careful what you wish for. As a municipal employee, I spent 20 years
redoing and fixing work done by private contractors. They cut corners
everywhere the contract allows. When inspectors aren't looking, they do
whatever they think they can get away with. The end result is frequent
and early failures that cost more to fix than it would have cost to do
it correctly with quality parts when it was built. The municipal
employee has to live with the work he does, so he tries to make it
maintainable and reliable.
When you lay off government employees and contract out you are dealing with companies that wants to make a profit. This can lead to cutting corners, cutting quality, cutting worker pay and benefits, trying to get around environmental rules, etc. So privatizing can cut both ways. Maybe you can save some money, maybe not. But this idea that the private sector always does things better than We, the People just ain't necessarily so.
Editor's note: Senator Loni Hancock, who represents the 9th State Senate District, has long been an advocate for good government and transparency. As chair of the Senate Committee on Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments, she has worked tirelessly to bring accountability and governance reform to assure California meets the challenges of the 21st century.
She is passionate about campaign finance reform and getting corporate money out of the electoral process to ensure candidates and legislative leaders represent their constituents and not the big campaign contributors who buy far too much of their own self-interest at the expense of the public.
So it was a natural for Senator Hancock to be selected to serve on this newly established Assembly and Senate "Select Committee on Improving State Government" and she's a natural to comment on her thoughts, priorities and observations about the need to fix and reform several critical aspects of how state government should be operating to meet the needs of the people of California:
These days, just about everyone agrees that change is needed
This year's state budget set the record for being the
latest, and probably the worst, in California's history.It has created severe strains on local governments
and school districts, and threatens to cut the heart out of education and
undermine programs that help those most
in need.It's time for change and that
change needs to happen now.
The good news is that we are finally seeing movement for
change in Sacramento.Today, the
newly-created "Assembly and Senate Select Committee on Improving State Government,"
will hold the first in a series of open, public hearings throughout the state. The
Committee is charged with developing specific proposals to reform state
government.It will investigate
obstacles that stand in the way of government that meets the needs of the
people of California, and recommend action to remove those obstacles.
I believe there are three major reforms needed to get
California back on track:
(1) We must remove the 2/3rds requirement to pass a state
budget. California is one of only three states with a 2/3 budget rule
requirement.This has allowed a few legislators
to hold the entire state budget hostage.The U.S. Congress and 47 states require a simple majority to pass a
budget.We need to give the majority
party, Republican or Democratic, the ability to do its job and then hold them
accountable.That's what democracy is
(2) We need to reform term limits. Legislators with a lack of experience or institutional
memory are dealing with increasingly complex challenges and a dysfunctional
governance system.More than one-third
of the Assembly is brand-new every two years,
(3)We need to
reduce the influence of money in politics.Public financing of campaigns in California would change the playing
field considerably.Candidates would no
longer have to raise campaign funds from special interests with legislation
pending before the Legislature; they would owe their election only to
the people they represent.
The Joint Committee on Improving State Government will hold
four hearings throughout the state.In
addition to today's hearing in Sacramento, the Committee will hold open, pubic
hearings in the Bay Area on November 12th; in Los Angeles on
December 3rd; and in the Central Valley on December 15th.Specific details of time and location are
still being worked out.
I highly encourage you to attend one of these hearings - your
voices and your concerns must be part of the process if we are to truly restore
democracy and ensure a brighter future for our state.
Well here is a business problem: many businesses say that recovery will be delayed in California because there just are not enough trained workers ready to compete in a 21st-century economy. And the infrastructure is in terrible shape, and courts take too long to hear cases, etc.
These problems are not because of high taxes. Instead they are problems because we have cut taxes and government and now there is not enough government to educate workers, fix roads and bridges, hear court cares, etc.
We need to get our priorities back where they belong and get our government back to educating our kids and workforce and fixing roads and hearing court cases, etc., so businesses want to come here and stay here and thrive and provide the 21st century jobs that we need.
Assemblymember and Budget Chair Noreen Evans has been commenting
on the "work" of the COTCE Commission which was created to try to deal
with California's revenue creation issues that have been blamed for the
annual budget problems here in California.
While there is
clearly room for improvement in how we collect the revenues necessary
to invest in our state and its future, the suggestions by Gerald Parsky
and the Governor who appointed him to head this work are really a
subterfuge for giving more tax relief to the wealthiest Californians at
the expense of the rest of us.
We know that
the real answers call for closing billions in tax loopholes for the
rich and large corporations, correcting a split roll for real estate
taxes so that big commercial properties don't short=change our
communities and realizing that as a 21st century economy,we're
primarily a service-based and technology-based economy where revenues
should be coming from services and internet sales.
Assemblymember Evans observations on the half-baked proposal by Parsky
and his crew to misdirect our attention away from what we should be
considering and lessening the responsibilities on those who have
benefited the most and stand to gain the most from this ill-conceived
and transparent attempt to give the rich even more." -- HBJ
The proposal by the Commission on the 21st Century Economy (COTCE--rhymes with "gotcha") to scrap the California tax system and replace it with the Business Net Receipts Tax (BNRT) is riddled with problems and full of questions without answers. It begs
the question--how stupid do they think we really are?
