People first: education, health care and infrastructure.

Job Killers -- Or Just More Fear?

May 20, 2008

The California Chamber of Commerce has released its annual list of what it calls "job-killer bills."

Why is it that the Chamber's job-killer bills hit-list seems to only target Democrats? Not a single targeted bill belongs to a Republican. "Bad bills", like those designed to protect public health, climate concerns or consumer rights legislation, are all authored by Democrats. The chamber has always been a lobbying organization, but it has gotten so bad that the Chamber seems to have devolved into little more than just one more fear-mongering Republican Party front group.

The "job killers" on this list are any laws that protect consumers, reduce energy use, require worker protections or anything else that might hinder a very few corporate executives from reeling in another several-hundred-million dollars a year. The jobs that are "killed" are those of lobbyists for the energy industry.

The first group on the "job killer" list is bills that ask for any kind of energy or water conservation or environmental standards for new housing construction. For example, AB 1085. The bill describes itself as undating,

"building design and construction standards and energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy."

But the Chamber's job-killer list says this

Substantially increases the cost of housing and development in California by implementing significant energy efficiency measures

Now, think about this -- if it costs less to heat and cool your house, this saves you money. If you want to add energy-saving technology like solar electric or water-heating on your house this creates good jobs. Maybe Exxon won't benefit as much from this as the new, upcoming solar industry, but heck, the solar companies aren't coughing up the big bucks and providing the good jobs to the Chamber of Commerce's lobbyists!

The next group of "job killers" is "workplace mandates" like paid sick leave for employees, disability pay for on-the-job injuries or providing California’s citizens with health insurance.

Ah yes, the money businesses pay out to provide sick leave and disability pay for those pesky employees "kills jobs." They could hire so many more people if they didn't have to actually pay them and keep them from getting injured! This is one of the oldest arguments in the books. Slaves are always cheaper. But why do we have an economy if not to provide US with good jobs and other benefits? Do we have an economy so a very few corporate CEOs get all the money and benefits, or do we have an economy so the people can also get good pay and benefits and safe working conditions? The evidence (this, for example) is clear that good wages and benefits do not hurt jobs or the economy.

Then there are “economic development barriers” like asking online retailers to collect the same sales taxes that you local business owner collects, asking the wealthy to help pay for our schools, raising fire standards in high-risk fire areas and protecting our environment. I guess the online retailers must be paying the Chamber more this year than the retailers who have to actually rent storefronts and pay wages in your town. I can't think of any other reason why SOME retailers should collect sales taxes and others should be exempt. Doesn't this change the playing field waaayyy in favor of online retailers and harm the prospects of businesses that actually set up in our local communities? God forbid we ask them to help pay for our schools and police and fire protection!

This "job killer: list is nothing more than the use of fear to scare us into allowing a few rich corporations to have their way. By saying that protecting workers or the environment might "cost jobs" they are trying to make us afraid to ask these big corporations to live up to their responsibilities to our communities. How long will we let these lobbyists make us afraid?

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (2)

Will California's leader lead in 2008?

January 01, 2008

As the post-mortems continue to characterize the year just past and prognosticators speculate on what will be the year to come, it is clear that California is in for a bumpy ride over the next several months, if not years. With a projected $14 Billion short-fall (with many estimating the number may reach much higher), there is no question that the times call for some courageous leadership. But in today's political world, where cynics and superficial pundits abound, it is difficult for real leadership to emerge and be given the space to articulate and implement that necessary vision, courage and know-how to make the necessary changes we desperately seek and need.

Commentators proclaim that little was accomplished in the year past---no major health care reform, no real water policy emerged to deal with our state's chronic but moving toward acute problem, little real movement to develop a massive but necessary investment in transportation infrastructure, including our roads, bridges, ports or public transit, sewer systems, schools, etc. The bottom line is: we haven't seriously or effectively addressed these needs. Our massive prison system is crumbling under its own weight, while federal judges determine whether we are complying with basic legal and human rights while we warehouse more and more people and spend greater and more scarce resources in doing so.

There are many who study our state's political institutions and systems and declare the state ungovernable, observing that we are too dependent on special interests who fund campaigns; suffer from public initiatives generated from out-of-state business or ideological interests who are using our state as a guinea-pig; a tax system that is arcane and heavily-weighted in one direction or another. Also factored in is simply the massiveness of our state, with one out of every eight Americans living within our borders. So where is the leadership to deal with all this?

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

Yes, but how do they do it with a straight face?

December 20, 2007

The fact that the U.S. EPA refused to grant California a waiver so we can initiate our own air emissions standards is really no surprise to anyone who has watched this administration ignore science, our legal system, common sense and the Constitution. Whether waterboarding, abstinence only education, refusing to fund "No Child Left Behind", illegally issuing wire taps without court order, or refusing to honor validly issued subpoena from Congress (to name only a very few of this administration's scofflaw attitude), it is the audacity and mendacity that is so astonishing. It makes one wonder whether the right-wing extremist P.R. firms have a class in how to lie with a straight face, perhaps calling it something like "How stupid do we think the American people really are?"

The chutzpah is endless---with the President today in his own press conference exemplifying it with astonishing ease. But the lack of embarassment or apology is what really takes the cake. And when EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson claimed that the reason for the waiver denials is that and I quote here: "The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules." , that really takes the cake.
A clear national solution??? Nothing clear about said solution. Nothing national about it. And in fact, no solution identified either. Besides which, Bush doesn't even believe in global warming. Is it a "national solution" of denial or just plain old deception that this administration is trying to foist on a not-so-unsuspecting public?

