This time he's making national headlines for joining the steering committee of "Fix the Debt", a high-profile lobbying group whose "core principles" include keeping tax rates low for the wealthy while slashing Social Security and Medicare. Founded by deficit hawks Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson (co-chairs of Erksine/Bowles 2010 deficit-reduction commission) the Campaign to Fix the Debt claims to be a "bipartisan" interest group, and is trying to influence ongoing fiscal cliff budget negotiations taking place in Washington D.C.right now.
"If we're serious about long-term economic growth, we need a balanced
approach for reducing the federal debt," said Villaraigosa in a press release. "That
approach should include spending cuts, raising revenue and reforms that put our entitlement programs on a sustainable footing. The Campaign to Fix the Debt is dedicated to reminding all Americans that we can't reduce the debt and create the
conditions for long-term job creation without working across party lines to find practical solutions."
"They're simply taking advantage of the so-called 'fiscal cliff' to push the same old agenda of more corporate tax breaks while shifting costs onto the poor and elderly."
ļ»æMake permanent the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.
Cut corporate tax rates and shifting to a "territorial tax system" that would permanently exempt from U.S. taxes all offshore income earned by U.S. corporations.
"Reforming" earned-benefit programs by raising the retirement age and means-testing Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security benefits.
Perhaps. But by signing on as a progressive "beard" for corporate interests, he'll be on the wrong side of this fight in the eyes of the coalition of working Angelenos, public sector unions, and progressive organizations fighting for economic justice who've traditionally backed Villaraigosa.
"Fix the Debt is a creature of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the Wall Street Engineers of the the economic crisis we elected Barack Obama to get us out of, " said Rick Jacobs, founder of the California Courage Campaign. "I hope the President will pay attention to the voters and not those who put us into this mess."
Bill signed last year would block therapists from "converting" gay minors
by Brian Leubitz
Sen. Ted Lieu's bill barring anti-gay conversion therapy from being practiced on minors was blocked by a federal judge yesterday.
A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California from enforcing a first-of-its-kind law that bars licensed psychotherapists from working to change the sexual orientations of gay minors, but he limited the scope of his order to just the three providers who have appealed to him to overturn the measure.(AP via Fresno Bee)
Judge Shubb, a HWBush appointee who is known for his forceful presence in the courtroom, didn't really strike down the law, per se. However, with this action he both indicates that the therapists have a decent shot of winning and he can expand the scope to further therapists. However, another federal judge is also considering the case in Sacramento, so the legal wrangling on this one is just beginning.
However, it is worth pointing out a snip from Shubb's order
"Even if SB 1172 is characterized as primarily aimed at regulating conduct, it also extends to forms of (conversion therapy) that utilize speech and, at a minimum, regulates conduct that has an incidental effect on speech," Shubb wrote.
The judge also disputed the California Legislature's finding that trying to change young people's sexual orientation puts them at risk for suicide or depression, saying it was based on "questionable and scientifically incomplete studies."(AP via Fresno Bee)
Now, the protection of free speech, no matter how disgusting the content is and should be one of the most important duties of our government. That being said, this bill was narrowly tailored to minors only, and if anybody over 18 wants to make themselves miserable by trying to change who they are, therapists are legally allowed to oblige them. However, the state clearly has an interest in protecting LGBT minors, who are often forced into such clinics. The legal path is just beginning, but we can hope that this is just a temporary setback.
Suffice it to say that Steve Fox was on nobody's radar this year. You can tell that he wasn't on the Assembly Democratic Caucus target list, as the SteveFox4Assembly website is pretty, um, atrocious. That is unless you are into free geo-cities type websites with a bunch of talk-to-camera videos with interesting messaging.
