New Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids have rolled out across Southern California, roiling state officials and triggering rumors of broader actions. But though the Trump administration has focused on expanding the scope and strength of enforcement, the current raids trace back to planning conducted at the tail end of President Obama’s term in office. 

“Immigration arrests across Southern California over the past week were planned before President Trump took office and could be compared to similar operations the occurred last summer, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said,” Fox News noted. “A decade ago, immigration officers searching for specific individuals would often arrest others found along the way, a practice that drew criticism from advocates. Under the Obama administration, agents also carried out arrests but focused more narrowly on specific individuals.”

Political pushback

But while California Democrats have felt more uncertainty and anxiety around immigration in the early days of the Trump administration, they have also felt a greater latitude to object to federal enforcement. “Democrats have complained about getting little or conflicting information about who was targeted in the raids that have panicked many in the immigrant community,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “Democrats in Congress say Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials told them Thursday the agency plans to employ a broader brush in making immigration arrests, armed with a new executive order from President Trump. Democrats and Republicans in House leadership met in a closed-door meeting with Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan to talk about last week’s immigration raids in Los Angeles and other cities, which netted nearly 700 people across the country last week.”

Fraught nerves have spread throughout areas of the state where support for so-called sanctuary cities, and opposition to the new administration, is high. “Rumors that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is rounding up undocumented residents throughout the Bay Area are just that — rumors, according to a spokesman for the federal agency,” according to the San Jose Mercury News. “One of those rumors resulted in an ‘urgent notification’ Tuesday to parents of students at a charter school in San Jose, said James Schwab, a spokesman for the federal agency. Similar rumors have circulated in El Cerrito, Oakland, Richmond and San Pablo. All of them have been false, Schwab said.”

Continuity and change

But confusion has persisted, and not only in California, over exactly how ICE has altered its approach to the current round of enforcement. “Under Obama, ICE agents mainly picked up what they called criminal aliens from jails around the country. But with this operation, you’re seeing these immigration agents fanning out into streets and neighborhoods,” John Burnett reported from Texas on NPR. “And that’s what left people so alarmed. I spoke with the Mexican consul here in Austin, Carlos Gonzalez, earlier today. The numbers he gave me was he says 49 Mexican nationals were picked up Thursday, Friday and today. He said that’s a significant increase over the usual apprehensions of undocumenteds here in Austin. And, of course, that doesn’t even include Central Americans or other nationalities that would’ve been picked up.”

The Obama administration’s official trigger for action, a so-called “threat to the community,” was not always applied by ICE this time around. Jorge-Mario Cabrera, communications director for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, told LA Weekly that an unofficial “sense of respect for families and immigrants” was “not always respected” by the previous administration, but did color its approach to enforcement and deportation. ICE senior spokeswoman Virginia C. Kice, told the paper the current actions were consistent with past practices. “Kice points to a series of targeted enforcement actions taken under the Obama administration in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015, which netted 10 to nearly 20 times as many arrests as occurred last week,” the Weekly noted. 

The extent to which Russia interfered is still being investigated, but reports suggest there’s consensus among U.S. intelligence officials that Russia hacked emails of Democratic officials and operatives in an effort to influence the election. The hacked emails were distributed to the news media, including CalWatchdog, throughout the election through the site WikiLeaks. 

Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-Marin County, has introduced legislation to require state educators to develop curriculum for students to learn about Russia’s involvement in the election. 

“This is a threat to our democracy and must be treated with appropriate significance in American history,” Levine said of the Russian hacking in a statement. “California is the largest textbook market in the nation. Textbooks approved in our state are used throughout the country. Through this legislation, we can make sure students in California and across the United States receive accurate information about the 2016 presidential election.”

The move by Levine is not unprecedented. Recent laws modifying curriculum included subjects like the Armenian genocide, civics, the environment and Barack Obama and the importance of the first African American president. 