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)

Random Thoughts for a mid-December Day

December 14, 2007

With the holidays coming (and going) fast and furiously, there is little time for deep reflection. Holiday card lists needing to be updated, cards ordered, written and sent, presents to be purchased so that the economy can stay afloat (while teetering nonetheless), end-of-year commitments met, etc. But the political machinations do not stop, the news is filled with portends of difficult days ahead and questions just seem to rise from the frenzy of the "holiday season"

So here are a few of my random thoughts and ruminations. Comments, observations and explanations are welcomed:

The Budget mess:
Why is it we knee-jerk into across-the-board program cuts before asking whether the programs we've been funding have been successful? We have the Governor calling for huge cuts from every agency and program to address the fiscal down-turn of the state caused by questionable business practices and inadequate oversight (think the sub-prime market fiasco and our state's funding mechanisms). Yet there is no effort to call for accountability or analysis of whether programs and agencies have met their goals or achieved what we expect them to be doing on behalf of the people. In other words, no measurements of what they're doing, why they're doing it and whether it's working at all. Just a simplistic and likely destructive directive to cut, period.

Of course, if the goal is to emasculate the system, this is the way to go. Where we've made progress, let's stop it in its tracks; where we've got too much in one area and not enough in another, why bother to try to become more efficient and more effective? But doesn't it make better sense to redistribute, reorganize or simply terminate programs that aren't working?

Wouldn't this also be a good time to call for a complete review and potential overhaul of our funding system in California? Why is it when the national economy tanks, it hits our state's fiscal health the hardest? Could it be we are too heavily dependent on a tax base that focuses on the good times and doesn't have consistency to cushion the state when the economy slows?

The "Holidays".
When did "giving" turn into "spending"? What happened to the holiday spirit when we measured progress by spreading good cheer and good will instead of credit card debt and plastic gift cards to just about any commercial enterprise on the planet?

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)

The Line at the DMV

December 11, 2007

Two previous posts explored the outline of the California state budget, and the process by which the budget is developed and passed into law. But these overviews don't directly touch most Californians in their daily lives. To begin to connect the budget and the budget process with the concerns of regular Californians let's look at one department that almost every adult in California encounters regularly: the dreaded Department of Motor Vehicles, commonly known as the DMV.

According to the DMV website, the department:

MORE »

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0)

Do Tax Cuts Really Help The Economy?

November 20, 2007

At the weblog Angry Bear last week, they presented some graphs in a post titled, Tax Rates and Growth Rates, Some Graphs. Go take a look.

The first graphs shows marginal income tax rates over time, and the third shows real GDP per capita, both starting in the 1950s.

As you look at these graphs, it seems that the periods of higher real per-capita growth coincide with the higher tax rates. Both graphs appear to have higher numbers on the left side, and the numbers drop as you move over to the right side. In other words, as the tax rates dropped since the 50's, so did economic growth.

This is the opposite of the "conventional wisdom" that people have come to believe. But it's just plain what happened - no way around it. And, to top it off, remember that FDR raised taxes on the rich, and then we started coming out of the depression. You can look those charts up as well.

For some recent validation of this observation -- that higher taxes coincide with higher economic growth -- remember what happened after the notorious 1993 tax increases on the very rich. After those tax increases we all shared an incredible decade of economic growth and shared prosperity. (Even the rich who paid more taxes.) The national budget was balanced and we reven started paying off the huge debt that had accumulated. Then, following the 2001 tax cuts which primarily went to the very rich growth rates have not been so hot, and regular people actually feel more pinched, not less. And the country has had to borrow an incredible amount of money - which will have serious consequences in the future.

So what could be happening here? Conservatives like to say that taxes hurt the economy. That they "take money out of the economy." But is this really what happens?

If the money is "taken out"of the economy, where does it go? Isn't this a perverse view of what government is, to think it is so separate from the people that it isn't even part of the economy? Perhaps this is wishful thinking on the part of anti-government conservatives, but in reality the government puts the tax money back into the economy by paying teachers, building roads, etc.

Conservatives say that taxes are a "cost" to businesses, forcing them to raise prices. But taxes are on profits, which are calculated after costs. And if a company is doing well enough to be profitable enough to be paying taxes, why would they want to raise prices and discourage customers?

Conservatives also say that higher taxes remove the incentive to work. But don't you think it is more likely people would work harder to make up the difference?

In California we also had a wave of tax cutting, as well as bringing in rules making it very difficult to increase taxes when needed -- even when most of the public wants to. California used to have the very best schools and colleges in the country, the best roads, agraculture infrastructure, and so many things we were proud of. But since the wave of tax-cutting all of these have been cut back to minimal levels, and the state is still forced to borrow like there is no tomorrow.

I learned in school that science is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, real science describes what really happens. Conservative economics seems to be about "if only people would do so-and-so, such-and-such would happen." The trouble is, people don't, and it doesn't.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0)

Do Taxes 'Hurt'? Is Government Bad?

October 04, 2007

As I read my Monday morning (Oct. 1, 2007) San Jose Mercury News a headline jumped out at me: "Cigarette tax would hurt poor".

How often do we hear that taxes "hurt" or "punish" one group or another? How often do we hear that taxes are a "burden on the economy" or "cost jobs?" How many politicians talk about providing "tax relief?"

