The first major votes on a raft of bills meant to address California’s housing crisis could come up for a vote Friday, with the Democrats who control the Legislature eager to demonstrate they know how much extreme housing costs are harming low- and middle-income families.

Gov. Jerry Brown has often been critical of plans to add new dollars to California’s traditional method of providing affordable housing – by building subsidized units that help a relatively small number of residents. He prefers to sharply streamline the housing approval process.

But after horse-trading this year with Democrats, Brown agreed to support two affordable housing initiatives, apparently in return for support for Senate Bill 35, a measure by state Sen. Scott Weiner, D-San Francisco. It would hasten approvals for new housing units in cities that aren’t creating the volume of units mandated under state law and make it significantly more difficult for local opponents to block construction.

Unlike Weiner’s measure, both the affordable housing initiatives require two-thirds support to win passage in the Legislature.

Real-estate fee struggles to win two-thirds support

One of the measures – SB3 by Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose – appears to have sufficient support. It would put $4 billion in general obligation bonds before state voters next year to fund construction of affordable rental units and to fund “smart growth” projects near transit centers and other housing projects. It would also provide $1 billion to the state’s veteran home loan program, which the San Francisco Chronicle reported would otherwise run out of money next summer.

The other affordable housing initiative – SB2 by Sen. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego – appears to be in trouble. It would add fees of $75 on some real-estate transactions to provide ongoing permanent funding for affordable housing, estimated at $250 million a year. The Los Angeles Times reported that in a bid to boost support, Atkins had made changes this week to her bill to provide some of the funds it would generate to local governments. But it is unlikely to win any GOP votes in the Assembly, meaning all 54 Assembly Democrats would have to support it.

Many of the 54 have already voted this year to raise gasoline and diesel taxes and to approve a continuation of the state’s cap-and-trade emissions trading program, which also makes fuel more expensive. For those in swing districts, backing SB2 may seem risky.

“My concern is that it looks and smells like a tax,” Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, told the Times.

Prevailing wage mandate in Weiner bill questioned

Weiner’s proposal reflects the Republican view that regulatory relief is the only way to build enough housing to stabilize rents and home prices. With two-bedroom apartments renting for more than $2,000 a month in most big cities – and double that in parts of the Bay Area and Silicon Valley – there’s a growing fear among California business executives that housing costs will drive off talented workers and make it difficult to recruit new ones.

But in recent days, a new GOP talking point has emerged that takes dead aim at the idea that Weiner’s bill would accomplish much. It notes that by requiring projects that win quick approvals to use “prevailing wages” – union-level pay – those projects would be far costlier than those built with non-union crews.

Earlier this year – in a fight over another bill before the Legislature seeking to require “prevailing wages” on construction projects – the Building Industry Association estimated the mandate would add $90,000 to the cost of building a 2,000-square-foot home in California.

State housing officials say California has added about 800,000 housing units over the past decade – 1 million less than needed.

SACRAMENTO – During the California Democratic Party convention in Sacramento last weekend, the spiciest news was outgoing chairman John Burton dropping an f-bomb on a group of activists demanding that the party embrace a single-payer health system. It’s not really news when the notoriously foul-mouthed Burton says such things, but the fracas highlighted the pressure party leadership faces to embrace government-run medical care.

Yet the foulest rebuke to advocates for single payer this week did not take place at the convention. It took place nearby at the state Capitol, in the form of an appropriations committee report that found that a single-payer bill working its way through the state Senate would cost more than double the state’s total budget.

Senate Bill 562, which had previously passed the Senate health committee, was placed in the “suspense file” by the appropriations committee on Monday as legislators analyze the huge price tag. They have until the end of the week to move it out of the file, or it will die this year.

The committee made clear the size of the undertaking: “The fiscal estimates below are subject to enormous uncertainty,” it explained. “Completely rebuilding the California health care system from a multi-payer system into a single payer, fee-for-service system would be an unprecedented change in a large health care market.”

The appropriations analysts estimate an annual cost of $400 billion a year, which soars above the projected $180 billion state budget. Of that cost, the committee explained, about half of it would be covered by existing federal, state and local health care funding. That leaves a $200-billion hole, which the committee says could be covered by a 15 percent payroll tax. Even if the calculation includes reduced health care spending by employers and employees, the committee still estimates a $50-billion to $100-billion shortfall.