But, be that as it may, Steve Fox looks set to win a stunner of a race in the new AD-36 over Republican Ron Smith. While he was down on election day by over 2000 votes, he has clawed his way back to the narrowest of wins. (less than 50 votes, last time I checked)
So who exactly is Steve Fox? Well, he previously ran for Assembly as a Republican, and has apparently signed the Norquist anti-tax pledge. But he does seem to support public education funding (see video). However, he will likely be something of a wildcard vote. But, probably better than a wildcard Republican vote.
2012 was the absolute worst case scenario for California Republicans. The question now has to be whether they intend to do anything about it beyond further moving toward their out of touch base vote.
Supreme Court to decide on future of Prop 8 litigation
by Brian Leubitz
It has been over four years since Prop 8 passed in November 2008. Though it would now appear as pro-equality forces are on the march nationally, and could have flipped the 2008 final tally this year, we are still waiting for news from the Supreme Court.
In theory, that should come today. While the court could possibly hold over a final decision, that's the luxury of being the nation's highest court, I suppose. However, the justices were to discuss the case and announce a decision on whether to grant review of the decision today. So, what are we looking at?
If they decline to review the decision, Prop 8 remains dead in California. Marriages would likely begin once the Ninth Circuit lifts the stay and clears the last few procedural hurdles. Unfortunately, due to the narrow decision of the panel, the case only directly impacts California. However, you would certainly have to think that marriage inequality amendments in other 9th Circuit states will be looked at skeptically until there is a Supreme Court decision.
If they take the case, a decision would likely come in the batch of decisions released in June after oral arguments. The Court also will decide whether to look at the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. With DOMA have being ruled unconstitutional in several states, it seems at least better than a 50-50 call that the Court will deal with at least one of the LGBT rights issues.
And, so the waiting continues...
UPDATE: Well, as soon as I post this, it seems that they may be pushing it off. Not official yet, but ScotusBlog has a good track record. Their rumor is that the Court is determining which marriage equality cases to take, especially with regards to the DOMA cases.
#scotus did not act today on #ssm petitions.Could issue orders Mon, but Dec 7 more likely.2 other grants, including gene patents.
Minuteman Assemblyman looks to challenge for 2014 Governor's race
by Brian Leubitz
Tim Donnelly isn't one to shy from a fight, and clearly that's what he has in mind by announcing a bid for the 2014 Governor's gig. Now, Gov. Brown hasn't yet announced his intentions, but the speculation is that he will likely be giving it another go. Challenging Gov. Brown, even with the state's challenges, is a tall order that many prominent Republicans (read: wealthy outsiders) may not want to take on.
So, this is what is facing the California GOP. Unless the exceedingly unlikely happenstance of a Democrat challenging Brown occurs, Republicans will likely be free to have a free for all primary and still get on the general election ballot. That being said if there were any "adults" in the room of the California Republican establishment, you would expect that they would shutter at the thought of a Donnelly candidacy.
Let's just look at what the Republicans have here. Donnelly is a far right conservative, out of step with the California electorate, to be sure. But that is probably not a disqualifier with today's California Republican Party. But he really came to the public spotlight through his work with the Minutemen, the anti-immigration group. While leadership in a vigilante organization is always a bit tough to spot, clearly he was in the forefront. And the organization never was all that shy about talking about race and immigration.
So, this is where the CRP is headed. In a state that is a minority-majority state with a burgeoning Latino electorate, the first major Republican to announce an exploratory bid for the Governor's spot is...a Minuteman leader. If Donnelly does get on the general election, it is difficult to see a path for the Republicans out of the wilderness. As Prop 187 brought Wilson to power, it also set the CRP on its course for long-term irrelevance. That culminated this year with a legislative supermajority.
Perhaps there is a place for the Republican Party in California, but if so, they'll need to drastically review where they are headed. The strategy and course they are on is great for a regional party, or perhaps a Southern State. But, unless they can find some way to attract a broader base, they'll keep walking the road to minor party status.