George Lakoff, of the Rockridge Institute writes that this language "frames" taxes as an affliction:

For there to be "relief" there must be an affliction, an afflicted party harmed by the affliction, and a reliever who takes the affliction away and is therefore a hero. And if anybody tries to stop the reliever, he's a villain wanting the suffering to go on. Add "tax" to the mix and you have a metaphorical frame: Taxation as an affliction, the taxpayer as the afflicted party, the president as the hero, and [people who believe in government] as the villains.

This anti-tax rhetoric results from an anti-government worldview that is pushed by conservatives, in which they portray our government as some kind of enemy of the public. Ronald Reagan is famous for sayings like, "Government is the problem, not the solution" and, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' " The constant use of negative framing like this to describe government and taxes leads regular people to think about their government as a negative, malevolent force. We have been hearing this drumbeat for so long, and with so little pushback to counter these ideas, that many people just accept that this is the way it is.

But are taxes really an affliction? Is government really a negative force in society? Let's step back from the affliction frame for a second and take a different look at the idea of taxes and government.

MORE »

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (1)

Working to repair a dangerously broken prison system

September 27, 2007

There is no one in California with any knowledge of our state's prison system who doesn't agree that it is in crisis. While we expand the number of offenses for which incarceration is the penalty and then expand the length of sentences for those offenses, we have expanded the prison walls beyond capacity. As as result, the courts have intervened in our correctional system's process and threatened to close the doors to new prisoners unless the conditions within the prisons improve significantly.

With state government squeezed for funding, we have seen the cost of the corrections portion of the state budget increase geometrically over the past two decades. With more and more "three strikers" clogging up the prisons, and more elderly lifers needing expensive medical care as they age and die in prison, the problem has only gotten worse. What can and should the state do about this?

What will it take to avoid the state's prison system being taken over by the courts, with consequences that are unacceptable to the people of the state?

Assemblymember Paul Krekorian (D- Burbank) has a proposal that attempts to address at least one aspect of this situation. Here is Assemblymember Krekorian's explanation of the bill that now sits on the Govenor's desk awaiting either signature or veto.

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)

Senate Bill 974 and The Art of the Possible

September 06, 2007

Recently, we posted a piece by Senator Alan Lowenthal, calling for passage of his container-fee measure, SB 974. This common-sense measure would have required a minimal fee on each container coming off the ships at the Ports of Long Beach, L.A. and Oakland where the air quality is so badly impacted by the vehicles transporting this important commerce. The fee generated would go to mitigate the filthy and unhealthy air quality. It would also be used to repair the infra-structure upon which the trucks and vehicles transporting these goods move.

Unfortunately, those who benefit from the commercial (read profit) aspects of this---the Wal-Marts and other big corporations, have been fighting tooth-and-nail to kill this bill. While Senator Lowenthal remains committed to its passage, the dark under-belly of politics has pushed back ferociously. Although they've been able to delay the measure, the pressure being put on the Governor and other legislators has increased because of the public concern and outcry that has moved this bill far beyond what the big moneyed lobbyists ever expected.

Although Senator Lowenthal has announced he will not move the bill this year, progress is clearly being made. The fact that he was able to sit face-to-face with the Governor means a great deal in terms of the importance this measure carries. Usually, meetings on bills occur with the Governor's underlings. In this case, the Governor has personally committed to some kind of fee to off-set the filth and dangerous conditions that surround the ports of our state.

But since this is politics, the fact is that the Gov. doesn't want to further alienate Big Business while he tries to shove some kind of healthcare "reform" down their throats. We don't think his idea of reform is much of anything, so long as the health insurance industry is still in the game and calling the shots. But Schwarzenegger is committed to putting something out there to placate the public demand for a fix of this completely broken system. Thus the delay on cleaning up the air. But this is politics--the art of the possible. So Senator Lowenthal will wait until January to rev up this important bill.

For many of us, this is just more frustration at the delay, while the health and lives of many continue to be sacrificed at the altar of greed and profit. But this is also a political world we live in. Sometimes the right thing takes a while to happen. In the case of SB 974 we'll expect to see that happen in the coming legislative year.

Here are Senator Lowenthal's thoughts on the situation:

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)

America is Crumbling

August 02, 2007

I remember one of my teachers in high school saying something about how my generation would have to deal with "crumbling infrastructure." I dismissed him as a rambling old man back then, but only 10 years after he said that, we're seeing tragedy after tragedy unfold as basic infrastructure fails spectacularly here, in the richest country ever to exist on God's green earth. A few years ago, we had a blackout stretch from Detroit to New York City. Two years ago, the levees in New Orleans broke. Two weeks ago, a steam pipe burst under a Manhattan street, killing one and injuring hundreds. And today a bridge over the Mississippi river collapsed in Minneapolis. Example after example of tragic failures of the most basic public trust: roads, utilities, and bridges.

Obviously, accidents sometimes happen. But I refuse to believe it's just coincidental that our public infrastructure is crumbling about 27 years after the rise of a political philosophy (Reaganomics) which actively works to privatize the entire government out to the lowest bidder. Public utilities used to be just that -- publicly funded, regulated, and maintained. That system wasn't perfect, but at least we didn't have exploding streets and collapsing bridges. Nowadays, we've got Enron-esque, private, for-profit corporations running everything from prisons to health care to road maintenance and even the military.

It's not working.