And, quite significantly, these costs could be understated given the kind of demand that would be created by this system. Its main advocates, Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, view health care as a “human right,” so the system the bill would create would provide nearly unlimited access to medical care. In fact, the Senate health committee report opined that “SB562 will change health care in California from commodity to a right.”

“Under the bill, enrollee access to services would be largely unconstrained by utilization management tools commonly used by health care payers, including Medi-Cal,” according to the committee report. “The ability for enrollees to see any willing provider, to receive any service deemed medically appropriate by a licensed provider, and the lack of cost sharing, in combination, would make it difficult for the program to make use of utilization management tools … . Therefore, it is very likely that there would be increased utilization of health care services under this bill.”

And the committee only is talking about predicted costs. It’s not its job to engage other policy debates, such as those touching on subjects including rationing, waiting lists for services if the demand overwhelms supply and the quality of care. The bill would apply to illegal immigrants, which raise critics’ concerns about the state becoming a worldwide magnet for “free” health care.

The bill is fairly short given the complexity of the subject. But the Mercury News captured the gist of the single-payer approach in a March news article: “Instead of buying health insurance and paying for premiums, residents pay higher taxes. And those taxes are then used to fund the insurance plan — in the same way Medicare taxes are used to provide insurance for Americans 65 and over.”

This bill would put control of health care in the state under the authority of a nine-member panel and essentially eliminate the role of insurance companies – thus replacing them with a government bureaucracy. But the size of the tax bill and state costs even have Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown expressing what the newspaper calls “deep skepticism.”

The analysis makes some other important points. For instance, it’s not clear that the federal government would go along with this, and it is totally discretionary whether the feds would grant the necessary waivers involving Medicare and Medicaid services. The bill’s funding is based heavily on the ability to divert federal funds from those programs.

The analysis also notes, “There are several provisions of the state constitution that would prevent the Legislature from creating the single-payer system envisioned in the bill without voter approval.” In Colorado this past November, voters defeated a single-payer initiative, Amendment 69, with an overwhelming 79 percent to 21 percent “no” vote.

Supporters of the measure claim that it will reduce “waste” by putting all health plans under a single umbrella, thus ending the duplication of multi-plan systems. But critics note that competition is the best way to keep costs low – not putting a system under one giant governmental entity. Advocates see it as a way to ensure proper health care for everyone, but the appropriations report confirms critics’ concerns that such a system could obliterate the state budget and kill job-creating private enterprise because of the high tax bite.

As the Democratic Party protests illustrated, we can expect the debate to become even more acrimonious and obscenity laden as the days go on.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

Sacramento Democrats have centered attention around a shot at universal health care for all Golden State residents. 

“In a surprise move made in response to President Donald Trump’s push to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, two California lawmakers Friday introduced legislation to replace private medical insurance with a government health care system covering all 38 million Californians — including its undocumented residents,” the San Jose Mercury News reported. 

Joined by state Sen. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, state Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Long Beach, introduced the Californians for a Healthy California Act, offering “a comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage program,” as KPCC confirmed. “Under this approach, private health insurance would be replaced with a single state-run program. Lara said his plan would guarantee coverage to all Californians and would bring down the cost of health care.” But advocates and critics hungry for specifics, the lawmaker conceded, will have to wait. “At the moment, Lara’s bill only says it is the ‘intent of the Legislature’ to establish a single-payer system. It does not say exactly how the program would work or how much it would cost.”

“It’s far from the first time this kind of system has been proposed in California. In 1994, voters rejected a ballot measure that would have established a single-payer system. The Legislature passed single-payer bills in 2006 and again in 2008, only to have Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger veto the measures.” 

Past stumbles

Schwarzenegger’s veto was fueled by grim projections. “When the Legislature passed a single-payer bill in 2008 […] the legislative analysts found that those revenues would fall $40 billion short in the first year,” HotAir recalled. 

Although the bill has created a sensation among California Democrats looking to make a national point with a state-level effort, precedent for success is weak. “In 2011, Vermont became the first U.S. state to agree to establish a single-payer program, but the effort fizzled three years later over concerns about the cost,” KPCC noted. And in Colorado, “voters overwhelmingly rejected a similar proposal last fall amid widespread concerns about the cost,” according to the Mercury News. “Within the first decade, Colorado — a much smaller state than California — would have been $7 billion in the hole,” HotAir observed.

