University of California President Janet Napolitano could face her roughest week in nearly four years as leader of the state’s flagship college system as lawmakers react sharply to a

Legislative oversight hearings could be held as soon as Tuesday, according to the San Jose Mercury-News, after state Auditor Elaine Howle’s second damning report in 13 months. Napolitano’s and UC regents’ reaction is far different to the second report than the first, suggesting new dynamics that could put Napolitano’s job at peril or lead to the revival of a 2014 proposal that would ask voters to strip UC of the independent autonomy it enjoys under the California Constitution.

UC regents had backed Napolitano in 2016 in her dismissive response to Howle’s complaint that UC had admitted out-of-state students who paid much more in tuition than nearly 4,300 California students “whose academic scores met or exceeded all of the median scores of nonresidents whom the university admitted to the campus of their choice.” Howle said UC officials did this for nearly a decade in response to the state’s reducing funding during the revenue recession and in lieu of even basic attempts to control costs.

Napolitano could have blamed policies she inherited. Instead, she blasted Howle’s report as inaccurate. Though Napolitano’s defense lacked exculpatory evidence, UC regents largely dismissed Howle’s findings, with Regent John Perez even saying the report reflected an unseemly bias again out-of-state students.

Napolitano, regents change tone from last harsh audit

Napolitano’s reaction to the new Howle report, however, is conciliatory. Her office challenges the assertion that $175 million in reserves was hidden, saying that the funds were committed to various tasks and couldn’t have been used to head off tuition hikes. Otherwise, its official response to the audit thanked Howle for her work and said her recommendations would be implemented.

Some regents and lawmakers expressed disbelief that they as well as the general public weren’t told of the reserves even as Napolitano was lobbying hard for tuition hikes.

“Unbelievable,” said Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to the Bay Area News Group. Newsom, a regent and an early front-runner in the 2018 governor’s race, said the era in which regents served as “lap dogs” for the Office of the President had to end and that regents should look hard at rescinding the tuition hike.

Perez declined comment.

The University of California enjoys a unique status among state agencies that goes beyond its constitutionally guaranteed autonomy. Taxpayers only directly pay for a little more than one-tenth – about $3.6 billion – of UC’s $32 billion budget. The rest largely comes from tuition, federal grants and reimbursement for services UC does for the federal government, including operating and managing three national scientific laboratories.

But Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders still see UC as an agency using public dollars that needs to be fully accountable. This has led to eight recent audits, many of which – including the latest – depict UC as having few basic financial controls and as being unable to document how and why it divvies up the various funds it receives. Howle’s analyses have consistently shown a UC system with no interest in belt-tightening.

Bad blood remains from 2014 tuition hardball

Where the contretemps goes this week is anyone’s guess. Some coverage has suggested that Howle’s critique goes overboard. But Napolitano doesn’t have a history of strong relationships with state lawmakers, some of whom see her as behaving in imperious fashion, and that could be a stealth factor in how the Legislature responds to Howle’s latest audit.

In late 2014, when the UC president got UC regents to endorse a five-year, 28 percent tuition hike that would go into effect unless the Legislature increased UC funding, Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, introduced a Senate constitutional amendment that they hoped would go before voters in 2016. It would have limited UC’s independence by giving the Legislature a veto on tuition hikes and pay raises for top UC executives, among other provisions.

The bill was shelved in 2015 after Brown and Napolitano reached a compromise on state funding. But resentment of Napolitano’s belief that she could push the Legislature around and try to embarrass it to get her way endures.

A state audit report in December 2014 chronicled the California Department of Health Care Services’ years of dental neglect of California’s low-income and disabled residents, including more than 5 million children. “Health Care Services’ information shortcomings and ineffective actions are putting children enrolled in Medi-Cal – child beneficiaries – at higher risk of dental disease,” the report said.

More than 12.5 million low-income and disabled Californians receive health coverage from Medi-Cal. The program has a $94 billion budget; $1.3 billion of which goes to Denti-Cal.

Lack of Denti-Cal Providers

The biggest problem for Denti-Cal patients, particularly those in rural areas, is lack of access to a dentist. Fifty-five percent of California counties may have “an insufficient number of dental providers willing to accept new Medi-Cal patients,” the audit said. That includes five counties, which may not have any Denti-Cal providers, and 11 other counties that have Denti-Cal providers but they are not accepting new Denti-Cal patients.

