But the state Senate has had only Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, as president from 2008 until a few weeks ago. Steinberg left to media accolades this fall. Note this long Q&A in which the Bee reporter’s framing is consistently favorable to the former teacher.

Yet his successor, Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, is off to the roughest start of any Californian assuming a high-profile office since Lane Kiffin took over as coach of the Oakland Raiders.

De Leon has gotten skeptical to scathing media responses for a relatively long list of things in a relatively short time.

More perceived screw-ups since Walters tore him up

On Dec. 4, Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters blasted him for a “series of blunders.”

Walters ripped de Leon for verbal gaffes that proved hugely damaging to a Central Valley Assembly Democratic hopeful; for a self-important, pompous “inaugural” ceremony in Los Angeles; and for gutting many of the Senate’s most experienced policy analysts because of murky budget problems. Insiders said if the Senate really were hurting, the logical thing to do was lay off the political apparatchiks on all Senate staffs, not the people with the institutional memory.

The knocks have kept coming since Dec. 4.

De Leon’s announcement last week that he would pressure CalPERS and CalSTRS to disinvest from coal-affiliated companies — but not those in oil or natural gas — struck a chord in the wrong way with just about everyone.

I talked to one insider who said there was disbelief among lawmakers that 1) this symbolic, hollow gesture was highlighted as an early priority of de Leon’s and 2) that de Leon wouldn’t realize this would seem insubstantial and not worthy of his time. Another Sacramento watcher told me he couldn’t believe de Leon would focus on this trivia instead of grabbing a chance to be enviros’ hero by talking up a fracking ban. New York state’s passage of such a ban last week shows how much it’s where greens want to go.

Oversight office abruptly scrapped

Then de Leon was pulverized last week by editorials in both the Bay Area Newspaper Group and its sister Los Angeles News Group over other actions as well. This is from the Vallejo Times-Herald’s version:

“De León has eliminated a team of Senate aides dedicated to evaluating state government institutions and programs. He declined to renew the Senate’s Office of Oversight and Outcomes, established in 2008 by then-Senate President Darrell Steinberg with a goal “to ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and productively.

“The four-person staff’s combined salaries of about $379,000 seemed a small price for the good it did.

“Among the reports the office produced just last year were ones on the misuse of student meal funds by school districts, including $158 million in misappropriations and unallowable charges by Los Angeles Unified; about how the state’s system for overseeing substance-abuse counselors failed to flag sex offenders; and assigning blame for problems with the $373 million state payroll system. Among earlier reports was one looking at 10 tax breaks that, over a decade, cost state coffers $6.3 billion more than anticipated.”

Accused of wide range of political sins

What’s interesting is that these criticisms of de Leon don’t just focus on money-grubbing or another particular sin that politicians sometime specialize in. Implicitly, they make quite a sweeping case.

In possibly costing an Assembly candidate a chance at victory, de Leon is accused of poor political acumen.

In staging a showy unofficial “inaugural,” de Leon is accused of grandiosity.

In his Senate shakeups, de Leon is accused in one of a power grab and, in the other, of showing ignorance of the importance of a new but respected Sacramento institution.

In thinking that going after coal while ignoring fracking would make him look good, de Leon is accused of — to be blunt — stupidity.

The Sacramento version of the Stockholm syndrome

That is a pretty sweeping bill of particulars. What’s going on here?

The most obvious problem is that de Leon is politically tone-deaf in a way that’s striking for someone who’s made such a rapid ascent.

But the less obvious problem is that a lot of times it’s not fun to cover politics. It feels sleazy, disheartening, transactional, petty and repetitive. Steinberg made it feel more principled and sincerely, earnestly progressive.

That mattered to a bigger chunk of the Sacramento media-political establishment than people far from the state Capitol might imagine. This establishment didn’t miss Steinberg’s, er, colorful predecessor Don Perata at all.

In January 2008. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he backed state lawmakers’ push to revise strict term limits for a specific reason. In response to a question I asked him at an editorial board meeting, Arnold said he thought Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Don Perata deserved to keep their jobs because under their stewardship, they had kept the state in “a good kind of groove.”

Really? In what way? Both at the time and six years later, any “groove” is hard to discern.

Now we’re seeing another display of this from the Sacramento media-political establishment: the recent media boomlet promoting the idea that departing Senate President Darrell Steinberg has done such a bang-up job that he deserves another really big job after he is termed-out — as justice on the California Supreme Court.