Cost and complexity

Any program along Lara and Atkins’ lines would need to be built from the ground up, according to rules no legislative body has had to contend with in doing so. “A single-payer system would have to overcome unique hurdles in a state where millions of dollars in federal funds are spent on health programs like Medicaid and treatment for veterans,” ABC News reported. “Other countries, like Canada, may have single-payer systems that differ slightly by state or province, he said, but the U.S. is more complicated. Nothing like this plan — a state-run single-payer system that must also comply with federal government rules — currently exists.” 

But public support among California progressives would likely remain high enough to encourage Sacramento Democrats to give a substantive bill a try. “The Legislative Analyst’s Office says the overall cost could be upwards of well over $100 billion,” Atkins recently admitted to KPBS. “But, here’s the difference, since we had those discussions a decade ago, we have implemented the Affordable Care Act in which we’ve looked at the cost and how to take advantage of the numbers. I mean California is the largest state in the country. We have large numbers to put into the risk pool. We put into place the individual mandate and we talked about businesses participating. So this is the next step to put together a financial package of how we can pay for it.”

Jean Fuller kept on a Senate Republican leader

Good morning. Happy Hump Day. 

Senate Republicans in Sacramento unanimously re-elected Jean Fuller as leader on Tuesday. The Bakersfield Republican has led the caucus since August 2015. 

Last month, Chad Mayes, the Republican leader in the Assembly, was also re-elected. Both Fuller and Mayes will be tasked with steering their caucuses through a particularly difficult time for California Republicans. 

The November election relegated Republicans in the Legislature to mostly the role of bombthrowers and bystanders. By gaining a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the Legislature, Democrats can approve taxes and add constitutional amendments to the ballot without Republican support.

(Of course, that requires complete Democratic unity, which is often more elusive than it may seem at first glance.) 

CalWatchdog has more.

In other news: 

• “Close to 30 percent of the Bay Area’s residents aren’t able to make ends meet as they contend with high housing costs, suggesting poverty is more widespread in the region than official reports indicate, according to a study published Wednesday.” The San Jose Mercury News has more. 

• “After failing to pass new funding to tackle the state’s housing affordability crisis last session, two state senators are trying again. Sen. Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and Sen. Jim Beall (D-San Jose) have re-introduced legislation to add a $75 fee to real estate transactions, which is expected to generate hundreds of millions a year for low-income housing construction, and place a $3-billion bond to finance low-income housing before voters in 2018, respectively.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

• “California lawmakers will consider a proposal next year to block the state’s pension funds from investing in a controversial oil pipeline that is planned to cross North Dakota’s Standing Rock Sioux Reservation,” reports the Los Angeles Times. 

• “In brief remarks about the subject, Brown said Monday that it would be difficult for the U.S. to ‘go rogue’ on climate change. He went further Tuesday in a broadcast discussion with former Vice President Al Gore, predicting a ‘negative and very powerful’ backlash throughout the world should Trump continue to voice his denials and impede the environmental progress of the last eight years.” The Sacramento Bee has more. 

Legislature:

• Gone till December.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @gfolchi

Women make up more than half of California’s population, but only about one-fourth of the Legislature. 

And in November, that’s unlikely to change too much, according to a CalWatchdog analysis.

While an October surprise, outside factor or just particularly good or bad campaigning could change the course of race that appears to be a sure thing, primary results, incumbency advantages, voting trends and partisan makeup of a district can be useful in making educated guesses.

Currently, out of 120 legislative seats, there are 30 held by women — an additional seat is vacant now, having been held by the late Republican Senator Sharon Runner, who died unexpectedly earlier this month.   

There could be as many as 49 women in the Legislature next year, but it is likely that they’ll hover around the same amount as this year.  

In the Senate, women could have as few as five seats and as many as 13 — realistically, the number will likely be around eight to 10 seats. In the Assembly, women will occupy at least six seats and as many as 36, but that number will likely be somewhere between 15 and 24 seats. 

What we know for sure

Republican Senators Jean Fuller, Janet Nguyen, Pat Bates and Democratic Senators Connie Leyva and Holly Mitchell are not up for re-election and will definitely be returning next year, as the Senate is on staggered four-year terms.