The reason is that dentists lose money treating Denti-Cal patients. California’s reimbursement rates for 10 common dental procedures averaged $21.60 in 2012, according to the audit. That’s only 35 percent of the national average of $61.96 in 2011. California has not raised its dental reimbursement rates since 2000.

The result has been a depressed level of dental care for low-income California residents compared to the rest of the nation. Only 44 percent of the 5.1 million children enrolled in Denti-Cal received dental care through the program in 2012-13, the audit said. The national average utilization rate was 47.6 percent of patients, ranging from a low of 23.7 percent in Ohio to a high of 63.4 percent in Texas.

Little Hoover Commission examines program

Denti-Cal’s problems were the focus of a Sept. 24 hearing by the state watchdog agency the Little Hoover Commission. The commission took up the issue at the request of Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, who is a pediatrician, and Assemblyman Jim Wood, D-North Coast, who is a retired dentist. “Millions of low-income Californians on Denti-Cal are suffering because the promise of dental coverage by the state is not being fulfilled by Denti-Cal,” they said in an April 6 letter to the Commission.

Pan kicked off the four-hour hearing noting that one third of Californians are covered by Medi-Cal, and pointing out that tooth decay is preventable with regular dental care. “Unfortunately, every indication is that the Denti-Cal program has been neglected for decades – it is broken,” said Pan.

He’s made phone calls on behalf of Medi-Cal patients having trouble finding a dentist. “I shared their frustration when I … couldn’t reach a dentist to get them dental care,” he said.

The problem has been going on for years. In 2008 only one-fifth of the children in Sacramento County’s Denti-Cal program actually received dental care, Pan said. “It was clear that DHCS did not seem to exercise very much oversight or knew what was happening – or not happening actually – to our children in that time.”

DHCS has not, as required by law, annually reviewed its reimbursement rates “to ensure the reasonable access to dental services by Medi-Cal beneficiaries,” the audit said. The department also has not complied with its pledge to annually compare Denti-Cal’s performance with results from national and statewide surveys. Denti-Cal “thought another division was responsible for completing the dental metrics in the monitoring plan,” the audit said.

Blame placed on low reimbursement rates

Pan, along with several other industry experts testifying at the hearing, said that reimbursement rates need to be increased to make it worthwhile for dentists to take on the extra work. Reimbursement is so low that some dentists find it is less burdensome to directly provide charity care to poor patients rather than going through Denti-Cal and dealing with its paperwork and other bureaucratic hurdles.

“When you have payment rates that do not adequately cover practice expenses, there’s pressure on providers then to make that up – if they are going to be viable – to perform high volumes and particularly more highly paid services and procedures,” Pan said. “The department then responds, when they see this higher volume, to create even more barriers to payment, which drives out more providers. And basically who are you left with? People who have figured out how to work the system to do high volumes just to keep the practice viable.”

Similar testimony was provided by numerous dental professionals. All of which put the woman representing the Denti-Cal program – Rene Mollow, DHCS deputy director of Health Care Benefits and Eligibility – on the hotseat.

“I first do want to acknowledge the challenges that we’ve had in the program and to represent the commitment … in working through and making sure we do improve the management and administration of the program,” said Mollow. “I think, based upon responses that we have made to the state auditor, we have demonstrated our commitment to making the improvements.”

She said there’s been a lot of discussion on reimbursement rates. She also acknowledged that the problems are more extensive, including cumbersome paperwork requirements. For example, the Denti-Cal application for dentists is 40 pages long. Denti-Cal preauthorization, based on documentation including x-rays, is often required before some procedures are allowed to be performed. Several professionals also complained about the ratcheting up of anesthesiology regulations.

But Mollow sought to put a positive spin on the situation.

“We pride ourselves on ensuring program integrity while also ensuring access to services and maintain the viability of the program given the expenditures of the program and the population that we do serve,” she said. “We do recognize the challenges with the administrative processing in terms of claims and provider enrollment. We are looking at ways to do some streamlining.”

Pressure for specific solutions

Commissioner David Beier asked Mollow about the audit. “Did you view that as a three-alarm or four-alarm fire that required an urgent response?” he said.