MORE »

Posted by Erik Love - Comments (0)

An Inspired Week For Conservatives

July 01, 2007

From The Courage Campaign

This was a big week for conservatives.  The immigration bill, while flawed, would have been a step in the right direction for fixing a system that forces more than 12 million people in America to live in the shadows.  Conservatives in the US Senate succeeded in killing that bill, which means that there won't be any meaningful immigration reform until 2009.  Then, the Supreme Court showed its new, solid conservative colors with 3 (three!) blockbuster conservative rulings.  One decision gave corporations all kinds of free speech guarantees in election campaigns.  Another ruling issued the same day limited the free speech rights of student protestors.  And the third 5-4 conservative court decision rolled back the clock on racial equality all the way back to the 1950's.  So, perhaps inspired by the conservative movement's stunning successes in Washington, conservative Republicans in Sacramento dug in their heels and refused to allow a budget to pass the Assembly before start of the new fiscal year on July 1.

Democrats in Sacramento had a budget ready to go - one with painful cuts in important services like education.  For example, fees at California universities would see no relief in the Democratic budget, and a planned boost of $400 million for K-12 schools also didn't make the cut.  Traffic a problem in your part of California?  The Democrats trimmed more than half a billion dollars for transit projects in an attempt to keep state spending at reasonable levels.  All this wasn't nearly enough for Assembly Republicans, though - they want even deeper cuts.

I'm left scratching my head.  Aren't we living in one of the wealthiest states in the wealthiest country in the world?  Why do we need to so deeply cut such essential programs as K-12 education?  There must be some way that California can do better.

MORE »

Posted by Erik Love - Comments (0)

Back to the Bottom

June 10, 2007

Now that the flurry of bill activity is over for the moment, the Legislature will be turning its attention back to the Budget for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2007. With a continuing budget shortfall of some magnitude still facing the state (no one is quite sure of the amount since the Governor recently announced a $700 million dollar hole he hadn't seen before), it's time to revisit some of the key priorities of the state.

We've asked one of Speak Out California's newest Board members, Dyanne Cano, to post her thoughts in her capacity as an expert on service-learning and after-school programs in the LA area. In that realm she observes,
not surprisingly, that while California boasts of a huge creative industry supplying billions to our economy,our political leaders show a complete lack of vision when it comes to funding art programs in this state.
Here are her comments:

For the past 30 years, the California Arts Council's mission is "to advance California through the arts and creativity." However, CAC's funding has been cut dramatically over the last few years (from $ 32 million in 2001 to $1 million in 2004 at its lowest--a 97% budget cut in just three years). According to the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, California now ranks the lowest among the 50 states in arts funding. Mississippi, the District of Columbia and Guam give more per person to the arts; California gives a mere three cents per person.

Why is increased funding for CAC important? In a 2006 op-ed piece for the San Fransico Chronicle, Alma Robinson, Executive Director of California Lawyers for the Arts, wrote, "Since 2003, when the state's General Fund allocation for the California Arts Council was reduced to $1.1 million, we lost most of the funding for arts education, artists' residencies and fellowships, the arts touring program and grants for the state's diverse arts organizations -- from the mini to the major. Many arts presenters, community arts programs, local arts councils and arts-service organizations are on life support."

To help increase CAC's budget from its current budget of $5.1 million and to protect it from further cuts, there are ways you can tell your representatives that the arts do matter.

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

Crisis at the University of California

May 26, 2007

From The Courage Campaign
The Times has a frightening piece up this week about a growing crisis at the University of California, the sorely underfunded facilities for mental health care for students.  The number of suicides at the UC's campuses has increased, as has the number of students seeking counseling, but the university's capacity for helping students in need has not improved to meet this crucial need.

After the tragedy at Virginia Tech last month, UC students received an email from the university urging them to take advantage of the counseling services available to them.  When I received this message (as a student at UC Santa Barbara), I had the impression that the counseling and mental health services at UCSB are quite good.  So I was shocked to read this in the paper today:

At UC Santa Barbara a decade ago, an average of 21 students a quarter came to the counseling center to report they were experiencing an emotional crisis. Now, more than 200 students a quarter come for help, saying they are in a crisis. "Our crises have gone way up and we have fewer psychologists to deal with that," said Jeanne Stanford, director of counseling services. "We feel like we have become a crisis center." UC has about one psychologist for every 2,300 students, far below the International Assn. of Counseling Services guideline of one psychologist for every 1,000 to 1,500 students.

California is set to spend more on prisons than on colleges for the first time in our history.  We'll be the only big state with this dubious distinction.  This is already a tragedy, but we also have to ask whether the costs of prison are worth the sacrifice of our public colleges and universities.  Which is a more effective preventative against crime -- massive prisons, or the promise of a quality college education for every Californian?

I also noted in the story that improvements to health services for students have come from an increase to student fees (which have been rising steadily over the past five years).  We need a governor and a legislature that prioritizes school investment over prison investment, and we need them now.

Posted by Erik Love - Comments (1)

Total Recall: Prison Reform Update

May 19, 2007

From The Courage Campaign
California's prisons are in a serious crisis. They are massively overcrowded, and the problem is getting worse as more people are being sent there than ever before. The conditions inside the prisons have deteriorated to the point that the health care system is already under the control of a federal court (three inmates died just this last December due to poor health care). The courts have threatened to take over the rest of the system if urgent reforms are not implemented. As Total Recall (the Courage Campaign governor watch) has noted, prison reform was a key part of Governor Schwarzenegger's campaign promises both in the 2003 recall election and his 2006 reelection. But Schwarzenegger took almost no action to fix our prisons in his first term as Governor, and he didn't release a detailed plan to fix the problem until after his reelection, in December 2006. Schwarzenegger's first major prison bill has finally been signed, just this month.