Republicans in Washington appear poised to repeal the ACA, better known as Obamacare, some time after Donald Trump is sworn in as president. With premiums on the rise and consistently poor polling, repeal is music to the ears of many, as evidenced by every federal election since the measure was passed in 2010.

However, a partial repeal would cause Californians to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in annual federal funding and kick millions of people out of coverage. Some of the losses would be offset by gains elsewhere, but it’s impossible to give a complete analysis of the offsetting effects without Republicans’ replacement plan.

What we know

Even with Republican majorities in Congress and a Republican president, a full repeal of the ACA is unlikely, due to a 60-vote threshold in the Senate that would require at least a handful of Democratic votes.

UC Berkeley Labor Center analysts used a 2015 partial-repeal bill that was ultimately vetoed by President Barack Obama to estimate the effects. Under that bill, California would lose $20.5 billion annually in federal funding for low-income subsidies and expanded Medi-Cal coverage.

As a result of that lost funding, 3.7 million Californians would lose Medi-Cal coverage, while another 1.2 million would lose subsidies, which may or may not make coverage unaffordable. 

Offsets

The billions in lost federal funds would be offset by smaller gains elsewhere, like $6.3 billion in tax cuts to California insurers and high-income earners. A repeal could also remove the requirement to have coverage, saving $1.3 billion in penalties for the uninsured. 

The study estimates approximately 250,000 jobs would be lost from repeal. However, approximately 41,000 jobs would be created through tax cuts, as well as through eliminating fees on insurers, penalties to companies for not providing coverage and penalties for the uninsured.

Popularity

Polling and electoral results have repeatedly shown the law to be unpopular with the public nationally, and Californians are facing an expected average increase in premiums by 13.2 percent next year. 

Nationally, the public is divided on the law. In November, 45 percent of adults had an unfavorable impression of the law, compared to the 43 percent who had a favorable impression, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll.

Republicans have incrementally seized power in Washington on a repeal platform ever since Democrats passed the ACA in 2010 with their own congressional majorities and president, Barack Obama. In 2010, Democrats lost the House. In 2014, they lost the Senate. And in 2016, they failed to regain the Senate and lost the White House.

California’s beleaguered farmers had their hopes for a better 2017 rekindled as landmark water legislation delayed for years finally passed Congress. But the political cost to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a key supporter, has been high, with outgoing Sen. Barbara Boxer digging in her heels against the bill and pushing for White House opposition. The strife has underscored the difficulty California Democrats have had in smoothing over internal disagreements over core policy issues that have risen to the surface of contention after years of all but one-party rule in the state. 

“A rough five years in the making, the $558 million bill approved by the Senate early Saturday morning steers more water to farmers, eases dam construction, and funds desalination and recycling projects,” McClatchy reported. For state farmers, the bill promised a greater inflow of water from Delta pumps, drought relief and a dose of federalism.

Curtis Creel, Water Agency General Manager for Kern County, told Bakersfield Now the rule requiring an increased role for state and local officials mattered most. “It instructs the (Federal) Fish and Wildlife Service to coordinate with state and local agencies who have expertise in dealing with science related to the Delta, as well as operations of the water projects,” he approvingly explained. 

For its part, the Golden State has stuck to a neutral position for now. “In California, the state’s Natural Resources Agency is staying out of the fray and declined comment on the bill,” according to the San Jose Mercury News. 

Long wait

Central Valley farmers have held out for measures like the water bill’s for decades. “All sides agree the California water package marks the biggest federal shift in the state’s water use since the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act, which focused more on protecting the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,” McClatchy noted. “Farmers hated the CVPIA but, in a mirror image of this year’s water bill, it was included in a bigger package that rolled right over one of the state’s protesting senators.”

“The Republican senator who was left standing alone in fighting the 1992 bill, John Seymour, was subsequently defeated by Feinstein. One of the other big losers in that earlier legislative fight, the Westlands Water District, is among the victors in this year’s bill, after spending more than $1 million on lobbying in the last two years.”