Campaign treasurer blames "bad business" on losing millions of Democratic campaign funds
by Brian Leubitz
Kindee Durkee is something akin to Lord Voldemort in the corridors of Democratic fundraisers. She squandered millions of dollars from a long list of Democrats, including several million from Sen. Feinstein. Turns out that she apparently was really, really not cut out for the job. From a court filing (via SacBee):
"Although a significant amount of money was used to pay for personal expenses, including mortgage payments and credit card charges, a great deal of the stolen funds were used to keep the business afloat and her employees employed. ... Unfortunately, it spiraled out of control, she lost track of the amount of the shortfall and it ultimately reached a level that she will be unable to repay in her lifetime."
Durkee received 8 years for her crimes, but you would figure that she would be out sooner. Her career in accounting, well, that's over.
SF Mayoral Candidate has worked on election issues
by Brian Leubitz
While this will be a surprise to exactly nobody, Sen. Leland Yee is making it official, he'll be a candidate for the 2014 election for SoS.
State Sen. Leland Yee, a San Francisco Democrat who has made voter access and open government among his main priorities as a lawmaker, will run for secretary of state when he is termed out of the Legislature in two years. ...
"Given the fact that I am termed out in two years, I looked long and hard at the options available," Yee said. "Given the work I have done on voting, on transparency and on open government accountability, I thought the secretary of state position would be a nice fit for me."(SF Chronicle)
Now putting aside the issue of term limits and legislators constantly looking to find a new seat, Yee will make for a formidable candidate in this race. He has worked on voting issues, and his bill for online registration saw a boom of around a million voters registering via the internet.
With top-two elections, being the first mover is a fairly big advantage. The party will want to avoid a wild primary with lots of solid Democratic candidates so that we don't inadvertently hand an office to the Republicans. Yee certainly has his share of detractors, but with his background on the issues and a pretty strong base in San Francisco, he will be a strong candidate.
UPDATE: Here's his tweet on the subject.
Excited to announce that I'm running for California Secretary of State. I want to expand on our recent election, tech, and open gov success.
If you ever wonder about the gaping hole in our budget that we've been trying to close for the last decade or so, there is one part of that larger pie that is bigger than the rest. That is the Vehicle License Fee. Back when Arnold Schwarzenegger was running in the recall election, it was dubbed simply the "car tax."
And give him credit for this, when elected he did, in fact, slash the "car tax." We were able to backfill with a few years of budgetary "smoke and mirrors" but the hole was stubborn. And when 2007-8's big recession hit, we were proverbial budgetary roadkill. The cuts just couldn't come fast enough to match the speed of declining revenue, given that we had already made cuts to cover the loss of the VLF revenue.
And so here we stand, with a brand new legislative supermajority sure to eventually show up. So, given the damage the VLF cut brought us, surely it would be at least open for discussion, right? Sen. Lieu thinks so, or at least he thought so a few days ago when he told the LA Daily News just that
The constitutional amendment would restore the 2 percent vehicle license fee slashed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger after he won office partly on that pledge.
The 1.35 percent transportation system user fee increase would generate an estimated $3.5 billion to $4 billion annually for roads and public transit in yet-to-be-decided proportions, Lieu said. ... "It would be a test to see what the two-thirds (majority) Legislature means," Lieu told the editorial board of the Los Angeles News Group. "The best way for us to lose the supermajority is to overreach.
"I'm not saying it would be an easy sell," he added of the proposal. "I'm aware of the fact I may be attacked for it." (LA Daily News)
Now, the interesting part here is that the suggested increase would still go to the voters, because, apparently we are all in on the government by plebiscite thing. All this would do is to save somebody a few million dollars of getting the measure on the ballot. To be honest, the amount of money spent getting it on the ballot would pale in comparison to the amount required to pass it. So, yes, Democrats have a supermajority, but no, they won't be going so far as just passing additional revenues on their own.
Silly you, thinking we had a representative democracy, but even the vote was too much for some.