More Prisons, And Billions More For Prisons

Nearly every expert agrees that sentencing reform - stopping the huge increases in the prison population - is desperately needed in California. For Governor Schwarzenegger to fulfill his promise to fix our correctional system, he needs to provide bold leadership and resist the calls for "tough on crime." We simply cannot afford to send so many people to prison, and there's no evidence that locking up 170,000 people (and the number keeps getting higher) has made us any safer.

Rather than enact bold reforms, on May 3, 2007, Schwarzenegger successfully pushed through a plan to build tens of thousands of new prison cells, which together with a few new treatment programs will rack up a cost of some 7.4 Billion Dollars. Despite the rejection of voters, again and again, for bond dollars to build new prisons, the plan hailed as a success by Schwarzenegger spends more than 6 Billion just on construction alone -- operating cost estimates will come later. Schwarzenegger did not do what almost every expert on prisons has said he must do: institute immediate reform of the sentencing system to stop sending so many people to prison. The 7.4 Billion Dollar plan does nothing to relieve the crisis in the immediate term. Rather than a permanent fix to the broken system, this plan is a 7.4 Billion Dollar bandage. Did I mention that the cost of this plan is 7.4 Billion Dollars?

Health Care for Inmates: Still Cruel and Unusual

The construction of new prisons is just the first part of the massive cost that we will have to pay to maintain a prison system housing 200,000 human beings. Last week, the person appointed to fix the health care system in the prisons released his proposal to bring the system out of "cruel and unusual" territory. The proposal had no price tag, but experts say it will take nearly 20 years and billions of dollars to fully implement.

Death Chamber Controversy

Adding a new dimension to Schwarzenegger's prison failures is the recent controversy over a secret new death chamber at San Quentin prison. Governor Schwarzenegger and his staff apparently knew of the plan to build this new chamber well before it was made public -- but Schwarzenegger made statements to the contrary. John Myers has an excellent description of the unfolding controversy here.

Total Recall

This series is dedicated to keeping you informed of how well Schwarzenegger's actions live up to his promises. We'll keep you updated on developments as they happen.

Posted by Erik Love - Comments (1)

Seriousness

February 26, 2007

In Sunday's SF Chron, clever seeming anti-urbanist critic Joel Kotkin tells an increasingly familiar story about the tarnished reputation of the Golden State:

Our magnificent state may still be the home to Silicon Valley, Hollywood, the nation's largest port complex and the world's richest agricultural valleys, but by many critical measurements the state is slipping.

What are the problems, and how can we move forward through them? Is Mr Kotkin or anyone else in the state proposing serious solutions?

MORE »

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

Update on Cal State University impasse

January 25, 2007

The California State University Board of Trustees announced this week that it would be giving 28 of it's highest paid executives a 4% increase in compensation while at the same time students were told they could be seeing a 10% increase in tuition in the fall. These same high-paid administrators,led by Chancellor Charles Reed, continue to be at impasse with their faculty and its negotiating arm, the California Faculty Assoication, (CFA) which is seeking a contract that increases the salaries and benefits of its members.
Many state legislators have objected to giving these 6-figure executives yet another pay increase, given that both CSU faculty and students are feeling a financial squeeze at the same time. This is the second pay raise for the top adminstrators in less than two years, having received an average 14% pay hike in mid-2005 (complete with increased car and housing allowance)

Speak Out California Board Member and Assistant Professor R. Stanley Oden has been providing regular updates to Speak Out California's readers and submits this latest update-complete with proposed faculty and student action so that those who wish to lend their support for this effort may do so.


CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION
STEPS UP TO SUPPORT FACULTY AND STUDENTS

As it has been reported previously by Speak Out California, the California Faculty Association which represents California State University faculty, counselors, and coaches is stepping up its Spring Campaign to get the CSU administration back to the bargaining table and negotiate a fair and equitable contract for the CFA. The CFA faculty over the past two weeks and for several more weeks at each campus will be holding rallies, informational pickets and campus meetings with faculty members. The purpose is to inform CSU faculty, students and the public at-large that the CSU administration has voted to give salary increases to administrators and outrageous severance packages costing California taxpayers millions of dollars while CSU faculty is faced with a paltry salary offer from the CSU administration. Additionally, CSU students are now faced with a fee increase of 10% promoted by the Governor, who ran on a promise that he would not seek to raise fees. Students are organizing against this fee increase and are joining forces with the CFA faculty to bring equity and fairness to educational funding for the CSU. It is reported that student leaders from the CSU system are meeting to map out their campaign opposing a 10 percent undergraduate fee increase for the 2007-08 school year. “Our policy states that we oppose any fee increases”, said Nadir Vissanjy, a student at Sonoma State University who chairs the California State Student Association.
This CFA is encouraging the public to support the CFA and CSU students. Informational picketing will be held at CSU Sacramento at the school entrances on Monday, January 29th beginning at 7:30 a.m. Other campus actions include: Picketing at San Jose State, January 31st, and San Francisco State. February 7th. All of the CFA chapters are holding strike related activities including strike meetings, phonebanking, and teach-ins.
The contract negotiations are at an impasse. Mediation between both sides failed to produce any settlement and the next step is fact-finding with both sides seeking a fact-finder to lay out their positions. The CFA does not hold out much hope from this process and fully expect the CSU administration to impose its contract offer on the CFA. The CFA members will start holding strike vote meetings sometime after the expected imposition of the CSU offer. At that point the CFA is prepared to begin rolling strikes throughout the CSU system.
We encourage all Californians to write their local state legislators and demand that the CSU negotiate fairly and equitably with the CFA. The CSU is a major economic engine of California. The CSU is where working class Californians goes to receive their college degrees and then become productive, creative workers at all professions and at all levels in the state. Join with the faculty and students to protest the lack of a decent contract for faculty and to rescind the fee increases proposed by the governor.

