Brian Leubitz Posts

Prop 8 Zealot Flips and then Flops

by Brian Leubitz

Back when he was running in the primary against Beth Gaines, Andy Pugno was very against a Republican on Republican race.  

"If I came in behind Beth Gaines, I would honor the expression of Republican voters and endorse her campaign and not actively campaign myself," Pugno said in an interview with The Bee today.(SacBee Capitol Alert)

Well, today, the tune has changed:

"As the only other candidate on the November ballot, stepping aside and simply handing the election to Beth Gaines would be fundamentally unfair to the voters in light of a primary election tainted by her blatant dishonesty," Pugno said in the written statement. "Whether or not the incumbent should be re‐elected is a decision that belongs to the voters, not just to me."(SacBee)

In this case, that blatant dishonesty is connecting Pugno to an extreme right-wing anti-gay group. No, not the many that he's actually connected to, but the one where he just shared an address with, the Pacific Policy Research Foundation. This one also happened to run some skeezy legislative junkets, but really doesn't differ all that much from the others. But, apparently, it was enough to set Pugno off.

With several Dem-on-Dem races, I suppose one can hope for some sort of expensive bloodbath that costs a ton of money that could have gone elsewhere. Pugno already picked up a check from Asm. Grove (R-Bakersfield), a check that might have gone elsewhere had Pugno stepped down. So, hooray for that I suppose.

Republican(ish) Senators endorse Howard Berman in race with Brad Sherman

by Brian Leubitz

I suppose this is a good thing for Howard Berman? Maybe?

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., as well as Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., have endorsed Berman, his campaign said Monday. ...

"Howard Berman understands how to reach across the aisle to get things done on behalf of our nation," Graham said in a statement released by the Berman campaign. "He works hard every day to advance America's agenda and has been instrumental in passing laws to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, stop arms sales to nations that support terrorism, and keep our country safe."

I guess this might net him a few votes, but I can't imagine it is going to tip the scales in one way or another. Just seems kind of strange.

Gov makes case for Prop. 30 and Obama

by Brian Leubitz

Governor Brown was kind of busy last week. You know, with the whole budget thing. So today he spoke with Candy Crowley on CNN, who apparently hasn't taken the time to figure out what is going on with the budget.

First on Obama, Brown said that the "contrast and the difference is reasonably clear. Romney almostreminds me of Thomas Dewey ... who symbolizes the moneyed East. ... Obama represents the common man."

With taxes such an issue, especially for the wealthiest Americans, Brown makes a valuable point. Romney has argued for more and more tax cuts on the rich, despite the fact that the wealthiest in America have doubled their share of income. And Brown has a history with jobs, and recognizes that Obama's plan for jobs is more substantive to "build the stuff that makes America."

He also said that the "Republicans should get out of the way and let the stimulus work."

Meanwhile, when the subject drifted to the budget, Crowley seemed completely at sea. She knew these facts: 1) Brown is asking for tax hikes and 2) California is in debt.

Brown responded to the first question (why is California, a relatively high tax state asking for more money) by noting some of California's successes in venture capital and job creation and the vast cuts he has made. Crowley responded to that by asking the "then why are you in debt?" with a seemingly gotcha look.

Had she done a bit of research, she might have figured out that the previous governor rode into office on tax cuts and then never bothered to pay for them. Brown noted that fact, but Crowley was soon off following another dramatic story. That would be Brown's challenge of Gov. Christie. I'll let you watch the video for that.  The whole video is pretty short and definitely worth the few minutes.

As an aside, what he didn't mention and what is frequently ignored, especially by national commentary, is the two Californias. Coastal California is a wealthy area with relatively low unemployment. On the other hand, once you head east a bit, especially into the Central Valley, you find a very different community. Like the nation, the Coast subsidizes these poorer areas, tax money generally flows inland. And ironically enough, many of these areas vote heavily in favor of the devotees of Norquist. But we still have a lot to do to repair the economy of the agricultural heart of the state.

That being said, how much longer our schools can continue to absorb these cuts before they completely collapse is anybody's guess. Per pupil spending is among the lowest in the nation while our prison spending continues to rise. But always the call is for more cuts...

President Obama accepts nomination. Rep. Xavier Becerra speaks.

Speakers include Steve Westly, Speaker Perez, and Kamala Harris

Oakland Progressive presents stark contrast

by Brian Leubitz

At the DNC convention, Rep. Barbara Lee presented the platform with much enthusiasm. Her speech is below.

I am so pleased I had a role in drafting this remarkable document. It embodies the values we hold dear as Democrats and as Americans. And it sets forth our great President's vision for our future where together we will reignite the American Dream for ALL.