Here’s what the Sac Bee’s Capitol Alert had to say about what Ventura County Star columnist Timm Herdt had to say:

Herdt makes the case that Gov. Jerry Brown should appoint Steinberg to fill one of two openings on the California Supreme Court. Herdt praised Steinberg as the “most productive legislative leader” since term limits were imposed, and argued for his broad expertise in state law and his skill as a consensus-builder.

Herdt wrote that Steinberg — who worked as an employee-rights lawyer and an administrative law judge before being elected to the Legislature — would be a “soberly creative” choice for Brown.

‘Productive’ in what sense?

Now I understand why folks might have been charmed by Núñez. He has a loose, funny, teasing manner, or at least he did in my several encounters with him. And I understand that many journos think well of Steinberg, who by most accounts is very smart and a very hard worker.

But just as back in 2008 I wondered what kind of groove Arnold was perceiving, with Herdt’s assessment of Steinberg, I wonder in what sense has the Senate leader been “productive.”

In the past dozen years, where are the big achievements that Steinberg has produced?

California has the highest poverty rate in the nation, and by far.

The great majority of counties have never emerged from the Great Recession.

California’s schools are clearly behind the nation’s other mega states when it comes to apples-to-apples comparisons of students by age and ethnicity.

The 2012 state pension reform measure is vanilla and doesn’t do remotely enough to help the local governments that are hardest hit.

The 2014 teachers pension bailout puts 90 percent of the burden on taxpayers and only 10 percent on teachers themselves. A key selling point of the 2012 state pension reform was that it would force employees to equally share in their pension costs. Never mind!

The state appears no closer to solving its intractable water problems.

This list could go on and on.

That’s all you got?

So what is behind the happy talk?

I think much of it has to do with the fact that Prop. 25 makes it easier to pass budgets and not have multi-month dramas summer after summer after summer.

And some of it also has to do with AB 32, the state’s landmark 2006 law forcing a shift to cleaner-but-costlier energy.

Journos never seem to remember that it was peddled with the claim that it would convince the rest of the world to copy California; that didn’t happen. Nor do they ever notice that in 2006, no one had the audacity to pretend it was a job-creation program, the present ongoing Lie No. 1 of public policy in the Golden State.

This rosy-scenario-itis isn’t a new problem, alas. Here’s an example from 2008.

The view from within a one-mile perimeter around the state Capitol sure is counter to the view in California’s other 163,000 square miles.

By Katy Grimes

The Senate and Assembly held a joint Public Safety committee hearing on Tuesday about guns, but the hearing room was not even two-thirds full. Several Capitol staffers told me that the hearing had not been noticed to the public properly, deliberately, in order to keep gun proponents away.

The hearing was clearly stacked with anti-gun activists and proponents, and most of the testimony provided was skewed, biased, and some of the “facts” presented were incorrect.

Claiming that perspective and state history was needed, the Committee trotted out two of California’s former Democratic Senators, both advocates of gun control and gun bans.

David Roberti, former President pro tem of the California State Senate, and Don Perata, also former President pro tem of the Senate, talked on and on about their legislative involvement in the state’s gun laws. This continued for more than one hour, of the three hour hearing.

Roberti ironically survived a recall effort by the National Rifle Association in 1994.  Roberti was behind Roberti-Roos property tax as well as the passage of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989.

Roberti gave more actual history of his gun control act.

Don Perata – at least he’s entertaining

In true Perata form, former Sen. Don Perata accused the NRA of allowing its crazy fringe to do what they do in order to crush gun legislation around the country. “The NRA has a fringe element that they don’t control… I am convinced to get legislation passed,” Perata said. “They are a powerful gun lobby with a religious fervor.”

Yet Perata admitted that he became proficient with a handgun after receiving threats. He then warned the legislators on the committee that as they pursue gun bans, they too will be threatened, and to be prepared for this.

Perata was elected to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in the mid-1980’s, and worked to shut down crime-laden liquor stores, ban cigarette advertising, and lobbied the legislature for an assault weapons ban.

At the Tuesday hearing, Perata said that guns should be licensed and regulated the same way as cars are. “Register it, take a course to show you’re proficient, require at least $1 million insurance, and a registration fee,” Perata said.

“There are a lot of similarities between guns and autos,” Perata said. “A car sitting in a parking lot rarely takes a human life.”