In the Assembly, every seat is up for re-election every two years, although five seats will definitely stay occupied by women — either because the incumbent is running unopposed (or facing a write-in challenge) or because the incumbents are facing another woman in the general election. Those five seats are held by: Democrats Cheryl Brown, Cristina Garcia and Autumn Burke and Republicans Catharine Baker and Young Kim. 

Because of either term limits or the seat being vacated by an incumbent running for another position, eight seats held by women will be replaced by men as no women advanced from the primary in these races. Those are the seats currently held by Republican Assemblywomen Beth Gaines, Kristin Olsen, Shannon Grove and Ling Ling Chang and one Democrat, Toni Atkins, as well as two Democratic senators, Carol Liu and Fran Pavley.

Runner’s Senate seat will also be filled by a man.

There is only one definite pickup: An Assembly seat held by termed-out Democrat Luis Alejo.  

Seats where we likely know the outcome

Again, nothing is guaranteed until the final votes are tallied, but these nine seats are safe bets.

While the Assembly seat of Speaker Emeritus Toni Atkins will be filled with a man as mentioned above, the San Diego Democrat is expected to offset that loss by filling a seat being vacated by a man in the Senate. 

Because of the advantages of incumbency, district voting trends and favorable lopsided primary results, these eight female legislators will likely keep their seats: In the Senate, it’s Democrats Hannah-Beth Jackson (the current chair of the Women’s Caucus) and Cathleen Galgiani, and in the Assembly, it’s Democrats Jacqui Irwin, Susan Talamantes Eggman, Shirley Weber and Lorena Gonzalez with Republicans Melissa Melendez and Marie Waldron.

One female incumbent in trouble 

The only incumbent woman who is on very shaky ground is Democrat Patty Lopez. Lopez finished second in the primary, down 17.2 percentage points to the man she surprisingly knocked out of office in 2014, fellow Democrat Raul Bocanegra.

Best pickup chances

In the race to replace Sen. Mark Leno, who is termed out, Jane Kim led the primary against fellow Democrat Scott Wiener 45.3 percent to 45.1 percent. It’s obviously a close race, but it is a good chance for a woman to pick up a seat.

In a less competitive race, Democrat Cecilia Aguiar-Curry finished first in the primary against Republican Charlie Schaupp in a heavily Democratic district to replace Assemblyman Bill Dodd, D-Napa, who is running for Senate.

Democrat S. Monique Limón finished the primary with a formidable lead against Edward Fuller, who claims no party preference, 65.9 percent t0 34.1 percent. If elected, Limón would replace Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams. 

In the race to replace termed-out, Democratic Assemblyman Roger Hernandez — who is currently under a three-year restraining order for alleged domestic violence — Blanca Rubio appears likely to win. Rubio, a Democrat, will face Republican Cory Ellenson in a heavily-Democratic district.

Two wildcards 

Two seats where women have decent chances to pickup seats, although the odds are slightly tipped against them, are the Senate races to replace termed-out Republican Bob Huff and incumbent Democrat Jim Beall.

Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang saw an opening in the Huff race and decided to vacate her Assembly seat after only one term. However, she finished the primary with only 44 percent, with two Democrats splitting the 56 percent majority. 

Beall is being challenged by Assemblywoman Nora Campos, a fellow Democrat. Beall narrowly missed a majority in the primary, topping Campos by 22.5 percentage points. Campos is considered the business-friendly candidate, so she’ll have to use that to draw upon Republican support to top Beall.

Toss ups

There are approximately 11 races that look as though they could go either way, with four being vacated by termed-out women. Another four are against male incumbents: Republicans Marc Steinorth, Eric Linder and Travis Allen and Democrat Miguel Santiago.  

Looking for October surprises

And there are 11 other races where women are challenging male incumbents, although these races do not appear as though they’ll be too competitive. 

In a statement to CalWatchdog, Rendon, a Paramount Democrat, condemned domestic violence, but said he will not seek action at this time against Hernández, a Democrat from West Covina. 

It was just last month when Rendon announced his leadership team, which included Hernández atop the Labor and Employment Committee, the same leadership role he was in under Rendon’s predecessor, Toni Atkins, D-San Diego. 