Because the reality is: four years ago, the American Dream had slipped out of reach for too many. And it had turned into a nightmare for millions.

President Obama changed our course. He invested in our future and put men and women back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges. He raised educational standards, invested in early childhood education and worked to make higher education more affordable for everyone. He invested in clean energy and enacted the broadest tax cut in history - reducing taxes on the middle class to near historic lows. He saved the American auto industry. He produced historic health reform. And he put forward a balanced deficit reduction plan that will put us on sound fiscal footing.

Keep reading...
Today, our economy is growing again.

Our platform states that America faces a clear choice: move forward as a nation where everyone has the chance to get ahead, or go back to the same failed ideas that created the crisis in the first place. We will move forward, not backward.

Republicans will raise taxes on low-income and the middle class to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

They'll end the fundamental guarantee of Medicare that people have earned.

They'll let Wall Street write its own rules again.

They'll allow the secret and unlimited special interest money in campaigns to advance its dangerous assault on our democracy.

They'll shred the safety net and gut vital investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure in order to help the wealthiest avoid doing their fair share.

And they'll allow insurance companies to once again deny health care to working families and interfere with women's health care decisions

President Obama and Democrats will not let this happen. We will move forward, not backwards.

We believe we are bound together by a shared set of ideals and values - rooted in the notion that together we can overcome the greatest challenges that come our way.

We stand for an economy that's built not from the top down, but from the middle out, and that provides opportunity for those aspiring to join the middle class. And we make ending poverty a national priority. We are a big tent party of inclusion and our platform speaks to the aspirations of all.

Our platform ensures that the opportunity to live the American Dream not only survives but thrives for generations to come.

We can't afford to go back or abandon the change we've fought so hard for. We will not turn back the clock. We can move forward, we must move forward, and under the leadership of President Obama we will move forward!

Thank you.

Workers comp reform being pushed through gut and amend process

by Brian Leubitz

Workers compensation is a topic that comes up every few years, as insurance companies start ratcheting up rates, usually out of proportion to their expenses. This gets the business community up in arms, and you know what follows next.  This happened with Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2004, and what we got was a hodgepodge which drastically limited compensation to some severely injured workers.

Now, this is not to say that workers' comp doesn't need to be reviewed. It does. California, it has been argued, has expenses that are out of line with other states. Meanwhile, benefits provided to workers hardly provide a subsistence living. Workers on temporary disability average between $230 and $270/week, according to this excellent article by workers' comp attorney Bob Morris. And with a hard cap of 24 months on that temporary disability, workers can be left in a difficult situation. There are a lot of moving parts, but somehow, a grand reform compromise is supposedly being negotiated out of view of the public, and even many stakeholders in the new process.

As of 08/26/2012, five days before the end of the legislative session, the bill is not available for comment to the public, or even to attorneys who do nothing but represent injured workers.

The injured workers' organization, Voters Injured at Work, and the California Applicants Attorney Association, who represent injured workers, were not involved in the creation of this bill. Apparently, neither is considered a "stakeholder." The people who were involved do know of our concerns but do not seem to care.

Morris points out that perhaps term limits block the creation of legislative "experts" on complex issues like workers comp. And since this was last discussed in 2004, few legislators were around at the time. That being said, the last minute gut and amend is a process that rarely works in the greater interest of the public.

On a subject as important as workers comp, shoving it to the last minute is risky and runs contrary to the interests of both working Californians and the businesses that pay the premiums. This is a subject that deserves the full attention of the California Legislature, not some last minute back room negotiations between a few leaders.

Last week we saw the same effort with CEQA, a bill that also needs legislative review. But also like CEQA, these are important changes that should be discussed in a transparent and open matter.

With Labor Day coming up, races shifting into gear

by Brian Leubitz

With the national political conventions starting up, the political season is here. And so, with that, how about a look at three races in the Assembly that could be good news for Speaker John Pérez and the Democratic caucus.

AD-8 (Dem Ken Cooley(pictured) v Rep. Peter Tateishi)

The Citizens Redistricting Commission rejiggered two suburban Sacramento district held by Democrats to create this new district. Those seats were held by retiring Assemblywoman Alyson Huber, who was elected in 2008, and Dr. Richard Pan, who upset Republican Andy Pugno in 2010 (Pugno is now running in another seat against fellow Republican Assemblywoman Beth Gaines, and Dr. Pan is in another Sacramento district). The new AD-8 has a 1.1% Dem. registration advantage.

Cooley, a founding Rancho Cordova City Council member matches up well against Tateishi, Dan Lungren's Chief of Staff. Cooley has a cash on hand advantage and Tateishi is being dogged by the Sacramento county voter registration fraud scandal.