“There must be something in the Commandments that permits you to have a gun. God wanted it that way,” Perata said. “Don’t worry about legalities — it’s why God gave us courts.”

“It’s pandemic and no longer just in East Oakland. It’s clearly the most vexing problem in the country, ” Perata said. “Violence is as American as apple pie.”

By Chris Reed

The conventional wisdom about the 400,000 members of the California Teachers Association and the 120,000 members of the California Federation of Teachers is difficult to dispute:  Their unions dominate Sacramento in a way no other special interest remotely rivals.

Aside from charter schools way back in 1992, the only fundamental school reform to get through the Legislature the past 20 years is the one that swelled the CTA’s and the CFT’s ranks: classroom-size reduction. No other special interest gets promised future multibillion-dollar payoffs to go along with tough budgets, as the teacher unions secured in 2009.

But in early 2013, we could see that conventional wisdom tested in a way without modern precedent. The issue is how to shore up the struggling California State Teachers’ Retirement System, which as of Oct. 31 had $154.8 billion in investments and an unfunded liability of $64.5 billion, meaning it is only 71 percent funded.

The state Legislature sets the contribution rates for teachers that each school district must pay. The status quo has long been that employers contribute 8.25 percent of pay, teachers 8 percent of pay and the state 2 percent of pay.

But Gov. Jerry Brown signed a pension reform plan in September, AB 340 by Assemblyman Warren Furutani, D-Gardena. Under the reform, government agencies in California must adopt contracts going forward that have employers and employees equally share the normal cost of pension liabilities by 2018.

Bank accounts would shrink

If that happens, it means a sharp cut in take-home pay for every CTA and CFT member. As Ed Mendel laid out in calpensions.com, actuaries say teachers hired going forward under the less generous terms of the new state pension will need to pay 15.9 percent of pay — nearly double the current 8 percent contribution. Meanwhile, veteran teachers would need to pay 18.3 percent of pay — 10.3 percentage points more than they now pay and more than the total that is now set aside by all three contributors combined (teachers, districts and the state treasury).

This 50-50 required split of pension costs is jaw-dropping given what the CalSTRS board recommended when the topic of shoring up the teachers’ pension fund came up in 2007. It wanted teachers to go from contributing 8 percent to 8.5 percent; for districts to gradually go from 8.25 percent to a maximum of 13 percent; and for the state to gradually go from 2 percent to a maximum of 3.25 percent.

Or, to put the plan in a context that more readily shows its outrageousness, CalSTRS wanted teachers to increase their contributions by 6.25 percent — and for taxpayers to increase their contributions by 59 percent, nearly 10 times as much! The result would have been a pension system in which taxpayers had roughly twice the obligation (66 percent) as teachers (34 percent).

With the state economy rapidly slowing and the Schwarzenegger administration strongly opposed, the Legislature never passed the CalSTRS proposal.  That the CalSTRS board put the plan forward as a serious policy alternative showed that the CTA and CFT were calling the shots — just as Senate Democrats wanted.

In a 2006 Senate committee vote, State Sens. Don Perata, Debra Bowen and Gil Cedillo rejected Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s nomination of David Crane to the California State Teachers Retirement System board. A Democrat himself, Crane is a sharp San Francisco financier and government reformer. Crane’s disqualification? “The three Democrats on the five-member Senate (Rules Committee) agreed that Crane seemed too concerned about the burden of pension shortfalls on taxpayers,” The Los Angeles Times reported.

Teachers’ unions unaccustomed to treatment

The CTA and the CFT must daydream about the good old days. The unions can’t even be very confident that the Legislature will do rope-a-dope with Brown’s pension reform by just never changing the present contribution rules for CalSTRS. That’s because state lawmakers also passed a bill that directs CalSTRS to prepare three alternatives that address the pension underfunding and to formally present it to the Legislature by Feb. 15, 2013.

So, in a rational world, the teachers’ unions would appear to be trapped, likely to face a permanent cut in take-home pay of about 10 percent. They are sure to sue and claim that existing funding formulas amount to a vested pension benefit, as a CalSTRS legal opinion concludes. Yet that legal view seems shakier than ever given the readiness of so many collective bargaining units to accept increases in their contributions and to make concessions in recent years. There’s also no question that judges are influenced by the headlines of the era.

