A California Republican

It is November 10th - exactly 2 months before the Governor releases his budget on January 10th. This morning, the Governor announced that there is a $7 billion hole in the budget that must be closed. His solution - massive cuts and no tax hikes.

How did this hole come to be? And will the hole stay at $7 billion?

Let’s tackle the second question first. The answer is, the hole is only going to get bigger. Remember the last budget cycle where the first deficit was announced at $7 billion, but grew to $24.4 billion? The same thing is going to happen. Currently, that $7 billion doesn’t build in any of the costs-cutting measures that were overturned by the courts. The Governor hopes to win those cases on appeal and have the cost-cutting measures reinstated. This includes cuts to in-home health care services, cuts to medical providers, “borrowing” from local funds and the gas-tax fund.

The hole also doesn’t include further declines in tax revenues. Currently, the state is $1 billion behind in tax revenues through the first three months of the 2009-10 fiscal year. This means that, as tax revenues continue to drop, the budget deficit will increase. If there is a $1 billion drop through the next three quarters - and no other changes - that puts the $7 billion number up to $10 billion.

The $7 billion number also does not include the budget gimmicks which have failed to work out. The insurance fund has not sold - that was a $1 billion solution in the budget which has not worked out. Surplus property has not been sold. There are any multitude of accounting schemes that were worked into the budget to close the deficit for this fiscal year which have not worked out. When the day is over and the fiscal year closes, these accounting gimmicks are going to add up to over $5 billion - and possibly much more. This means the deficit increases even more.

If you add to that number the bond repayments that are going to be added to the General Fund because the bonds have sold, the deficit number continues to rise. Bonds simply cost much more than expected, and must be paid before all other obligations. This means that the more California spends on debt service, the less they have to spend elsewhere.

What are some of the solutions to these problems? Community colleges should raise their fees. If the fees were raised from $20 per credit hour to $30 per credit hour, that amounts to an increase of $150 per semester - or $600 over the course of a 2-year college career. That is manageable for most people, and will increase the amount of money community colleges receive. Community colleges should also consider revising their athletics policies. Some community colleges have sports teams - and those who do have them, they all get funded by the school because they are not self-supporting. Revise those policies to eliminate sports teams, and move to an academic and career-training focus. This will be good, all around, for community colleges because then they can serve more students and save money to spend on career-training classes.

There is another solution - revise Prop. 98. This will never happen because the teacher’s unions are too powerful, and they have already been dealt a blow by the Legislature when the Legislature allowed test-scores to be used as indicators of teacher performance. The teacher’s unions do not want to be dealt a second blow to their political clout. However, Prop. 98 eats up approximately 50% of the General Fund budget. It isn’t getting Californian’s better schools, or better educated children. Prop. 98 isn’t doing the things is was supposed to - so why continue to have it around as a drain on the state? Instead, focus on cheaper and better delivery methods for education. There is a lot of success with online public schools, or co-ops between charter schools, parents, and community colleges. Why not take these models and use the successful ones as a model for what public education should look like?

Regardless, California faces another downturn in the budget cycle. It should be interesting to see what is done when the budget is released in 2 months.

The thoughts and prayers of all people are with the families and soldiers at Fort Hood.

They suffered a brutal attack today. One of their own, a Major, attacked soldiers at a graduation ceremony. Regardless of the reasons, this is a brutal attack. On their homebase, where the soldiers come to be “home” to be safe after being in a tough war situation where there is no safety. A base is where soldiers place their families to be safe while they are gone. A base is a family. For one of their own to attack them, is a tragedy and a huge psychological blow.

It doesn’t help that the person who attacked is a convert to Islam. This just makes it worse for the soldiers. There are soldiers who are in training - basic training an advanced training- at Fort Hood. For them, this is a first lesson in how tragedy hits home. It is a lesson they didn’t think they would learn before they were fully trained.

Our thoughts and prayers are with them.

These are some of the bills the Senate passed on Wednesday. After they go to the Assembly for concurrence on minor changes, they go to the Governor for his signature or veto.