AD-32 (Dem. Rudy Salas v. Rep. Pedro Rios)

This long-time competitive seat in the Central Valley now tilts Democratic. The Citizens Redistricting Commission removed Republican portions of Fresno and Tulare and added a larger portion of Democratic-leaning neighborhoods in Bakersfield. With these changes, Dems now command a big registration advantage. However, turnout will still be critical come election day.

Salas, the first Latino elected to the Bakersfield City Council in its 138 year history, has a big cash advantage over former Delano councilman Rios.  In fact, Rios is in a cash hole that the GOP caucus doesn't seem to be interested in repairing. Rios was an insurgent that defeated the party favorite, and faces an uphill battle without significant institutional support.

I'll look at two more districts in the second part coming soon.

CEQA Reform rockets up priority list, stalls at the end

by Brian Leubitz

The California Environmental Quality Act is a subject of much scrutiny these days. It is a truly valuable piece of legislation, critical to the long-term health of our natural resources.  However, there are some folks that want to tinker with it, both progressive and not-so-progressive.

This tinkering came to prominence a few days ago just as the legislative session was about to end.  Through some gut and amend moves, the Senate had taken up the idea, and active negotiations were going on behind closed doors.

And that was precisely the thorny issue for many. While some environmentalists support some changing of the measure, most were concerned about the lack of process. There weren't the normal hearing and negotiation process that goes on with the Legislature.  And just two days ago, Asm. Jared Huffman delivered a letter with 34 signatures from legislators asking for a more thorough process on this important reform:

"Like many important laws, CEQA is not perfect and could probably be improved while retaining its many benefits - but only if such improvements are undertaken in a good faith process and are crafted very carefully," said the letter, delivered today to Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, both Democrats. "Unfortunately, the proposals we have seen and heard about reflect major changes that have not been vetted and are being advanced by special interests in an end-of-session power play."(SacBee)

And ultimately, that delay carried the day. Sen. Steinberg tweeted out the statement that CEQA reform was going to have to wait for another day. Rumors are floating that a few senators are calling for a special session on the topic, but for now that seems unlikely. However, we're sure to hear much of it both in legislative campaigns this cycle and in the next legislative session.  

Prop 36 has early lead in the polls

by Brian Leubitz

This election includes some big issues on the ballot, and perhaps that means that the 3 strikes reform measure is getting less attention than it would have on a less loaded ballot. But Prop 36 is solid reform:

Twice in as many decades, voters have sided in favor of a three-strikes law that allows judges to impose a life prison term for offenders who commit a third felony - no matter how minor - if they have two previous serious or violent criminal convictions on their records.

Proposition 36 proponents want to change the law to restrict the 25-years-to-life sentences, with some exceptions, to criminals whose third felony was serious or violent; nothing less than a residential burglary would qualify as a strike.(SacBee:)

Prop 36 would essentially formalize what has been occurring in the state's largest county, Los Angeles, under Republican DA Steve Cooley. By requiring a violent third strike, the hope is you will reduce some of the more ridiculous life sentences. Cooley notes that removing the discretion from the state's prosecutors, we should see more consistent application of the law.

36 has been getting solid majorities in the polls I've seen (78% last week), but this may well end up being a very tight race if there is any money on the No side.

Mayor says Yes on 32 campaign "based on deception"

by Brian Leubitz

In a rather strongly worded letter (PDF), Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has told the Yes on 32 campaign to stop using his name in their materials.

I am shocked to learn that you used my name and an out-of-context quotation of my words in a blatantly deceptive way, first in your rebuttal argument in support of Proposition 32, and now again in a campaign web video.

But perhaps my surprise is misplaced. After all, the entire Yes on Proposition 32 campaign is based on deception and a distasteful disregard for the facts. Your unauthorized use of my name and words creates a misleading impression for voters that I support Prop 32. This is patently false. Moreover, it is a cynical and disrespectful manipulation of the initiative process.  Voters deserve truthful information.

As the LA Times' Hiltzik said over the weekend, "it's hard to conceive how one could be more fraudulent than Proposition 32."

Note: I work for the No on 32 campaign. Please like the campaign on facebook and follow on twitter.