“Since the temporary restraining order was filed against Assemblymember Hernández last week, there have been several conversations about what the next steps should be,” Rendon said. “If the allegations are more fully validated, I will be prepared to take further action.”

Calls to step aside

On Thursday, the Democratic chair and vice chair of the women’s caucus, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara and Asm. Cristina Garcia of Bell Gardens, issued a statement calling for Hernández to step down until the matter with his estranged wife, Baldwin Park City Councilwoman Susan Rubio, is resolved.

“In the wake of the serious allegations against Assemblymember Roger Hernández, we believe he should step down from his committee assignments and his position as chair of the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee while his case is pending in court and take a leave of absence,” Jackson and Garcia wrote.

“While a determination is still pending on these most recent allegations and we respect his right to due process, it’s important that the Legislature send a strong and consistent message to victims about our commitment to confronting domestic violence and demonstrate that we take allegations seriously when they occur among one of our own,” Jackson and Garcia added. 

Rendon did not expand on what would constitute “more fully validated,” but no charges have been filed against Hernández. The situation places the new speaker in an awkward position between being cautious and appearing to set a soft behavioral standard for members.

“(Rendon) should have anticipated that such a problem would come up,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College. “It is not exactly unprecedented for California legislators to face accusations of bad behavior.”

What’s been alleged

Rubio is alleging that Hernández — who is seeking a seat in Congress — pushed, shoved, hit and choked her during their marriage, according to the Los Angeles Times. The couple is 16 months into divorce proceedings.

After an April 5 divorce hearing, Rubio alleges that Hernández “came ‘aggressively’ toward her and began shouting in her face,” prompting her to seek a restraining order. In the filing, Rubio included pictures of a bruised and scratched arm, the Times reported.  

Hernández denied the allegations to the Los Angeles Times on Thursday and other outlets and said he will not take a leave of absence or step aside from committee responsibilities.

Hernández was re-elected to a third and final term in 2014, beating his opponent by 9 points. 

Mostly quiet 

Besides Jackson, Garcia and one Republican assemblyman who has been calling for Hernández to be stripped of his chairmanship since he had security forcibly remove the Republican’s microphone at a committee hearing, other lawmakers have been quiet, as have outside groups.

In a long statement condemning domestic violence, the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence issued a statement of “concern” about the situation, but refused to take a position “(b)ecause the case at hand is open and ongoing, we do not have all the facts and cannot presume the nature of the evidence, nor the legal implications thereof.”

Troubles in the other chamber

Not that long ago, several Democratic senators ran afoul of the law. All were eventually convicted, unlike Hernández, who has not been charged. Although some were removed from leadership roles at the first sign of trouble. 

Sen. Roderick Wright of Inglewood was convicted of multiple voter fraud felonies, according to the Los Angeles Times. During the appeals process, he was removed from his committee chairmanship. 

Sen. Ron Calderon of Bell Gardens was removed from the executive board of the California Latino Legislative Caucus and from his legislative committee assignments after allegations of bribery surfaced. He had not been charged with any crimes at the time, but eventually took a leave of absence after federal corruption charges were filed. 

The apex of trouble was when Sen. Leland Yee of San Francisco was indicted on charges of gun trafficking and public corruption (while in cahoots with a gangster named Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow). Yee was immediately stripped of all of his committee assignments. 

At the time, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, had had enough. “Every indictment, every arrest, every arraignment and even every suspicion or allegation reflects very poorly on each of us and all of us,” Leno said at the time.

Leno did not respond to requests for comment on Friday about whether those feelings remained and if they applied to Hernández.

History

It’s not the first time Hernández has been accused of wrongdoing. In 2012, an ex-girlfriend accused him of domestic violence, although charges were never filed due to insufficient evidence. 

That same year, Hernández was arrested for drunk driving in a state vehicle, but was acquitted by a jury on one charge, while the jury was hung on another. 

In 2015, allegations of political money laundering against Hernández were dropped by the Fair Political Practices Commission after two key witnesses were unable to testify — one had serious medical issues while the other had passed away. 