Democrats divided

In an ironic twist, Feinstein herself has now found herself at the center of controversy among fellow Democrats. In the unusual position of defending her decision against environmentalist fears, “Feinstein’s office claimed that the legislation does not violate the Endangered Species Act, because it contains a ‘savings clause’ that dictates that nothing in the provision shall violate the act,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported. “House Democratic aides countered that the courts have ruled that direct instructions from Congress, in this case on how much water can be pumped from rivers, always supersede more general clauses declaring that nothing in the legislation violate bedrock environmental law.” Boxer has suggested that the legislation’s fate will have to be settled in the courts. 

But the momentum in Washington favors its passage, even with President Obama’s cautious disapproval of its current language. Through his press secretary Josh Earnest, President Obama declined to throw Feinstein a political lifeline, but did little to shore up Boxer’s position. “Based on what we know so far, we don’t support the kinds of proposals that have been put forward to address some of the water resources issues in California right now,” Earnest said, as CalWatchdog previously noted. “So, we don’t support that measure that’s being put forward, but we’ll take a look at the bill in its totality.” But the White House did not raise the prospect of a veto — possibly managing expectations in the face of strong support in Congress for the bill’s broad infrastructure reform. 

The Vista Republican, who had been a constant thorn in the side of the Obama administration in recent years as chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee — a position he recently rotated out of — had just a 2,348-vote lead as of Monday afternoon. 

Democrats had made this race a top priority, with a flood of national money and even attention from President Barack Obama himself, buoyed by dreams of either taking back the House or at least seriously cutting into Republicans’ 59-seat advantage — neither of which happened (Democrats did win a handful of seats, however).

It would have been particularly satisfying for Democrats to knock out the person who led congressional investigations into the fatal attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the troubled roll-out of the federal Obamacare exchange, Lois Lerner and the IRS, and the ATF fiasco called “Operation Fast and Furious,” among other things.

Issa was challenged by Democrat Doug Applegate, a retired Marine Corps colonel with no prior political experience. Applegate was initially thought to have no chance against Issa, the wealthiest member of Congress. But when Issa squeaked through the primary with only 51.5 percent of the vote, it became clear he was in trouble. In the end, Issa did enough to survive. 

“Our campaign overcame a historically difficult environment, $7 million in special interest spending and even President Obama personally campaigning in our district,” said Issa spokesman Jonathan Wilcox. “Congressman Issa stood strong throughout, and his is a victory well-deserved.”

While Orange and San Diego counties report thousands of votes are still uncounted, AP reported the number in Issa’s district was small enough to call the race.

A transcript of a voicemail for John Podesta — at the time a top adviser to Obama — shows the Los Angeles Democrat asking if the president could mention Senate Bill 350 during a then-upcoming speech on clean energy in Nevada.

“Appreciate you taking my call,” de Leon said, according to the transcript. “Appreciate you telling me that the President will be in LV on Monday. It’s his hope [sic] that the President can make some sort of announcement in support of 350 or in support of what we’re trying to do in the legislature.”

SB350 — which requires an 50 percent increase of usage of renewable electricity in the state by the end of 2030 — was signed into law, but it faced tremendous opposition from the oil industry, which successfully lobbied against a petroleum-restriction provision that was ultimately dropped.

“Oil companies have been trying to defeat the bill,” de Leon said. “Targets are the African Americans in the lower house.” 

The oil lobby targeted business-friendly Democrats of all races in the Assembly, according to disclosures and media reports. A de Leon spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for clarification.

However, de Leon did get his wish. At the National Clean Energy Summit on August 25, 2015, Obama praised California’s efforts on SB350. 

“Leaders in California are aiming to generate 50 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2030 — 50 percent,” Obama said. 