Prop 32, the Special Exemptions Act, "bristles with loopholes for businesses and their wealthy backers."

by Brian Leubitz

Over the weekend, the LA Times' Michael Hiltzik wrote a column about Prop 32, and he did not pull any punches. After he described how LBJ would not appreciate the "Rich Persons and Corporations Empowerment Act of 2012," he detailed some of the many deceptive points of this measure. But before going through that, he stops to put Prop 32 in its place in history:

In this state, we've come to expect ballot initiatives sponsored by business interests to be, essentially, frauds. But it's hard to conceive how one could be more fraudulent than Proposition 32. If there was any doubt left that the initiative process has been totally corrupted by big business and the wealthy, this should put it to rest for all time.(LA Times)

Why is it so fraudulent? Well, not only does he mention that the measure "bristles with loopholes for businesses and their wealthy backers" but he then goes on to highlight how this is really just another attempt at "paycheck deception."

Proposition 32 is nothing but an attack by Republicans and conservatives on unions and their members. Two previous attempts by the same gang failed at the ballot box, in 1998 and 2005. What's new about this effort is that it's dressed up as a broad reform aimed at "special interests," and it's even more union-unfriendly than its predecessors.

*** **** ***

"When corporations can just write a check from their general treasury, the idea that this is a meaningful restriction is ridiculous," says Richard L. Hasen, an election and campaign law expert at UC Irvine. The share of corporate political spending coming from employee payroll deductions "has got to be a drop in the bucket, and putting it in there is just a fig leaf."

In truth, Prop 32 does what its supporters want it to do, silence working Californians while allowing SuperPAC Billionaires to keep on doing what they are doing. Or, as Hiltzik says it, they are trying to pull one over on us:

The message the perpetrators of Proposition 32 are sending to you, the California voter, is that they think you're stupid. Really, really stupid.

When you go to the voting booth or fill out your mail ballot this November, stop for a moment and ponder this question: Should I hand over my vote to people who think of me that way?

If you have a moment, share the article with your friends and family. This is one column that all California voters should read before they vote in November.

Note: I work for the No on 32 campaign. Please like the campaign on facebook or follow on twitter.  

GOP Ticket Bashes California...Because it is convenient

by Brian Leubitz

Mitt Romney is not going to carry California. Unless something drastically changes, and there is some sort of tremendous landslide (quick, do some superstitious thing right now), President Obama will easily carry California.  So why not get a laugh at our expense?

California is the Golden State, home to surfing, Hollywood and Silicon Valley, but it appears likely to become something else entirely for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan: a political punching bag. ... (SF Chronicle)

The only problem with the California bashing? Well, how about the reality that California is still the home of Silicon Valley...wait for it, Sarah...

"When I think about the direction our country is rapidly drifting in, I can't help but look at California as a cautionary tale," Palin wrote to her Facebook followers. "The Golden State once boasted the entrepreneurial innovation of Silicon Valley - the American creative engine."

Oh right, there it is for the reality star Sarah Palin. But where is Apple based? And Facebook? And Google? And Qualcomm? And... Get the point?  California is still the home of innovation. Sure we have our issues with a real estate market that still has some issues and a structural deficit that needs fixing. But if America is to really come back from the economic malaise, California, like always, will be right at the leading edge. To pretend otherwise is well, Palin-esque.

Wasn't running for re-election

by Brian Leubitz

Rep. Cardoza was out of a seat after redistricting, and rather than running against Jim Costa, a fellow moderate Democrat, chose not to run for re-election.  Today he announced that he'll be jumping ship right away.

Citing sensitive family needs, Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, has tendered his immediate resignation from the House of Representatives. The surprisingly timed departure takes effect at midnight Wednesday. (SacBee)

Given that the Republicans have a large majority as it is, I'm not sure this makes that big of a difference going forward in the House. However, the early retirement six months before his scheduled date was a bit of a surprise.

CRP takes away chair's flexibility and power in a move that comes as fundraising numbers lag

by Brian Leubitz

It isn't easy being a Republican in California. That's especially true if you came in promising big change and prosperity, but ended up writing a ballot measure opposing your biggest expenditure.  And so, there's this:

With less than three months to go until the November election, the California Republican Party Board of Directors has approved a structural shake-up some insiders say is meant to limit Chairman Tom Del Beccaro's involvement in the party's strategic planning and fundraising efforts.(SacBee)

The structural changes take away his power over the 2012 election, registration, and gotv drives. They also form committees to take on what was most of the rest of Del Beccaro's bailiwick. In other words, the chair's role at the CRP has essentially been neutered by their executive committee.

Given that his biggest spending priority, gathering signatures for the senate district referendum turned into something of a disaster, and that his other fundraising numbers have been abysmal, this is not particularly surprising.  However, he does always have the dream of a prop 32 victory leading the GOP back to relevancy. (Another reason to make sure we work hard this November!)

Del Beccarro is at something of a loss at this point, without much real authority and much respect among his own party. Should be more fun times at the CRP as they try to rebuild an unpopular brand in the state.