* AB 1017 (Law enforcement): A measure requiring law enforcement agencies to report to the state annually how many rape kits they collect, process and destroy each year. AB 1017 is in response to reports that Los Angeles city and county had about 10,000 rape kits containing evidence of sexual assault that had not been fully processed so criminals could be identified.
* AB 951 (Charter buses): This would increase, from $1,000 to $5,000, the civil fines that can be charged against charter bus companies that violate laws and regulations. The measure is meant to persuade “bad actors” to pay closer attention to safety regulations.

* AB 1319 (Talent scouts): This would prohibit talent scouts from demanding an advance fee for arranging a job or audition. The Los Angeles city attorney’s office said complaints about acting and modeling scams have - in an era of “American Idol” — doubled every year since 2006 and now total 1,000.

* AB 110 (Nature): This would allow the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to expand the Rim of the Valley Trail to include an area near Santa Clarita including Elsmere Canyon. AB 110 could set the stage for filling a gap in the trail if the new owner of the canyon decides to sell or dedicate land.

It is good to know, in a time when water issues, budget issues and the economy are in crisis, that California lawmakers have the time to tend to the little things. To the really little things  - or so it seems. These bills are not worth the paper they are going to be printed on so they can be signed.

Did you know that California is auctioning off stuff on eBay? And is posting it on Craig’s List?

Today begins the great California garage sale. In order to raise more money, the Governor has signed things - like cars - in the hopes that they bring in more money. Good luck.

Even if the auction brings in $100 million dollars; it is a one time windfall that immediately spends 48% on education and the rest goes to what? Paying the fees of the auction? Getting new furniture to replaced the furniture that was acutioned off?

This”garage sale event” makes it seem like the Governor is interested in getting rid of the fluff in California, but it is simply not so. Getting rid of stuff will not make a dent in the budget. Instead the Governor needs to decide what is important, what services must be provided. The services that do not need to be provided should be cut, and the state workers providing those services will be laid-off.

The only real way to bring money into the state is to lower taxes, be more business-friendly (so that business want to stay here and operate here) and lose services that are not meeting goals. Those steps will bring in money. The garage sale is a joke, and simply makes the state look like it is a bumbling fool.

I need to apologize to the readers of this blog for the lack of posts. There was a death in my family, and it took until today to get everything attended to and straightened out.

 Coming up later today: a discussion of the vetoes the Governor is threatening. Also, a discussion of the budget plan.

 Thanks for continuing to read this blog.

The Governor is showing his true roots - he doesn’t like the workers he has to deal with. What other, possible, reason could there be for making state workers take another cut? The Governor’s newest budget proposal has state workers taking three furlough days (15% cut) plus another 5% cut. That means state workers are going to take a 20% pay cut.

These are the same state workers who help local businesses by eating out and spending money downtown where they work, or in whatever location they work. These are the same state workers who have mortgages and car payments that they have been making because state workers used to have a steady paycheck. These are the same state workers who don’t have any control over the amount of work they have to do - regardless of the furlough days. State workers have to get their work done. The added furlough days means more overtime pay, it is not simply a 20% pay cut, but it is a 20% pay cut in the base salary and then overtime.

A Republican legislative staffer has been quoted saying that the Democrats won’t go for the pay cut because the state workers “are their (the Democrats) constituents.” The staffer probably means that the state workers are in unions, which fund the Democrats - so in order to keep the funding the Democrats won’t cut the state worker pay.

Ok. So there won’t be a 5% pay cut. The Governor will just add a fourth furlough day.

How can he simply add furlough days? He declares a fiscal emergency. A state court has ruled that when the Governor declares a fiscal emergency he has broad executive power - which includes the right to furlough workers. The same state court found that the Governor could order furloughs to the civil service employees of constitutional officers (the Lt. Governor, Controller, and Secretary of State to name a few).  The state workers for teh cosntitutional officers still have not had to deal with furlough days becuase their bosses say they don’t want to furlough them.  This means the savings levels are even lower because of the lack of furloughs for workers at the constitutional officers offices.

In the meantime, everyone else is going to have to take another hit when the Governor orders a 4th furlough day. This is simply bullying. The Governor is pushing around those who are politically expedient. He’s not solving the budget problem. In fact, he’s creating another one because these are the same state workers who won’t spend money.