Mollow responded, “Yes, the audit raised concerns. But the findings of the audit were things we were already working on. So these were things based upon the administrative simplification, issues with provider enrollment, all of the things people were raising to us as concerns.”

Beier wanted to hear more specifics about corrective measures. “In your testimony there’s a lot of ‘looking ats’ and ‘considering,’” he said. “What are the major changes that have been implemented in almost a year since the audit?”

Mollow responded, “We’ve looked at improving upon our contract oversight and management of the fiscal intermediary. We have required the provision of the beneficiary and provider outreach plans. We are now working with stakeholder review of those plans. We are working with stakeholders on beneficiary and provider performance metrics. We have a very robust process in place.”

Influx of new patients

Also robust is the number of new patients coming into the Medi-Cal program due to changes in federal and state laws that expand coverage. An additional 2.7 million Denti-Cal patients – perhaps as many as 6.4 million – are expected to be added in the coming years. “[That] make[s] us question whether California will have enough available dental providers to meet the needs of Medi-Cal beneficiaries,” the audit said.

Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, who is also a Little Hoover commissioner, was unconvinced by Mollow’s assurances that the department is on top of the problems.

“I just think that it doesn’t seem like we are taking this as serious as we should when we have people with real needs,” he said. “And these have real consequences. Children that have problems with their teeth, it’s a stigma that they carry for the rest of their lives. So we are creating more and more problems that I think can be solved pretty easily.”

Commission Chairman Pedro Nava quizzed Mollow about why her department hasn’t fixed the problems or sought help from the Legislature. Mollow responded that changes must first go through the regulatory process. That didn’t satisfy Nava.

“As a former legislator, this is where I would say to the department, ‘Where the hell you been?’” he said. “In a nice way. The push to make the change should come from the department. Because the last thing you want is an uneducated legislator deciding they want to fix it. Because then there’s unintended consequences that the Little Hoover Commission has to come back in and look at five years later.

“One of the things that ought to happen when you leave here is to meet and talk about your legislative package and come up with a bipartisan legislative proposal. Without some movement on the legislative front, you don’t want us coming back and asking, ‘How come you ain’t done it yet?’”

The commission plans to release a report to the Legislature on the Denti-Cal problems and recommendations for solutions.

California has moved one step closer to the return of redevelopment and the controversial power to seize private property through eminent domain.

The state Senate approved legislation Wednesday that would give local governments the power to create new entities, known as community revitalization authorities, to stimulate economically-depressed or crime-ridden areas. Assembly Bill 2 would grant these new government agencies broad powers to issue bonds for the purpose of investing tax funds in infrastructure, affordable housing and economic revitalization projects.

“Redevelopment was a multi-purpose tool that focused over $6 billion per year toward repairing and redeveloping urban cores, and building affordable housing, especially in those areas most economically and physically disadvantaged,” argues the bill’s author, Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Salinas, according to a legislative analysis. “Since the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, communities across California are seeking an economic development tool to use.”

However, property rights advocates warn that the bill’s language contains no restrictions on eminent domain and could resurrect the abuses made possible by the Supreme Court’s controversial Kelo decision.

“Today, the state Senate passed a land grab bill that will make it easier for government to seize homes, businesses and places of worship by eminent domain!” the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, an opponent of the bill, posted on its Facebook page.

4 GOP Senators Join Democrats to Pass AB2

Republican Senator Anthony Cannella of Ceres, who introduced the bill on the Senate floor, argued that AB2 will provide economic stimulus to disadvantaged communities.

“This will grow jobs, reduce crime, repair deteriorating and inadequate infrastructure, clean up brownfields and promote affordable housing,” he said.

With Cannella’s support, the bill passed on a 29-10 vote — with the support of all but one Democrat and four Republicans, including Sen. Tom Berryhill of Twain Harte, Sen. Bob Huff of Diamond Bar and Sen. Sharon Runner of Antelope Valley.

Under the bill, a Community Revitalization Investment Authority could be created by a city, county or special district if certain conditions are met. The first requirement is that the area have an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide median. Additionally, three of the following four conditions must be met:

• Unemployment that is at least 3 percent higher than the statewide median unemployment rate;
• A crime rate that is 5 percent higher than the statewide median crime rate;
• Deteriorated or inadequate infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, water supply, sewer treatment or processing, and parks;
• Deteriorated commercial or residential structures.