But that’s forecasting what would happen in a rational world, not Sacramento — and especially not in the Assembly, where union power is so intense that 21 Democrats actually voted against a bill to overturn school regulations that allowed only union nurses to give medical help to students suffering life-threatening epileptic seizures. The 21 included Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles.

So expect an epic, years-long battle over AB 340. It may be law, but laws can be changed, ignored or sabotaged — and the CTA and the CFT can’t live with the new status quo that the governor’s pension reform portends.

Katy Grimes: Ballotpedia just reported that Proposition 29, the Tobacco tax, was defeated 50.8 percent to 49.2 percent.

Whew! That was close.

But in the end, I think voters are just distrustful of another tax, and particularly how politicians would spend the funds.

Proposition 29
Result		Votes	Percentage
No		1,958,047	50.8%
Yes		1,894,871	49.2%

21,993 of 21,993 precincts reporting

Prop 29 was written to be able to stay in place for 15 years, with no legislative oversight, and would have created a $735 million a year fund without specifications on the spending.

Read other CalWatchdog stories about Prop 29 HERE

April 25, 2012

by Katy Grimes

There are examples of waste, fraud and abuse in nearly every corner of government.  With the election season upon us, voters need to pay special attention to what is on the ballot.

California’s ballot initiatives say a great deal about the health of the state. There are numerous tax increase proposals on the ballot, despite voters refusing to pass the last seven attempts to increase taxes, including as recently as last year.

The average citizen doesn’t have the power or money to put anything on ballot. The $200 ballot initiative filing fee is not the roadblock–the $2 million needed to get the initiative passed is.

However, ballot initiatives are the best way to speak directly to the voters.  Many initiatives seem important, but the costs and consequences are not always clear.

In California, there is a new tobacco tax ballot initiative which claims the revenue raised would go to cancer research.

Sponsored by Lance Armstrong, tour de France legend and possible future political candidate, the initiative would raise taxes by $735 million, but not contribute a dime to the state’s budget shortfall. And passage of the initiative would create a massive, new state bureaucracy.

But hidden truth about Proposition 29 is that Don Perata, a former state legislator, has been using the June ballot measure’s election fund as his own personal checkbook. Perata has paid nearly $40,000 to an Oakland City Councilman in order to win a contract for one of his lobbying clients, the San Francisco Chronicle and Contra Costa Times reported.

Perata, the former California State Sen. President, was exposed by the Chronicle for paying Oakland City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente $37,500 from the fund of Hope 2012, a supporter of the Proposition 29 tax-hike. According to the Chronicle, “In return, De La Fuente was to help generate support among labor groups for the Proposition 29 tax initiative on the June ballot.”

However, none of these payments were properly disclosed by De La Fuente as required by California law.

Moreover, Perata is also actively lobbying De La Fuente on behalf of a client who wants to win a lucrative 10 year contract to manage the city’s sports arena.  As expected, De La Fuente said that failing to disclose the payments was just an “oversight,” according to the Chronicle.

The Oakland Tribune reported Perata’s “Hope 2012” ballot-measure committee began raising money for what’s now known as Proposition 29 way back in 2009, and has transferred $488,500 to Californians for a Cure – the primary committee backing the measure… Now Perata himself has received $5,792.17 since July from Californians for a Cure, including $2,607.19 for “meetings and appearances” and $2,508.36 for travel expenses.”

Proposition 29 hasn’t even hit the June ballot yet, and already the self-dealing and political insider trading has started.

If this group is this fast and loose with its own campaign money, it is not difficult to imagine what they will do when with the nearly $1 billion per year paid by taxpayers.

Perhaps that is why written into Proposition 29 is a clause prohibiting any changes in the spending decision that its politically appointed commission makes, for a full 15 years! And maybe that is why Proposition 29 is written in a way to exempt the CEO from normal state salary requirements, and why that CEO can hire whomever he wants, at whatever salary he chooses.

This ballot initiative is the perfect soft landing for career politicians. Who knows how many termed-out politicians like Perata will be raking in the public money if this law is passed.

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office report about Prop 29 states:

“Increase in new cigarette tax revenues of about $855 million annually by 2011- 12, declining slightly annually thereafter, for various health research and tobacco-related programs. Increase of about $45 million annually to existing health, natural resources, and research programs funded by existing tobacco taxes. Increase in state and local sales taxes of about $32 million annually.”

