhile, Dan Walters has a great piece on the waffling of both Governor Moonbeam and Meg Whitman. Even though I touted Jerry Brown as an honest liberal, Walters points out some of his real inconsistencies.

But is Brown less likely to shift positions? Capitalizing on Whitman's shifts, Brown told Time magazine, "But if I say something, you know I mean it. You know who it's coming from. That much hasn't changed."

Those words came from a man who, as governor, adamantly opposed Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 property tax cut, as a "rip-off "... a legal morass and "... a long-term tax increase," but after it was approved by voters declared himself to be a "born-again tax cutter" and touted a state tax reduction.

Further, we have the unions going all out for the Democrats this year, especially the SEIU and especially for Brown, because Meg Whitman has been so bold in taking them on. No way will I endorse any candidate with that kind of union support.

So has Meg Whitman repented of her flip-floppery on immigration? It seems really hard to tell, and given her recent conversion to Republicanism and her willingness to try to fly under the radar by buying Spanish language ads. She is being attacked in ads by public employees unions. On the theory that the enemy of enemy is my friend, I ultimately come down on the side of voting for Meg Whitman, certainly without enthusiasm, and certainly will not urge others to do so, but on balance, she seems the only candidate willing to take on the state's employees unions.

Temple of Mut's solution is to make sure you pay attention to state assembly and state senate races. While I applaud her for thinking outside the box of this question; I will ultimately be faced with a blank ballot. It's either vote for Meg or leave the box blank, since no Tea Party candidate seems forthcoming.