Private Property Rights Threatened

Only one senator, Republican Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, spoke in opposition to the bill.

“This is the resurrection of the redevelopment agencies – the failed redevelopment agencies,” he said. “They absolutely exploited and will continue to exploit – under the provisions of this bill – the seizure of private property under eminent domain.”

Eminent domain is mentioned in the bill 21 times. The Legislative Counsel’s bill digest explicitly states, “The bill would authorize an authority to acquire interests in real property and exercise the power of eminent domain.”

Although the bill subjects private property to eminent domain, government agencies would receive a special carve-out from the practice.

“Property already devoted to a public use may be acquired by the agency through eminent domain, but property of a public body shall not be acquired without its consent,” the bill states.

Sen. Bob Huff: “We led the charge to save redevelopment”

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that government agencies have the power to seize property for economic development. The decision was widely criticized across the political spectrum and inspired states to pass tougher laws limiting governments’ eminent domain powers. Here in California, the momentum for property rights reached its zenith in 2011, when Gov. Jerry Brown pushed through a plan to end redevelopment as part of his plan to balance the state budget.

Huff, who until recently served as Senate GOP leader, downplayed the “scare stories” of eminent domain abuse by private property advocates and reminded his colleagues of his past work with Sen. Rod Wright to save redevelopment agencies.

“We led the charge to protect redevelopment because it was one of the few economic developments that cities had,” Huff said on the Senate floor in support of AB2. “It was also one of the few ways to generate revenue for our affordable housing.”

With the Senate’s approval, the bill returns to the State Assembly for concurrence, where it is expected to pass with widespread support.

In May, AB2 passed by a 63-13 vote – without a single member – Republican or Democrat – voicing opposition. A dozen Assembly Republican lawmakers, including Assembly GOP leader Kristin Olsen, joined the Democratic majority in backing the bill.

In 2012, the Senate Democratic Caucus ran the tables, winning every contested race. With Fran Pavley, Richard Roth and Cathleen Galgiani added to his caucus, Senate President President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, had a veto-proof, two-thirds majority.

They could do what they wanted, even pass tax increases, with any Republican objections  ignored.

But before that supermajority could be put to use, Senate Republicans were given a victory they hadn’t earned at the ballot box. In February 2013, Senator Michael Rubio, D-Bakersfield, abruptly resigned to take a job with Chevron. In the ensuing special election, Republican Andy Vidak of Hanford upset Leticia Perez.

Rubio resignation began Democrats’ downward spiral

Rubio’s resignation was the beginning of a downward spiral for Senate Democrats. In quick succession earlier this year, three members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, Ron Calderon of Montebello, Rod Wright of Inglewood  and Leland Yee of San Francisco, faced high-profile scandals that brought about their suspensions and ended Senate Democrats’ super-majority in the 2013-14 session.

This November, Democrats have no room for error, as favorable demographics and incumbent advantages have Senate Republicans poised to reclaim one-third control of the State Senate. In order to reach their expected 14-seat minority, Senate Republicans need to defend two Central Valley incumbents and win an open seat in Orange County, which is rated a toss-up by most political analysts.

Cannella appeals to immigrants

Despite declining statewide voter registration, Republicans have done well in recent elections appealing to moderate Democrats and decline-to-state voters in the conservative Central Valley. Four years ago, Senator Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, beat then-Assemblywoman Anna Caballero by three points in an open seat being vacated by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock.

This year, Cannella faces a much weaker opponent in Democrat Shawn Bagley, a produce-broker and businessman from Salinas. Although Democrats hold a 14-point advantage in voter registration, Cannella will likely use his more than $900,000 warchest to tell voters about his moderate record in Sacramento.

Cannella co-sponsored legislation to allow undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses. He’s pushed Congress to adopt comprehensive immigration reform and voted in favor of the Dream Act, to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain conditional permanent residency and in-state tuition benefits.

Vidak: State’s leading high-speed rail critic

While Cannella has worked to broaden the GOP’s base, Vidak has appealed to moderate Democrats and independents on the issue of high-speed rail. The Legislature’s leading high-speed rail critic, Vidak has questioned pay-to-play politics in the contracting process and called for a re-vote of the public, which in 2008 green-lighted the project by passing $9.9 billion in bonds in Proposition 1A.