Few people understand how the BNRT works and no one knows how it will impactCalifornia. Some compare the BNRT with theEuropean Union's Value Added Tax(VAT). That's like saying the Oakland Raiders and Manchester United both play football.
the surface, both tax systems sound similar. The proposed BNRT would be
imposed as a percentage of a business' gross receipts from the sale of
goods and services, minus the business' purchases of goods and services
from other businesses (which have already been taxed). A VAT is a tax
on manufacturers at each stage of production on the amount of value an
additional producer adds to a product. This cost is typically passed on
to the consumer in the end.
A key distinction between the VAT and BNRT lies in the fact thatCaliforniais a state, not a sovereign nation. So, the BNRT lacks a critical element ofEurope's VAT--the border adjustment. The United States Constitution preventsCaliforniafrom
implementing a border adjustment because that interferes with
interstate commerce, which can only be regulated by the federal
This creates an enormous problem forCaliforniabusinesses.Europe's VAT system ensures that products made inEuropeare taxed at the same rate as products made abroad by placing the VAT on products enteringEuropeand rebating the tax for those products leavingEurope. However, under the United States Constitution, businesses without a nexus toCaliforniacannot be taxed byCalifornia. Thus,Californiaproducts will be subject to the BNRT while products made elsewhere will enjoy a competitive tax advantage.
The BNRT's problems don't end there.Most importantly, the BNRT reduces incentives to create jobs in California.
Commission's proposal provides a tax deduction for payments to
independent contractors, but not for employee wages. It's almost as if
the Commission was trying to find a way to punishCaliforniaworkers. Under this proposal,Californiabusinesses would be taxed for keeping employees on their payroll. The logical result is thatCaliforniabusinesses will turn to out-of-state labor contractors who hire workers inCaliforniaand then contract them out toCaliforniabusinesses. Thus, Californians will have even less stable employment and we would see fewer jobs created here.
Adopting the untested BNRT proposal requires blind faith in the Commission's promises that it will somehow benefitCalifornia,
despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's like quitting your dull,
but reliable job because a late night commercial promises you can make
$100,000 working from home.
Who benefits from this proposal?Californiaworkers don't benefit.California's small businesses don't benefit.Californiacorporations don't benefit. Any benefit toCalifornia's
taxpayers is entirely speculative. The only certain beneficiaries from
this proposal are out-of-state businesses, large, multi-state or
multi-national businesses, and out-of-state labor contractors. Was this
really the purpose of the Commission on the 21st Century Economy?
Many economists loveEurope's
VAT and extol its benefits to the European economy. But don't be
tricked into believing that the proposed BNRT will bring these or
similar benefits toCalifornia. The greatest lessons Californians can learn fromEuroperegarding the BNRT are the lessons learned the hard way in the casinos ofMonte Carlo.
Just so you know, the Governor vetoed several pro-consumer bills, including one prohibiting retailers from selling out-of-date baby food and medicine, and another requiring financial institutions to tell you if your identity has been stolen. He also signed several anti-consumer bills.
AB 1512 (Lieu) - would have prohibited a retailer from selling baby
food, infant formula, and over the counter medicine after the "use by"
date on its packaging. Citing the need for the bill, CFC stated,
"California consumers should have the right to purchase medications
that are safe and effective and parents and children deserve assurances
that their baby food is nutritional and healthy."
SB 20 (Simitian) - would have required financial privacy security
breach notices to inform potential victims of identity theft about the
nature of the beach, and to include contact information for credit
AB 943 (Mendoza) - would have prohibited a prospective employer from
using consumer credit reports in the hiring process unless the report
is related to job duties.
AB 261 (Salas) - would have clarified that California students'
privacy rights allow limited access to student records by law
enforcement and election officials to further juvenile justice and
AB 811 (John Perez) - would have prohibited check-cashers from
manufacturing and selling false identification cards, or identification
cards that closely resemble a state drivers' license card.
"Anti" Consumer Bills Signed by the Governor
AB 48 (Portantino) - will reinstate responsibility for oversight of
for-profit post-secondary educational institutions to an agency
unsuited for the task, and would establish standards that would permit
fraud on students.
AB 1200 (Hayashi) - weakens California's "anti-steering" law by
allowing automobile insurance companies to persuade policy holders who
have chosen a repair shop to switch to a shop that may use inferior
parts or procedures.
SB 98 (Calderon) - Regulates life settlement industry, but requires
biased disclosures that do not inform insurance policy holders that
they may have better alternatives to surrendering a policy or allowing
a life insurance policy to lapse.
What does it mean to be a "governor?" What does it mean to "govern?"
In the news, the Governor has threatened to veto 700 bills in an attempt to force the legislature to do his bidding on water policy.
700 important items all held hostage, trying to stampede and scare the legislature to do something in a hurry, while terrible scare stories circulate on talk radio and throughout corporate media. Does this sound like a familiar tactic?