High-flying clean-energy industrialist Elon Musk has doubled down on his production plans in California. Tesla, his auto company, “took a major step toward its ambitious goal of one day building 1 million cars a year by seeking to double the size of its Fremont, Calif., assembly plant,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “Under a long-term zoning proposal submitted to Fremont’s Planning Commission, the electric car maker wants to eventually add 4.6 million square feet of space to its factory’s existing 4.5 million square feet.”

Musk “told analysts this spring that the Palo Alto-based automaker hopes to ramp up annual production to 500,000 vehicles in 2018 and build 1 million vehicles by the end of 2020,” the paper added. “The 2018 goal alone is nearly a tenfold increase from the 50,580 vehicles that Tesla produced last year in Fremont. The automaker has forecast this year’s deliveries at 80,000 to 90,000. Quality problems and production delays plagued the plant early this year and threatened sales plans. But the company said last week that those problems are behind it and that it expects to come close to its forecast for 2016.”

Broad deals

Musk has not hesitated to link up with government resources and opportunities in order to advance his business interests. This month, he aligned SpaceX closely to take advantage of President Obama’s call to use private industry to help bring Americans to Mars. “Within the next two years, private companies will for the first time send astronauts to the International Space Station,” Obama announced. “One of those private companies tasked with ferrying astronauts to the ISS and who will essentially return human spaceflight to American soil in late 2018 is SpaceX,” the Observer noted.

And last month, Musk inked a deal to change the way California backstops its energy needs. “Tesla Motors Inc. will supply 20 megawatts (80 megawatt-hours) of energy storage to Southern California Edison as part of a wider effort to prevent blackouts by replacing fossil-fuel electricity generation with lithium-ion batteries,” Bloomberg reported. “Tesla’s contribution is enough to power about 2,500 homes for a full day, the company said in a blog post on Thursday. But the real significance of the deal is the speed with which lithium-ion battery packs are being deployed,” the site added — “months not years.”

Outracing critics

As Musk has accelerated his increasingly ambitious plans, however, he has attracted a greater share of criticism toward the mechanics of his business operations. “The pressure is now on Tesla for a smooth launch of the relatively affordable Model 3. A quality product pumped out at low cost and high volume is essential to meeting the ambitious goals of the company and its investors, auto analysts say, whereas long delays could threaten the company’s reputation — and survival,” according to the Times.

Meanwhile, wariness has centered separately around SolarCity, a startup run by family members. “The Tesla-SolarCity deal looks so bad on paper that many investors worry it’s simply a bailout of SolarCity, which Musk co-founded and continues to chair,” the MIT Technology Review noted. “While SolarCity dominates the market for leasing, installing, and maintaining solar panels for residences and businesses, it’s racked up more than $2 billion in losses over the past five years. “

“Its business model requires it to raise huge amounts of capital to cover the up-front costs of providing panels for no money down to consumers on multiyear contracts. Since its inception, the company has accumulated more than $3 billion in debt against just $1.5 billion in revenue. Now it is having a harder time convincing people to lend it money.”

What’s more, Musk has had to contend with a rebellion among his own shareholders. “As of earlier this week, seven Tesla stockholders have filed lawsuits against Elon Musk over the proposed acquisition of SolarCity and alleged Musk was in breach of his fiduciary duties for not disclosing the proposed merger properly. Some of these stockholders are asking the judge for an injunction to prevent the merger from going through,” Recode reported. But the two companies have announced the merger is going ahead anyway. “The companies have set the date for their respective shareholders to vote on the $2.6 billion all-stock transaction for Nov. 17.”

On several fronts, California Democrats have used the tail end of this political season to push for advances on their health care agenda — with mixed results. 

In Sacramento, they succeeded in passing legislation targeting health care cost sticker-shock after several recent misfires. “The unexpected charges come when patients are treated by an out-of-network provider at an in-network facility,” NPR explained. “After several failed attempts in recent years, the California legislature last week passed Assembly Bill 72, which aims to protect patients’ pocketbooks when they’re hit by these surprise bills. Gov. Jerry Brown has until the end of September to sign or veto the legislation. He is expected to sign it into law.”