Maybe, instead of putting time and effort into determining savings from furloughs and fighting court battles, the Governor should put the energy into solving the mess that got him into this predicament - the budget hole.

“When a leader is in the Democratic party he’s a boss; when he’s in the Republican party he’s a leader” Harry S Truman

The Governor is leaving town on Tuesday - the day of his special election. He won’t be in California - he’s going to be back east. Why?

Someone from the Governor’s office let it slip that President Obama is going to announce, tommorow, that the federal government is adopting the same clean air standards that California is using. Of course, the Governor of California wants to be there for that. Why not? It is media attention for California, for the Governor, and it is media attention with the President.

Never mind that California is having huge problems complying with their own standards. Or that every state in the nation might not have the same ability to function as California, when these standards are in place. Instead, avoid the hard work of having to decide a national policy, and simply adopt California’s. Not a bad solution for the Presidential workload, but a horrible one for the nation.

I have been an advocate of making Army, or any military, service a path to citizenship for a while. I don’t think that college should be the path, because you are not demonstrating anything for the country in college, but you are in the military.

It turns out there is a small pilot program the Army has been running out of New York, and will now run out of L.A. Before this program, only citizens or permanent residents with green cards were eligible to apply. Now the Army is also taking people with temporary visas and those who have been granted assylum. In return for 5 years of honorable service, the person is given an expidited path to citizenship - about 6 months from the first dya of active duty. If the person doesn’t complete 5 years of honorable service, then they loose their citizenship.

This is a great deal for those who are here legally and want to become citizens. Naturalization fees are waived, and the path is much quicker than the standard 5-15 years. The FBI and Homeland Security still do background check, which they do on most military applicants. These applicants will not be given waivers for criminal offenses.

The bonus is that these foriegn-born applicants have higher scores on the testing, tend to be better educated, and provide much needed man power to the military. In fact, some of these people bring language skills to the military that, otherwise, they would have to send someone to mothers or years of training to learn. This means that the military’s ability to help out and be effective in areas where they need language expertise will increase.

Incerasing the effectiveness of the military is a good thing. Having people that know the local language and culture, and may be able to help prevent some mis-steps, is also a good thing. The U.S. mlitary often gets a bad reputation as an employer, but it is not. It provides job training, skills, and experience. It also pays you, instead of you paying, while you are in job training. It provides health care, dental care and vision care. In most cases, it provides housing or a housing stipend. These are all things that people need in down economic times, and they are provided for you.

This is a good program, and I hope it continues. It shouldn’t stop others from applying to the military, but it serves a good purpose.

Justice Souter is retiring from the Supreme Court.

It means that President Obama’s next task is to choose a new Justice. He is going to have to navigate a ton of interest groups, not to mention Congress, in whomever his pick is. The sad thing is, the pick is going to be ideologically oriented. No one gets to the Supreme Court because they are the best legal thinker and reasoner of their generation. They get to the highest court in the land by being a politically oriented judge. A judge must wait out until a President of the right party comes into office. A judge must have consistent opinions, even if the cases demand different opinions. This is the type of judge that gets to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Undoubtedly the new Justice is going to be a liberal leaning person, at least from the confirmation hearings and information the public will know. It won’t alter the make-up of the bench because Justice Souter is a liberal-leaning Justice.  What this Justice will do once they are on the bench is a different question. The Justices have tenure for life once they are appointed, and so they can change their political views if they wish.

Will it be a woman? An African American? A Hispanic? Who knows. Interst groups want all of that in one person. They would also like the person to be a practicing member of the Islamic and Jewish faiths, someone who stands by abortion, and stands against it. Not all the interest groups are going to be satisfied.

If the person is a good legal thinker, and is fair, then that is all the public can ask for. It is better to have a good thinker on the bench than someone who matches your ideology. The Supreme Court deals with issues that most people don’t want to touch with a ten-foot pole. In order to do that, they need to be able to think. So, hoepfully, this man or woman will be a good thinker.

This is a political nightmare for President Obama. He gets to nominate someone to the Court, which is great, but the backlash from interest groups who don’t get what they want is going to create a nightmare scenario.