Water policy is complicated because over many decades wealthy real estate developers bought permission to build huge swaths of housing in dry area, so water needed and needs to be piped in from ... somewhere else. And huge agricultural interests make a lot of money using water that used to be heavily subsidized, meaning the people paid for the water and a few wealthy corporate interests pocketed the profits.
At the same time there is less water to go around. We have had three years of below-average rainfall, which is possibly a permanent condition because of climate change (which Republicans deny is happening). And the destruction of the environment and fisheries and groundwater caused by past bad practices is catching up, so hard choices must be made. Does our government protect the people, the environment, corporate profits?
So on one side of this we have giant corporations and the short-term profits they suck out of our communities and state, and of people who are where they are after being lured there for the sake of those short-term profits, and who eat the way they do because government had been "persuaded" (paid) to subsidize the water for the sake of those short-term profits. People need water to drink even if they do live in a desert and need to eat and have gotten used to food that costs less because the water has been subsidized. (But maybe they don't need to water their driveways and nice lawns.)
On the other side we have the long-term interests of most of the people and of the environment. See if you can guess which side the Republicans and the Governor are on?
Here in California, we take our celebrities very seriously. We
love it when they become immersed in controversy perhaps because it
provides a diversion from some of the other more complex and difficult
issues of the day. Here we have a controversy that does both. Although
it has been decades since the crime and acknowledgement of it by Roman
Polanski, he used his money and fame to skirt any consequence until
now. His predicament has brought out many of Hollywood's top
celebrities to his defense. At the same time, the issue of violence
against women, and sexual violence in particular continues to be a
serious concern in our society.
We at Speak
Out California are committed to women's equality and dignity. It is one
of the fundamental principles of a just and equal society. Women's
rights advocate and friend of Speak
Out California, Janice Rocco, has today's guest
column on the subject.
Who is Roman Polanski?
A guest post by Janice Rocco of California National Organization for Women. Who is Roman Polanski and what should the
consequences of his actions be? That question seems to have a
surprisingly different answer depending on one's vantage point. To more
than 100 in the international film community who signed a petition
demanding his "immediate release", he is apparently first and foremost
"one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers" whose freedom should not
be taken away. To me, a women who was a child growing up in Los Angeles
when Roman Polanski pled guilty to a sex crime against a child, he is a
rapist who fled justice and has yet to take responsibility for a crime
that harmed a 13 year old girl, her family and the rest of us who have
watched him evade justice and thumb his nose at the legal system for
more than three decades.
The fact that violence against women is commonplace in this
country and around the globe does not make it acceptable or mean that
when a talented celebrity is the perpetrator that we should ignore that
a serious crime took place. The fact that in popular culture, including
many films, women are often portrayed in demeaning ways and violence is
often sexualized does not mean that women and their families and
friends aren't devastated by the crime of rape each and every day.
How many women in this country and others, especially women
who have survived a sexual assault, watched the Academy Awards the year
that Polanski won the best director award and felt anger, pain or
disgust as an audience full of his colleagues in the film industry
cheered for this man who still doesn't have the decency to turn himself
a lot of people have been educated about rape since 1977 when Polanski
pled guilty to raping a 13 year old girl, some still want to believe
that rape is something that only takes place in a dark alley and is
committed by a stranger. Reality is that the majority of rapes are
committed by someone known to the victim. That
doesn't make the crime any less traumatic or mean that anything less
than a prison sentence is appropriate for those who commit this violent
One shouldn't have to read the grand jury testimony
of a 13 year old girl to understand the seriousness of what occurred
back in 1977. Polanski was charged with giving a drug to a minor,
committing a lewd act upon a person less than 14, rape of a minor, rape
by use of a drug, oral copulation and sodomy. All the charges were
felonies. He was allowed to plead guilty to the charge of unlawful
sexual intercourse with a minor in order to spare the young woman the
difficulty of having to testify publicly when her identity was not yet
known to the public.
Thirty-two years have passed since Polanski's guilty plea and
he hadn't spent a
day in jail since fleeing this country until authorities in Switzerland
took Polanski into custody last weekend. The number of years that a
rich and powerful man has successfully evaded justice, should be
considered when he is sentenced for his crime, but only from the
standpoint that his evasion of justice should bring a more severe
penalty than he would have received three decades ago for what already
was a very serious crime.
There are those who say that since the woman who survived this
rape over thirty years ago has forgiven Polanski and wants to put this
behind her, he should not be punished by the legal system. Those people
forget that this is a case of The People of the State of California vs.
Roman Polanski and that justice has yet to be served. If
Roman Polanski wants to help put this behind the woman who he harmed so
many years ago, he should stop fighting extradition and return to
California for his sentencing hearing for the crime to which he pled
Justice is rarely done when celebrities commit crimes. The
victims are generally re-victimized by the media coverage and often the
perpetrators receive little in the way of punishment for their crimes.
It is long past time that Roman Polanski faces the consequences for his
crimes. Justice should not be delayed even one more day.
- Janice Rocco, Southwest Regional Director of the National Organization for Women (NOW)