Prop 39 closes the "Out-of-State" Tax loophole that was opened up a few years ago in a budget fight, sending the money for clean energy projects. Now, that money really should go back to the general fund, but whatever you think of where the money goes, this video is funny.

Gov. Makes a Pitch for tax measure

by Brian Leubitz

You won't find a slew of biblical references on Calitics, but that will change for today. Gov. Brown pitched his revenue measure in a WWJD kind of way:

"For those who've been blessed the most, it's only right, and I think the way to go to say, 'Give some back temporarily, for the next seven years, until our economy finally gets back,' " Brown said at a news conference in Oakland, where he accepted a $1 million contribution to his tax campaign from the influential California Nurses Association.

Later, the Democratic governor invoked the New Testament explicitly.

"Those who we're asking to pay more, I think they can," he said. "And I think it says in the New Testament, 'For those whom much is given, much will be asked,' and that's what we're doing today."(SacBee)

This is really one of the big Right-vs-Left fights in America right now. Those who claim to honor their religion, but then ignore the parts that are expensive or inconvenient, and those who see the morality of a more equal society. Religion needn't be a big part of that, but there are parts of the Bible which specifically speak to these issues.  It is hardly a new thing for them to be ignored, after all, hypocrisy abounded in the feudal era with respect to the Church.

And so, here we are again, looking to find a way to fund our long-term needs. I can't imagine that calling into question the sense of charity of the Rich is the way to win this fight for the long haul. But it might score a point or two in this battle.

Faces steep battle to stay in Congress

by Brian Leubitz

If we had never seen Top-2 pass, Laura Richardson would be a lame duck right now.  Instead, after a 60-40 "shellacking" at the hands of Janice Hahn in a newly redistricted seat, she has another shot in the November election.  Not a good shot, mind you, but a shot.  But the odds are looking ever dimmer, especially after this bit of news:

Representative Laura Richardson, Democrat of California, has agreed to be reprimanded by the House and pay a $10,000 fine for compelling her Congressional staff members to work on her 2010 campaign.

The House Ethics Committee recommended the punishment in a biting report issued on Wednesday.(NY Times)

Now Richardson hasn't exactly had a great record with ethics in the past, just check out her tag page here for a few snippets of her history. But an official reprimand will do no help in her November campaign.  

The actual incidents are basically what you would expect from this kind of charge. Richardson assigned her staff to make phone calls on her behalf, or scout her opponent, etc.  And then to compound things, she tried to cover her tracks. The official reports describes this:

In sum, Representative Richardson's submission continues the approach she has taken in this matter from the outset: an utter absence of true remorse for her misuse of official resources and, equally as significant, for what she has put her staff through, as well as a near total deflection of responsibility for this matter.

From maintaining her property to dealing with foreclosures, Richardson has been something of a "distraction" for the California Democratic delegation. Janice Hahn, for whatever flaws she may have, makes a far better representative of and for the district.

Russian settlement was one of first European Settlements along the northern coast

by Brian Leubitz

Fort Ross is really quite beautiful, in any number of ways. The location is stunningly picturesque along the Sonoma Coast. The restored Russian buildings are an interesting sight, and park system has done a great job with it.  This post isn't really all that political, other than the fact that Ft. Ross is occasionally slated for closure on various lists.

I'll spare you the full historical details, you can find much of that information here, but briefly I'll tell you that 200 years ago, in 1812, the Russians settled a small bay in order to extend their Alaskan holdings. That settlement eventually became Fort Ross, an ultimately unsuccessful venture that was sold to John Sutter in 1841. Over the years, the area has been many things, and the history is just fascinating.

If you happen to be on the Sonoma Coast (and you really should make it your business to be on the Sonoma Coast sometime in the very near future), stop at Fort Ross. And thanks to Sen. Noreen Evans for reminding me that this was the 200th anniversary.

System worried about further cuts

by Brian Leubitz

The UC and CSU systems stand to be some of the biggest winners (or losers) of the November election. If Prop 30, the Governor's revenue initiative goes down, they will be facing over $250mil in cuts. That fact makes this story rather unsurprising:

The university announced on Monday that because of $750 million in funding cuts in the 2011-12 school year and the prospect of another $250 million in losses if Gov. Jerry Brown's tax initiative* does not pass, only 10 campuses will accept students in spring 2013, and even those campuses will enroll a limited number. (EdSource)

This move will particularly hit students who are planning on transferring from community colleges. Many of these students will be waitlisted pending the outcome of the election, but this is no way to treat our future.  Gambling on funding, while seemingly necessary in this case, just isn't a system that is sustainable in the long-term.

Both the UC and CSU systems need a consistent revenue stream in order to appropriately plan for the future.