This ballot initiative is a tax increase under the protective cover of health research. At least the other ballot initiatives which seek to increase taxes are more forthright. Proposition 29 is nothing more than a cushy home for career politicians, addicted to government power, and taxpayer-funded salaries.

Opponents to Proposition 29 include Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes & Spending, formed to oppose the measure ,Tobacco companies R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris oppose the measure, the California Taxpayers Association, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, the California Republican Party and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.

Supporters of Proposition 29 include “Californians for a Cure,” the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association in California, American Heart Association, American Stroke Association, Lance Armstrong Foundation, Laura Ziskin (co-founder of Stand Up To Cancer), Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and several surgeons and directors of California cancer research institutions including Nobel Laureate Dr Elizabeth Blackburn and Congressional Gold Medal Nominee Dr Balazs Bodai. Tom Torlakson, the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, is also a supporter.

Career politicians already control too much the private sector’s money; a no vote on Proposition 29 at least ensures they won’t get any more.

Read the ballot initiative. There is so much garbage in it, and virtually no oversight, voters should be really angry. This proposition is exactly the kind of politics  California voters are fed up with.

The budget released by the Governor last week projects that despite billions in cuts to programs over the last several years, California will still be $9.2 billion in the hole next fiscal year.  This deficit is forcing $4.2 billion in additional cuts to education and other critical public services, with the possibility of up to about $5 billion more cuts. However, these cuts are also prompting calls for tax increases.

Despite this dire fiscal condition and California’s inability to pay for many programs, notorious politician and former state Senator Don Perata is still pushing a ballot measure that would create a brand new state spending program.  The measure called the California Cancer Research Act would add nearly $1 billion worth of new spending annually, and pay for it with tax hikes on already burdened Californians.

If the initiative is approved by California’s voters, the tax on cigarettes in the state will increase by $1.00 per pack. The additional tax revenue will be used to fund cancer research, smoking reduction programs, and tobacco law enforcement.

This spending includes $16 million on the new bureaucracy to run the program, along with all the salary and pension costs that go with it.

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office reports:

“Increase in new cigarette tax revenues of about $855 million annually by 2011- 12, declining slightly annually thereafter, for various health research and tobacco-related programs. Increase of about $45 million annually to existing health, natural resources, and research programs funded by existing tobacco taxes. Increase in state and local sales taxes of about $32 million annually.”

Even worse, the measure allows the vast majority of the revenue – and all the research and facilities money – to be spent outside California. Revenue from the California Cancer Research Act is expected to help groups such as the National Cancer Institute, which has a dwindling budget.

Support for the measure comes from the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association in California, American Heart Association, American Stroke Association, all of which report decreasing revenue, the Lance Armstrong Foundation, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and Tom Torlakson, the California Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Interestingly, Inside Bay Area reported that Oakland City Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente received a $25,000 consulting fee in August 2009 from “Hope 2010”, a ballot measure committee controlled by the Cancer Act campaign’s chairman, Don Perata. He was tasked with “contacting 10 labor groups for petition signatures and 10 business groups for campaign contributions in the Sacramento and Oakland areas.”

While education, public safety and services for the poorest in the state are being cut, this measure would send Californians’ precious tax dollars to other states.

According to Ballotpedia, 60 percent of the revenue (approximately $468 million annually) would to go research of cancer and tobacco-related disease “for the purpose of grants and loans to support research into cancer prevention.”

The initiative would create a 9-member governing committee charged with administering the fund. The California Cancer Research Act Oversight Committee will be made up of public employees.

Most people support cancer research, but there could not be a worse time for California to be creating a new spending program.  We need to fix the many problems in Sacramento, and not create huge new bureaucracies and spending programs that taxpayers have to support.

Not surprisingly, opposition to the measure comes from Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes & Spending, funded by Altria Group Inc., the parent company of tobacco manufacturers Philip Morris USA.

The Cancer Research Act is an example of the wasteful and bogus programs voters are tricked into voting for under the guise of health and research. Ballot measurers like this that have helped  put California in the horrific budget predicaments, year after year.

The bottom line: California taxpayers should not be funding private non-profit organizations, which already get tax breaks from the government.

Joel Fox of Fox and Hounds addressed his concerns with the measure last March: “Unfortunately, it is another example of ballot-box budgeting in which revenues are limited for specific purposes with little oversight from outside agencies.”

JAN. 12, 2012