This November, Vidak must again overcome a 17 percentage point Democratic registration advantage, as he faces Fresno School Board Trustee Luis Chavez.  If the primary is any indication, Vidak is well-positioned to defeat Chavez, who managed just 38 percent of the vote in the heavily Democratic district to Vidak’s 62 percent.

Nguyen: GOP’s opportunity to gain seat

With the effects of redistricting finally taking effect for even numbered State Senate seats, Republicans are guaranteed to pick up one seat, the 28th Senate district, in the Coachella Valley. The race remains too close to call, but the top three candidates, Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone, former Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia and Indio Councilman Glenn Miller, are all Republicans.

The best pick-up opportunity for Senate Republicans lies in Orange County, where County Supervisor Janet Nguyen takes on former Assemblyman Jose Solorio, now a trustee on the Rancho Santiago Community College District Board. On Tuesday, despite having a second Republican candidate in the race, Nguyen earned 51.8 percent of the vote in the 34th Senate District. The district has an even split between Asian and Latino voters.

GOP long-shots, but on the table

Two more seats are long-shots for Republicans, but will likely remain on the table in November. In Alameda and Santa Clara county, GOP candidate Peter Kuo will face Democratic Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, who escaped a bitter primary with former Assemblywoman and convicted shoplifter Mary Hayashi. Also impressing political analysts, former Downey Mayor Mario Guerra pulled in 44 percent of the vote in a heavily Democratic district.

“Comparing June vote totals to November is like comparing preseason to the playoffs,” Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s a completely different election with a completely different turnout universe.”

In the 32nd Senate District, Guerra needs to overcome a nearly 2-to-1 voter registration disadvantage. Even without a long-shot victory in the Whittier-based district, Senate Democrats will lose a seat in November, when Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, is expected to win a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. That would produce a new race next year for a replacement.

District 12

Candidate		Votes	Percent
	Luis Chavez (Party Preference: DEM)	17,296	37.6%
*	Andy Vidak (Party Preference: REP)	28,718	62.4%

District 28

100.0% ( 422 of 422 ) precincts partially reporting as of June 6, 2014, 10:29 a.m.

Candidate		Votes	Percent
	Philip Drucker (Party Preference: DEM)	16,177	18.8%
	Anna Nevenic (Party Preference: DEM)	13,084	15.2%
	William “Bill” Carns (Party Preference: REP)	4,379	5.1%
	Bonnie Garcia (Party Preference: REP)	16,894	19.6%
	Glenn A. Miller (Party Preference: REP)	16,792	19.5%
	Jeff Stone (Party Preference: REP)	18,737	21.8%

District 34

100.0% ( 482 of 482 ) precincts partially reporting as of June 5, 2014, 6:20 p.m.

Candidate		Votes	Percent
	Jose Solorio (Party Preference: DEM)	23,851	33.7%
	Janet Nguyen (Party Preference: REP)	36,577	51.8%
	Long Pham (Party Preference: REP)	10,244	14.5%

District 32

100.0% ( 494 of 494 ) precincts partially reporting as of June 5, 2014, 6:20 p.m. 

Candidate		Votes	Percent
	Carlos R. Arvizu (Party Preference: DEM)	1,046	2.0%
	Sally Morales Havice (Party Preference: DEM)	5,917	11.3%
	Tony Mendoza (Party Preference: DEM)	16,706	31.9%
	Irella Perez (Party Preference: DEM)	5,545	10.6%
	Mario A. Guerra (Party Preference: REP)	23,135	44.2%

 

By Chris Reed

Mankind has been building bridges for more than 3,000 years. A bridge built in the 13th century BC in Greece is still in use.

Building durable bridges over water is not a modern accomplishment. The Roman Empire liked to build simple arch bridges over rivers and put up hundreds and hundreds all over Europe. Quite a few are still in use.

But building more complex bridges over water, such as the suspension Brooklyn Bridge completed in 1883, is also old hat. It’s not rocket engineering, as Sergio Garcia would say. It’s daunting to outsiders but no big deal to those in the biz.

Except if you’re the genius engineers working for the state of California, who somehow managed to botch the $6.4 billion east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge by neglecting basic practices meant to reduce water corrosion on giant steel beams and by tolerating flawed welds and an abnormally high number of broken bolts.