Professor Oden serves on the faculty at Cal. State University, Sacramento

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

Update on the CSU Faculty contract stalemate

December 19, 2006

We have been following the contract negotiations and stalemate between the California State University Faculty Association and the well-heeled CSU Administration for several weeks. (See Speak Out's blog entry of November 16, 2006) With thousands of faculty members futures on the line and the philosophical as well as economic importance of this issue to workers and professional employees in general, we've asked Assistant Professor at CSU Sacramento and Speak Out board member, R. Stanley Oden to update us on the status of those negotiations as the campuses wind down for the holidays.

Here's his update:

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

Paying the people who teach: The Impasse at CSU

November 16, 2006

We have been subjected to many horror stories of how administrators keep getting salary increases and bonuses while our teachers and professors incomes languish from policies that keep rewarding the big paycheck and ignoring the key work in the classroom.

Speak Out California Board Member, Stan Oden, Ph.D. is a professor at California State University, Sacramento who has been following this situation closely. As a member of the California Faculty Association, he has been fighting to get the attention of the CSU Board of Trustees to correct the inequities that havekept qualified professionals from being respected and paid what they are worth while paychecks get fatter and fatter for so-called "top-level administrators".

A large and vocal rally was held in Long Beach on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 to protest this inequitable situation and to mobilize CFA's faculty to "Stop the Rip-offs against Faculty, Staff and Students:" Dr. Oden has submitted the following blog for our readers:

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

The real bogeyman in the healthcare debate

September 10, 2006

Thanks go to the Sac. Bee's editorial today on pointing out that progress in dealing with the serious healthcare crisis in California-and nationwide is that government is not the bad guy that the Bush/ Schwarzenegger team try to portray but that government has a proven track-record on this issue (with Medicare and Medicaid as obvious examples) and will continue to demonstrate that it has a very important role in the solution.

We here at Speak Out California believe it is critically important to scratch off the thin veneer the Bush spin machine has created in order to mislead Californians into believing that the Governor is "moderate" and not beholden to the same special interests that control the Bush administration's shameless pro-corporate agenda. The fact is that this Governor is completely beholden to the same large corporate influences, among them the same insurance giants that are fighting against making health care available to all Californians because it will, by necessity,pull the plug on their corporate greed.

In order to get the full and complete picture of SB 840 and the Governor's complete dishonesty in characterizing the terms of the measure, we asked Andrew McGuire, the Executive Director of Health Care for All-California to give us his thoughts on this important and ground-breaking effort to bring real health care REFORM to our state. Here are his observations and a call-to-action for all Californians who believe the time has come to take the profit out of healthcare and give Californians the opportunity to have healthy lives for themselves and their families:

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (2)

So what's holding up the budget now?

June 20, 2006

With the state awash in money from the recent housing and technology boom, what games are being played by the minority party to hold up the budget and keep the legislature--both sides-- from an on-time budget and a claim of bipartisanship success? The answer is the immigration/race card, and as reported by current Assembly Budget Committee Chair, John Laird (D Santa Cruz), the Republicans have come unglued over a provision that would provide health care for all California's children within the next couple years.

Assemblymember Laird has an excellent piece in Monday's California Progress Report that addresses the main points in the budget proposal. We asked him to write a piece for Speak Out California that hones in on the political gamesmanship with the budget and what excuse the Republicans found to avoid early and bipartisan approval---where even the Governor was in agreement (at least initially before he started his flip-flopping of agreeing to it before disagreeing to it). As we print this article,we're hearing noises from the Senate Democrats of possible capitulating in order to get the budget resolved. Nonetheless, it is helpful for Californians to get a sense of just how California's archaic budget process operates under the political microscope.

In my post the other day, I talked about how the requirement of a 2/3 vote was a critical structural reform in California to get our state in line with the 47 other states that require a simple majority to pass a budget. Here's a current example of the reason why this is the kind of reform we need in our state as illustrated by the gamesmanship being played by the Republicans and reported by Budget Chair John Laird exclusively for Speak Out California:

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

A day late and a bond dollar short

March 14, 2006

As Assemblymembers and Senators try to rush to put the largest bond measure in state history on the June ballot days after the legal deadline, the question on everyone's minds should be: where was the Governor on this earlier?

There is no reason why this rush should be happening. The Governor was fine with this proposal being on the November ballot -- why wouldn't he, after all? The infrastructure bond is very popular with voters and it would give him the opportunity to talk about it at every campaign stop if it was on the ballot at the same time as he was up for re-election. So why this last-ditch effort to rush for June?

My guess is it's more smoke and mirrors -- what we've come to expect from the Schwarzenegger administration. And with the mainstream press as clueless as it is, it's not difficult to sell the storyline of the "incompetent Legislature" that can't get it together to pass this bond. But this, of course, is not the true story.