“A 2015 Consumers Union survey suggests the surprise bill phenomenon is fairly common,” the station added. “It found nearly 1 in 4 Californians who’d had hospital visits or surgery in the prior two years reported receiving an unexpected bill from an out-of-network provider.”

Waiver wanted

In Washington, D.C., meanwhile, a who’s who of members of Congress hailing from California tried to flex their muscle around California’s unlikely request that the federal government allow unlawful and undocumented immigrants in state to access health benefits under Obamacare. “In a letter announced Wednesday, 37 members of California’s congressional delegation asked Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell to accept California’s request for a waiver that would allow the state to offer health care to an estimated 50,000 undocumented immigrants,” TPM reported. 

“The letter is just the latest in the fight to expand health care coverage to California’s undocumented population. In June, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill passed by the state’s Legislature that allowed California’s undocumented population to buy their own health insurance on the state’s exchange, Covered California. However, a special federal waiver — a 1332 waiver — is needed before the state is allowed to enact its law.”

It hasn’t been clear whether President Obama could be moved to take action before the end of his term in office. He has already wound up under immense personal pressure to convince insurers to remain committed to the Affordable Care Act’s health care exchanges, despite a growing sense in industry that doing so will be harmful.

Unaffordable care

“With no lifeline coming from the divided Congress, Obama and his administration are redoubling their pleas for insurers to shore up the federal health care law and pushing uninsured Americans — especially younger ones — to sign up for coverage,” Politico observed. “The administration is nervously preparing for its final Obamacare open-enrollment season just a week before Election Day, amid a cascade of headlines about rising premiums, fleeing insurers and narrowing insurance options.”

“But six years after passage of Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the litany of woes afflicting the Obamacare marketplaces is formidable. Enrollment has plateaued at half of what was projected. Three major insurers have largely quit, citing big losses. Double-digit rate hikes are the norm for plans across the country. And roughly one in five Americans may find just one insurer selling plans in their area when they shop for 2017 coverage.”

At the same time, although California’s exchange program has been one of the biggest relative success stories for the ACA, the state’s health cost burden has continued to rise over time. A new study released by the University of California Los Angeles Center for Health Policy Research revealed that “spending is projected to total more than $367.5 billion in 2016, with about 71 percent covered by public funds when additional resources such as the Affordable Care Act subsidies and county spending are included,” according to U-T San Diego.

Indeed, California Democrats pushing the White House used the problem as ammunition for their own waiver goal, arguing before the press “that denying undocumented immigrants health care was only driving up the long-term costs of health care,” as TPM recalled. “Without insurance coverage, many immigrants have been forced to depend on emergency services to be treated.”

With a string of key donors left in the lurch by her recent health troubles, Hillary Clinton dispatched her husband Bill to California to fill in.

Political fallout

“She was forced to leave a 9/11 memorial event in New York,” as Yahoo News recalled, “and was seen stumbling limp-legged into a Secret Service vehicle. Clinton’s campaign initially said she had been suffering the ill effects of dehydration and ‘overheating.’ Clinton’s personal physician later disclosed she had been diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday, two days before the 9/11 event, raising broader questions about her campaign’s transparency.”

The ordeal — and the necessity of responding to it in a way that would play well in influential political and media circles — spurred the turn to the former president. “Plans for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to come to the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California Monday and Tuesday for fundraisers and an appearance on ‘The Ellen DeGeneres Show’ were canceled,” NBC Los Angeles noted. “Huma Abedin called with an urgent request,” as Politico reported. “Could the former president drop his upcoming meetings in Washington, and take over for his pneumonia-felled wife on the campaign trail.”