Let’s probe and probe and probe some more

State lawmakers increasingly sound like they’re in a let-the-heads-roll mood over the fiasco, the Sacramento Bee reports:

“Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, a member of the transportation committee and an engineer, said the opening date must be delayed if safety remained in doubt. … Cannella and state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, called for a comprehensive investigation . …

“He said that the state attorney general, federal officials, or his own committee should conduct the probe. It should require California Department of Transportation executives to testify under oath and compel them to produce internal documents that show who made decisions that led to the current problems, who dissented in those decisions and why, DeSaulnier said.

“‘With the level of personal exposure right now (for Caltrans officials) … there is always the concern that there is documentation that gets lost or destroyed,’ he said.”

State can’t do simple project — but it can pull off an unprecedented one?

So the state government botches an engineering project as rudimentary as a bridge, and now we’re supposed to believe it is up to the challenge of building a bullet train system that costs $68 billion, more than 10 times as costly and a thousand times more difficult?

Sheesh. Why don’t we wait until the winter and just the burn the money in alleys where homeless people sleep? At least it will keep them warm and achieve something constructive.

If you think the state can rise to the occasion, perhaps it’s time you changed or increased your medication. Or maybe you just missed the story about the incredible complexity of the bullet train project.

Or the story about how the geniuses running the California High-Speed Rail Authority quietly rewrote the bidding rules to favor the least competent bidder for construction of the initial 29-mile segment in the Central Valley.

Yeah, that makes sense: Give the toughest project to the bidders with the least expertise. Sheesh again.

Look on the bright side: Watching debacle unfold will be fun

I’m beginning to reach the tipping point on the bullet train. Rationally, of course, I don’t want it to go forward. It’s going to be such a waste of money that could be spent much better elsewhere (or returned to taxpayers). But both ideologically and on schadenfreude grounds, I now am very open to the idea that it will be great fun for critics to watch the bullet train proceed and be the mega-debacle it’s very likely to be.

It will once again remind voters how inefficient and incompetent government is, especially on ambitious projects. But even more satisifying will be how the fiasco will hang like a permanent shadow over the reputations of Jerry Brown, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Karen Bass, John Perez, Darrell Steinberg, Dan Richard and the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times, the Sacramento Bee, the San Jose Mercury-News and the San Francisco Chronicle. On the bullet train, they’re chumps one and all.

By Chris Reed

You don’t have to be a union hater to be amazed at all the different ways labor decides to make its Sacramento puppets jump through hoops. The latest example is legislation that would require charter cities to use “prevailing wage” policies on construction projects in which any state funds were used. Last spring, the Legislature passed a law banning charter cities with PLA bans from receiving state funds for construction projects in a heavy-handed attempt to persuade San Diego voters to reject an anti-PLA measure on the June ballot. The bullying didn’t work.

But the latest example of labor power-flexing has a bipartisan flavor. A GOPer is co-sponsoring the bill along with a top Dem, and he’s touting union myths in the doing. This is from the press release announcing the legislation:

“(Sacramento) – Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Senator Anthony Cannella (R-Ceres) will co-author a measure on prevailing wage to increase middle-class jobs, sustain a skilled workforce, and ensure cost efficient and high quality public works projects. Senate Bill 7 would make charter cities eligible to receive or use state funds for a public works project only if the city has a policy of requiring contractors on all its municipal projects to comply with the State’s prevailing wage law. The bill is sponsored by the State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO. ….

“’As a civil engineer and former mayor, I am proud to co-author SB 7. It is important that we close this loophole that allows certain firms to game the system. Those firms know that they can marginally undercut prevailing wage to win a contract,’ said Senator Anthony Cannella (R-Ceres).

“Several economic studies show that prevailing wage contracts save tax dollars through higher productivity, better quality workmanship, and a faster rate of project completion.”

Cannella puts lipstick on a pig

Yes, prevailing wage isn’t the same thing as a PLA, and sometimes isn’t nearly as onerous. Still, prevailing wage is just one more way that organized labor tries to distort wages — to push up compensation from what the free market would pay.

But Cannella won’t admit this. Instead, he makes the same claim that is made for PLAs: that it is good for everyone if a contractor for a construction project is forced to pay workers more.