There are two main things to remember here -- things you will not read about in the mainstream media. One, no matter how hard the Democrats work to come up with a plan that would benefit most Californians, the Republicans in the Legislature will always stonewall them. The Republicans in the California Legislature are some of the most right-wing, Neanderthal, outside-of-the-mainstream people in politics. They have seats only because seats have been rigged for them -- not because these kinds of Republicans could ever win in a competitive district in California, the most progressive state in the nation.

Two, stop for a second to think about the level of negotiation and compromise that must go into a $50 BILLION bond for massive infrastructure projects all across the state (in every Legislator's district). That's a lot of money. Those are a lot of projects. Furthermore, it has to pass by a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and Senate, something that rarely happens anytime ever (see above comment about Republicans), as well as the Governor's office, when the Governor is banking his re-election on this plan.

The chances of something like this being hashed out in a week are slim, and they should be. In fact, if they do manage to squeeze something out in the middle of the night when everyone is at wits-end, it will be the people of California who lose. It's not possible for a bond package being executed in this rushed and thrown together way to be the best bond package for the people of this state. You can thank Gov. Schwarzenegger for another example of failed leadership amid opportunity.

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

Senator Perata not getting it again

March 01, 2006

California Senate Majority Leader Don Perata is not getting it again. From his letter to Rob Reiner, who is heading the campaign, as reported in today's Chron...

"I question if the billions of dollars mandated for preschool in Prop. 82 is equitable. Critics argue that Prop. 82 wouldn't improve access to those who need it most: poor, disadvantaged and English learners," Perata wrote. "Instead, the initiative would be a financial boon to families that already pay for their children's preschool education."

Means-testing is one of the classic arguments that consevatives use to argue against otherwise sound investments in society. There are two big problems with this: one, it adds considerably to the adminstrative costs, and two (even more problematic) is that it is a sure-fire way to set up a program to be starved for money later. Plenty of squeezed middle-class families in this state don't have a few extra grand laying around to send their kids to preschool. The costs of helping the few families who can truly afford it easily are negligible compared to the security and positive impacts (fiscal and otherwise) universal preschool will provide over time.

The fact is that preschool increases the possibilities for kids to get to the higher level of symbolic thought they're going to need to build and compete in today's economy. Preschool is simply a good investment. There are some troubling things about the intiative as proposed, but the Senator's opposition to it on these grounds may be penny wise but it is surely pound foolish.

To the Senator's credit, he did defend First 5 from the politically motivated fire it's been taking recently. The bill mentioned in the Chron's story that would slash the advertising budget is foolish. What good is a preschool program if no one knows about it? This kind of positive shaping of cultural opinion is very much something the state should be engaged in.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (2)

C'mon in, Mr. Lucas, the water is fine

February 15, 2006

George Lucas is visiting DC...

"Lucas, who has never been identified with political causes, said Tuesday that his visit to Washington was strictly nonpartisan...

Lucas is not listed as a political donor to any federal candidate for office or party in the past few election cycles, according to Federal Election Commission records."

but, there is this...

Asked about the role of democracy in Star Wars' imaginary Evil Empire, Lucas said, "In the Empire, Congress is irrelevant. They come, they talk, they rant, they rave, they vote, but it doesn't mean anything because the emperor controls it all. He doesn't care about the democracy part of it.'

It's a little horrifying to consider that someone as outstandingly and phenomenally wealthy as George Lucas has never given so much as a dime to participating in the democratic process, but, like a lot of people, it sounds like he's starting to wake up. Glad to see he's apparently taking the political message of Episode III - "So this is how liberty dies, to the sound of thunderous applause" - seriously.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

Give me a break

February 13, 2006

The Governor's advisors are divided about Prop 82, the preschool for all initiative.

Richard Riordan, the governor's former secretary of education, and his wife, Nancy Daly Riordan, are among Proposition 82's leading supporters. Some of the big donors to the governor's campaigns - Robert and Elizabeth Lowe and Warren Hellman - are also lending their names to the campaign to tax high earners to pay for universal preschool.

On the other side, the campaign against Proposition 82 is relying on advice from some consultants who have worked for Schwarzenegger's political committees or Citizens to Save California, a coalition of business groups that supported Schwarzenegger's November 2005 initiatives. Two of the governor's staunchest allies are heading up the campaign against Proposition 82: California Chamber of Commerce President Allan Zaremberg and Small Business Action Committee President Joel Fox.

Hence the Governor can't take a position. Nevermind that very prominent pro-business groups, such as the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, have given him perfect cover by endorsing it. This guy just has no set of values guiding him when it comes to anything that's fundamental or important. He has very strong convictions about exercise programs. That's about all we've seen so far. He can't take a stand if any of his crony corporate contributors or right-wing advisors behind the scenes have a problem. That is not the kind of person who deserves to lead a state like California.

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

No free lunch

February 10, 2006

Dan Walters makes no sense today:

What no one - not only politicians of both partisan stripes but the larger public as well - wants to acknowledge is that when it comes to state spending, there's no free lunch.

If you filter out the cynical journalist-speak from this sentence from the paragraph before, you'll see that thi sis actually exactly what Treasurer Angelides has been saying:

Angelides has uttered the usual bromides about closing corporate tax loopholes and imposing higher taxes on the rich but has been vague about fully financing what he and other Democrats are advocating.