However, over the last few weeks California's political landscape has changed. I have listened carefully to those who have contacted my office or me. Additionally, more stakeholders weighed in on this important issue. As a result, I will not be introducing the proposal. Instead, I will work with transportation stakeholders and the public next year on alternative ways to mitigate the transportation infrastructure problem. This problem is not going to go away and will only worsen when the final installment of depleted Proposition 1B funds are allocated next year. I am open to any suggestions and if you have any, please feel free to contact me or my office. - Sen. Ted Lieu
So the good senator got some pressure, and as Dan Walters points out they are loathe to be seen as "over-reaching." The CW apparently comes down hard, and despite some solid advice from our very own Robert Cruickshank to move forward on progressive legislation, it looks like there is more work to be done here. Now, that being said, it looks like we may get some not inconsequential reform on the ballot in 2014, but the status quo is still quite strong.
From Frying Pan News. Madeline Janis, the author of the post below, is a co-founder of the L.A. Alliance for a New Economy and a former Commissioner for the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency. She led L.A.'s historic living wage campaign during Riordan's tenure as mayor.
Former L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan has been in the news lately, arguing that city leaders need to take drastic steps to make Los Angeles more business friendly and get the city functioning again. He has blamed public sector unions for every woe facing the region, including the current financial crisis and potholes on his street in Brentwood.
Mayor Riordan is not just crying in the wilderness. His threat to put a draconian pension-cutting initiative on the ballot played a major part in prompting the City Council last month to hastily adopt its own pension-cutting plan - a plan that almost certainly will be thrown out by the courts as a violation of existing collective bargaining agreements.
Riordan's resurrection as a major political force begs a fundamental question: How successful was he at bringing business and jobs to L.A. and overseeing scarce public resources when he was running the city?
About 500 students are currently blockading entrances to the University of California Board of Regents meeting at UC San Francisco this morning, where the Regents are scheduled to vote on a budget that presumes a 24 percent across-the-board increase on UC tuitions over four years. Picketing students have pledged to shut the meeting down.
According to Charlie Eaton, one of the organizers of the protest and co-author of a report released this week that charged the Regents with employing exotic financial instruments that doubled the UC system's debt load over three and a half years, as of 8:45AM PT only a third of the Regents have made it inside the building. About 100 students are inside, according to Eaton.
Chris Norby concedes tightest Assembly race - photo credit: Chris Prevatt
by Brian Leubitz
With the concession of Chris Norby to Sharon Quirk-Silva, the Democratic supermajority in the Assembly was finalized. The Democrats will hold 54 of the 80 seats there. In the Senate, the situation is slightly more confusing. Senator Juan Vargas was elected to replace Rep. Bob Filner in Congress, so we're looking at a special election in that Dem-leaning district.
Millions of dollars in new tax revenue earmarked for the University of California system as part of the state's recently passed Proposition 30 will instead be routed to major financial firms, because of bad bets made by a Wall Street-influenced UC Board of Regents.
Over the last decade, tuition and fees for undergraduates in the UC system have tripled, adding enormous debt burdens to UC graduates and pushing lower-income students into the already overburdened state college and community college systems, or out of higher education altogether. Members of the UC Board of Regents, which governs the system and which approved the tuition hikes, have blamed the increases on the bad economy and on politicians.
However, according to a new report written by five doctoral students at UC Berkeley, in the years preceding the 2008 financial collapse, members of the Board of Regents themselves had overseen "a qualitative shift in the financial practices of the University of California" by employing the same kinds of exotic financial instruments that precipitated the meltdown on Wall Street - primarily, bond issuances hedged by interest rate swaps.
In the history of the Congress, there have been few leaders like Nancy Pelosi. Besides the obvious, her history-making role as the first female Speaker, she has been a powerhouse in many other ways. She leads a caucus with a wide range of opinions, yet she emerged from one of the most progressive districts in the country. Through sheer strength of will she was able to be the guiding force to pass health care reform.