Oh, please. Businesses act in rational ways. Those that want to maintain good images for the long haul don’t cut corners or cut costs mindlessly. If there were a business model in the construction industry that showed a “prevailing wage” job scale led to better results, business owners would flock to it. That’s how capitalism works. (The construction business owners that do adopt high-wage models in California do so because they know state politicians whom they contribute money to will force jobs their way. That’s how Sacramento works.)

So Cannella shouldn’t have to force this policy onto charter cities if prevailing wage is a win-win on all fronts. But that’s what he’s trying to do — while mouthing union talking points.

I’m sure my old pal Bob Huff is just thrilled about this.

By WAYNE LUSVARDI

Politicized environmental regulation is becoming a protection racket to collect votes.

To pass Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget, farmers along the Central Coast of California are having overkill pesticide runoff regulations imposed on them to brazenly extort votes from local Republican state Sens. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, and Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres.

That agricultural pesticide runoff regulation is being used as a way to shake down opposing party politicians is not speculation or a conspiracy theory. The Santa Cruz Sentinel reported, “Jim Metropulos, a senior advocate with the Sierra Club, said it wouldn’t be the first time environmental rules got caught up in budget deals.”

Metropulos himself said, “It gets leveraged in back-room dealings to try to pick off a Republican vote. This issue dealing with agricultural runoff in the Central Coast is not something that should rise to the level of budget negotiations.”

Farmer Dick Peixoto said that new pesticide runoff regulations are “the most bizarre thing I’ve ever seen in my life” and “would destroy farming in California.” When something is said to be bizarre, there typically is some government hidden agenda operating. And environmental regulations are typically the method of choice for accomplishing such undisclosed schemes in California.

What Peixoto is referring to is the proposed new rule for “zero” agricultural runoff. It would entail astronomically costly measures such as lining irrigation water detention ponds, imposing caps on fertilizer use and farmers legally having to keep records of pesticide use and runoff so that they can be sued or criminalized for noncompliance. Peixoto says such overkill measures are ignorant of farming and how subsurface water migrates and “would hold us to a standard that’s impossible to maintain.”

Nitrate Scare

At issue to environmentalists are nitrates in produce and drinking water that purportedly lead to “nervous ailments and Blue Baby Syndrome,” which is a virtually nonexistent disorder in the U.S. since the 1940s.

Nitrate is a form of nitrogen, an essential ingredient of life, particularly plants and crops. The formation of nitrates is not artificial or synthetic, but is part of the natural nitrogen cycle. As with nearly every substance, moderate levels of nitrate are harmless in food and water. Healthy adults can eat or drink large levels of nitrate with no known deleterious health effects.

Nitrates are a vasodilator used to treat angina, chest pain and symptoms of congestive heart failure.

One of the most nitrate rich foods is spinach. Neither the environmentalists interviewed, nor the news reporter, indicated that nitrates are what produce cellular energy in the human body and lower blood pressure, as reported by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. This is the source of the notion, popularized by the cartoon character Popeye, that children should eat spinach to make them strong.

Attacking nitrates are just another environmental scare tactic to shake down a “mark” — a victim.

This says nothing about the slippery slope that regulating nitrates and fertilizers would lead to.  Once farmers are over-regulated for fertilizer use, there will be no stopping urban residential users from such controls and shakedowns too.  This will extend to use of fertilizers on home lawns and gardens. Regulating agricultural nitrates will lead to endless Soviet-style bureaucracies.

Where Are the Checks and Balances?

How can mostly outgunned farmers overcome contrived environmental pollution science and regulations about nitrates that are devised by politically appointed bodies, supported by University of California system academics, enforced by state agencies and adjudicated by California courts that are all dependent on the state budget for their livelihoods?  When every bureaucratic entity in the organizational food chain is dependent on approval of a shamelessly self-serving state budget, where are the checks and balances of a democracy?  Where is the rule of law to protect the confiscation of property with just compensation?

In California, such a system is a rigged game just as much as a protection racket.

In postmodern California, farmers must vet their farm practices through water quality control boards that are just another racket. Environmental regulation has become nothing but a legally sanctioned racket to shake down businesses, industries and Republican politicians for politicized purposes, including votes for the state budget.

The only thing that makes us think that it is not a racket is the media and the prevailing environmental ideology propagated by every educational and government entity in the state, as well as Hollywood, that obscures our social perception of what is going on.