Big money

Mr. Clinton took on three fundraising events — one in Las Vegas and two in California, hosted by Seth MacFarlane, Diane von Furstenberg and Barry Diller. “Donors were asked to give $5,000 to $33,400 to attend the gathering at MacFarlane’s home, while tickets to the von Furstenberg-Diller dinner were $100,000 a person,” the Washington Post reported. As NBC LA noted, $33,400 is the largest individual yearly contribution to a national party committee permitted by law.

In California, Clinton holds a virtually insurmountable double-digit lead over Trump, despite the Trump campaign’s periodic claims that he could put the deep blue state in play come November. What’s more, Clinton has maintained a sizable war chest advantage relative to Trump’s. But polls have tightened nationwide, including in key swing states, and the Clinton camp has come under internal fire from nervous Democrats. “Clinton remains far ahead of GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump in fundraising, bringing in $143 million in August in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee, compared with the $90 million that Trump raised with the Republican National Committee,” the Post added. “However, his strong small-dollar operation appears to be close to matching hers: Trump now boasts 2.1 million donors to Clinton’s 2.3 million.”

Safety and risk

The use of Clinton’s husband as a surrogate reflected the campaign’s sense of urgency– as well as the importance it placed on coming as close as it could to a satisfying sense of normalcy for the influential backers clustered along the West Coast. “Other than a prime-time speech at the Democratic convention, Bill Clinton’s general election schedule has been purposely low-key, reflecting the Clinton campaign’s desire to keep him from overshadowing his wife or creating unnecessary distractions,” the Sacramento Bee observed. “But those concerns became secondary this week.”

“For all his political gifts, Bill Clinton has been an imperfect messenger on his wife’s health this week. He volunteered in an interview that she’s had episodes like this before and on Wednesday he said she had flu, not pneumonia. A spokesman said he misspoke and meant pneumonia, but such moments provide grist to conspiracy theorists who think Hillary Clinton is hiding health issues.”

Analysts have largely agreed that Hillary will swap back in for Bill as soon as the Clinton campaign decides it is possible for her to do so. “We need to hear directly from the candidate at this point in the election,” a longtime Clinton ally and DNC member told Politico. “It’s nice to have him, but the only real surrogate who works at this point is President Obama.” The sitting president, who has faced heavy lobbying from California Democrats to expand coastal environmental protections and support an extension of Obamacare coverage to unlawfully present immigrants, could soon find himself asked to stump for Clinton on the West Coast as well.

Californians approve of Brown, Obama and state — country, not so much

Good morning! 

A majority of Californians approve of the job Gov. Jerry Brown is doing and think the state is on the right track, according to several Field Polls released this week. 

But the same correlation doesn’t extend to the perception of President Barack Obama, who received high marks, and the direction of the country, which a 54-percent majority sees headed down the wrong path. 

Brown and Obama polled nearly the same — 56 and 57 percent approval, respectively — with Democrats largely in support of both executives and Republicans largely disapproving.

Brown hasn’t dipped below 50 percent in the Field Poll since October 2012, when the state was still dealing with a budget crisis. For his part, Obama has consistently polled higher than Brown over the years. 

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news: 

• “A San Diego-area businessman who filed papers seeking referenda to overturn six gun control laws said Saturday that he is part of a group of up to 100 activists who feel the measures were rushed through without considering public opinion,” writes the Los Angeles Times.
• After months of inquiries about questionable spending from his campaign account, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, is lawyering up. The San Diego Union-Tribune has more.  
• “A newly released document summarizing possible connections between Saudi officials and 9/11 hijackers places Los Angeles in a central role,” reports LA Weekly. 
• “In a formal audit just months before the deadly San Bruno blast, PG&E failed to tell state regulators about manufacturing defects affecting more than 80 miles of gas pipelines, according to evidence presented Friday in the utility’s federal criminal trial,” reports The San Jose Mercury News.
• Will voters get to weigh in on revising Prop. 13 in 2018? CalWatchdog has more.  

Legislature:

• Gone ’til August.

Gov. Brown:

• On vacation. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @RepDonBeyer @RadioFreeCalif