And yet here we are, democrats are wondering if she'll step aside because she wasn't able to retake the gavel. The answer? A firm NO:
"Being active in politics at this level is really insatiable," Pelosi, 72, said, recounting a conversation she had with her brother explaining why she wants to stay on. "What I said to him was, 'There's not enough hours in the day for me. There's so much more I want to do.' "
"The message is clear from the American people. They want us to work together to get things done. And that's what these folks are here to do. Just like all of you," Pelosi said during the caucus meeting, according to the notes taken a Democrat in the room. "We may not have the gavel, but as I can see in this room, we have the unity." (WaPo)
Perhaps she is a lightning rod for the Right, but she is also a prodigious fundraiser and an absolutely dedicated campaigner. She faced enormous headwinds in 2010, and this year she dealt with Republican gerrymandering of districts. Seeing the positive results in California, it is certainly time to start exporting our system of reapportionment to other states. But Pelosi still has a lot of work to do, and is still more than capable of doing it.
UC System has some highly questionable investments
by Brian Leubitz
During the bubble, many large institutions got a little greedy with their investments. They wanted lots of return, but no risk. And that's what Wall Street was selling in some of their shadier business "growth areas." One such shady areas of Wall Street was the interest rate swap market. And the University of California system got sucked in:
Over the last decade, the UC Board of Regents has engaged in risky deals with Wall Street banks called interest rate swaps. Banks sold swaps to the university and other public institutions as insurance against rising interest rates on variable rate bonds. Under a swap agreement, borrowers such as the university paid a fixed rate to the bank in exchange for the bank paying the university a variable rate based on the markets' interest rates for borrowing.
Now these swaps have turned out to be losing bets. UC is taking huge losses because interest rates plummeted following the financial crisis of 2008 - allegedly in part because of illegal manipulation by the same banks that sold the swaps - and have stayed at record lows. Swap deals already have cost UC nearly $57 million, with $200 million more in losses anticipated. Of the $250 million UC expects to receive from Prop. 30, some $10 million a year will go to swaps payments unless the deals are ended. (SF Chronicle Open Forum)
And some of the shadiness doesn't even come from Wall Street on this deal. UC Leadership, including the regents and upper management, are riddled with Wall Street connections. And to this day, this is true. For example, Peter Taylor, UC's CFO, was at Lehman and helped arrange some of the swaps.
Californians have entrusted UC leadership with both money and the education of California's future leaders. It is about time they opened up to California about what is really going on in the books.
Fresh off Robert's call for action, the Democratic Supermajority is now looking at one of the bizarre aspects of our election law. Specifically, our system of differing thresholds for taxes, bonds, and other ballot measures.
As it stands right now, most targeted tax increases require a 2/3 vote of the people. Many general tax increases only require a simple majority. Why is is that we require a higher vote total for a more planned out increase? And of course, bonds require the seemingly random 55%. Why 55% you ask? Well, it's more than 50% of course.
But that may change with the Democratic supermajority taking a look. Dan Walters has it as one of Sen. Steinberg's top priorities.
Among other things, it means that Democrats are empowered to place constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot without any Republican support and legislative leaders - Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, particularly - want to reduce the vote requirements for local government and school district taxes, particularly those parcel taxes.
If schools could raise more money locally through parcel taxes, it would reduce the state budget's school finance burden.
Twenty-five school parcel tax measures were on the ballot last week and 15 of them passed, including three in the $200-per-parcel neighborhood. And all but one of those that failed achieved more than 50 percent approval, indicating that were the vote requirement to be reduced, parcel taxes could generate a substantial flow of revenue. (SacBee)
Walters, and the Sacramento CW, see this as a moderate first step. And moderate it is. After all, only a bare majority is required at the ballot (after the 2/3 approval of the legislature) to change this system. And if we can change the constitution by a bare majority, shouldn't we be at least able to raise our taxes?
This isn't going to overhaul Sacramento, but if it happens, it is one solid baby step.