So what Mr. Walters is really saying is "well, my back of the envelope calculations don't match with what the State Treasurer has come up with. He must be wrong, and I must be right, and it's better just to be cynical about these things anyway." He mentions the Governor's addiction to free-lunch thinking (lets $220 billion on the credit card! whee!) in passing towards the end, but wouldn't that have been a better topic for a column?

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (1)

More spending, no new solutions

January 10, 2006

Gov. Schwarzenegger's budget is out today, and it amounts to more spending with again failing to resolve our state's structural deficit. It's great that we have $5 billion more to play with, but imagine how we could fix things if for once we could leverage that money with a steady stream of increased revenues from making our tax system more fair.

We haven't delved into the proposal very completely yet, and we will, but right now it looks like more surface-level spending (a marketing campaign to try to enroll more kids into Healthy Families is nice, but it won't do much for the other half of uninsured kids who aren't eligible) with a lot of grandiose rhetoric. The best news I've seen so far is equalization of funding for community colleges, which will help many of those that were very near to total collapse due to lack of funding, and the forced efforts to reform California's youth prisons.

I feel like a broken record at this point, but I will say it again: we need to have a conversation about what services we want in this state and what we're willing to do to pay for them. Anything else falls short of what we deserve as a state.

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

Arnold's bond plan won't solve our problems

January 09, 2006

Ed Mendel of the San Diego Union-Tribune is probably the best reporter in the Sacramento press corps right now. He seems to be the only one lately willing to tell us some unvarnished truth, and he often provides good historical context to political events happening in the Capitol. So today, while most of the other major papers are still busy fawning all over Schwarzenegger and his "Big, Bold Plan" (As the Alliance rightfully pointed out, George Skelton's column in the L.A. TImes is quite barf-worthy), Mendel looks at the bond proposal from an objective viewpoint. Oh, right! That's what journalists are supposed to do all the time. Well, it's been so long since we've seen it, it really does jump right out and grab you!

The basic idea pushed by Schwarzenegger in his State of the State address Thursday -- that as the population booms, the state has done little to expand infrastructure for decades -- is nothing new.

Two former governors, Gray Davis and Pete Wilson, acknowledged the problem by appointing panels on infrastructure and growth, only to have their reports ignored when they were issued during economic downturns.

Davis, who was ousted in the recall, may have had a flashback as he sat in the Assembly gallery Thursday while Schwarzenegger rolled out his plan.

"Estimates of our unfunded needs for traffic, schools and other public facilities are at least $40 billion, some say as much as $90 billion," Davis said in his first State of the State address in 1999.

He then goes on to get into the political implications of the timing of this proposal in the beginning of an election year.

The lawmakers must act quickly to place a plan on the June ballot. Nunez said he has been told that the deadline is Jan. 26 to Jan. 28 for the regular ballot pamphlet and Feb. 12 for a supplemental pamphlet.

The interest of legislative leaders in infrastructure and tax revenue from a growing economy that's narrowing a chronic budget gap might by themselves seem like a sign of good timing for the governor's proposal.

But Schwarzenegger is running for re-election this year, raising the question of whether a Democratic-controlled Legislature will let the Republican governor lead the way on infrastructure or decide to wait until next year.

"If they can't make the June ballot, I'm not sure they would give him a program for November that he could run on," Business Roundtable leader Hauck said.

This bond plan is an old idea. We need investments in infrastructure, but this state has big problems, and they will not be solved by throwing a ton of money into a plan that is being rushed onto the ballot for reasons that are purely political. If this is Schwarzenegger's answer, his compelling reason for us to vote for him again, we should be able to beat him handliy, as long as we are able to articulate a clear and better alternative. We're working on it, and we sure hope others are, too.

Of course, there is the media. But reporters like Ed Mendel give me hope!

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

A question of priorities

September 01, 2005

Gov. Schwarzenegger finally decided to head out to the brand new University of California at Merced today, although he is skipping the official opening and big celebration taking place Monday. Today's trip was not pre-arranged; it was announced after two days of bad press in which questions were rightfully raised about what could possibly be more important than the opening of the first UC campus in 40 years, and the first ever in the San Joaquin Valley?

Unfortunately for the governor, he doesn't have a good reason. His spokespeople say he has "other plans," but we're not being let in on what they are, other than "special election issues." His staff says he has no scheduled events.

Perhaps Schwarzenegger needs some time to recover from his recent vacation and busy fund-raising schedule that included a $10,000-per-seat Rolling Stones concert. Or perhaps, even though he is supposed to be leading this state, he just doesn't understand the importance of accessible and affordable higher education.

UC Merced should dramatically increase the college-going rates of Central Valley's young people, who have traditionally lagged behind the rest of California. Schwarzenegger's rhetoric is so ridiculous that one really must judge him based on his actions. And his decision to skip the UC Merced opening speaks volumes.

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

Where California needs to go

July 13, 2005

I saw this on the street the other day while walking to lunch. It might be implying secession, but I am interpreting it as an illustration of our current struggle to renew the progressive dream in California!

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

Read my lips

July 12, 2005

The big story today is the state budget, which was signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger yesterday amid much fanfare. Apparently even wife Maria was on hand to bask in the glow of...the budget. I know, I know, it's a big deal. It's just hard to get too excited about a budget that is being heralded not because it is a moral document that truly reflects how we take care of one another in this state, but primarily because it was only three weeks late instead of three months late!

So getting right to it, here's what you really need to know about this lovely spending plan:

MORE »

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)