Fighting over the spoils

With an election year on the way, Democrats jockeying for power in Sacramento have found themselves in fractious intra-party competitions. “Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, faulted by some for not controlling her moderate faction, is being forced out of her seat by term limits but doesn’t want to retire, so she is challenging Sen. Marty Block’s bid for a second term in San Diego,” as Dan Walters observed at the Sacramento Bee. “Atkins says Block had promised to retire after one term and cede the Senate seat to her, but he denies it. The stage is thus set for what is likely to be an expensive and nasty duel between two conventionally liberal Democrats.” Another drama has centered around Raul Bocanegra’s establishment-backed effort to wrest back his seat from insurgent Patty Lopez, Walters added.

On budgeting, meanwhile, Gov. Jerry Brown’s unwillingness to capitulate to Democrats’ demands for greater largesse was thrown into a striking new light by the news that California’s balance sheet is $1 billion stronger than projected this fiscal year. “The surplus suggests Brown was indeed conservative during budget negotiations,” according to Capital Public Radio. “The governor insisted on using lower revenue estimates, while legislative Democrats had pushed for some limited additional spending.”

Republicans, whose idea of fiscal discipline tends to go well beyond Brown’s own, see Democrats’ power struggle over spending as a double-edged sword. Giving too much credit or support to Brown would weaken the already anemic state GOP, while undermining him would fuel an insurgency from the Left. But in a telling signal of how Republican officials sought to resolve the dilemma, the party has pointedly withdrawn itself from races where business-friendly or Brown-allied Democrats faced a matchup against more liberal or union-funded challengers. Speculation has built that the pattern could effectively repeat itself in the campaign to replace outgoing U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer. Thanks to California’s new primary system, “it just may happen that no Republican survives next June’s Top Two primary, letting Harris and Sanchez split the larger Democratic vote and duke it out in the fall,” according to the Californian. “To prevent that, two of the Republicans will have to drop out long before that primary.”

Unions divided

Even without the added pressure of GOP machinations, organized labor, a powerful Democratic constituency, has found itself fractured in the Golden State. California, the state with the most lower-wage employees, has been at the forefront of activists’ successful movement to boost minimum wages in the absence of federal legislation. But now, that effort has been imperiled by its own strength.

“The SEIU mega-local UHW, based in the San Francisco Bay Area, has long been campaigning for a 2016 ballot measure for a $15 minimum and has already gathered the requisite number of signatures to get it on the ballot,” the American Prospect reported, drawing the support of Democrats like Lt. Gov Gavin Newsom and the mayors of party strongholds like Oakland and San Francisco. Yet the dominance of Democrats and labor has produced internal competition. The SEIU California State Council rolled out a measure of its own “that would also raise the minimum to $15 while expanding access to paid sick leave for home-care workers.”

“The competing measures are the latest skirmish in the running battle between the UHW leaders and the leaders of the national union, joined by other state SEIU honchos, over questions of SEIU’s strategy and structure,” the Prospect noted. “The skirmish has higher-wage advocates worried that two competing measures will diminish state voters’ considerable support (68 percent in the Field Poll) for a $15 minimum wage, so much so that both measures could go down to defeat.”

Republicans have resisted Democrats’ preferred approach, but California’s business lobby has pressed both parties to embrace new taxes and fees. “Last week, business organizations such as the California Chamber of Commerce and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group said any deal should seek to raise at least $6 billion annually by raising gas and diesel taxes and increasing vehicle registration and license fees,” the San Jose Mercury News reported.

Part of the rationale for increasing fees, instead of simply dialing up gas taxes, has centered around the growing popularity of hybrid and electric vehicles in California — and the state’s interest in squeezing revenue out of every car on the road. “We have these Teslas that are being sold and they don’t pay any gas tax,” complained state Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, as CBS Sacramento noted.

Gas in California has remained higher on average than out-of-state, thanks to cap-and-trade fees and the state’s unique environmental rules about the blends of gasoline that must be sold. Current state taxes include an excise tax of 39 cents, between 30 and 42 cents in sales tax, and 10 cents for the cap-and-trade levy, as Watchdog Arena observed.

Brown stays secretive

At a recent news conference that left some observers hungry for detail scratching their heads, Brown refused to hint at a revenue source for the improvements. “I’m not going to say where the revenue’s going to come from, how we’re going to get it,” he said. “We’ll get it done, but I’m not going to put all my cards on the table this morning,” Brown said, according to ABC 7 News.

Brown was joined at the appearance by Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, who signaled separately that negotiations would be tough. “It will be a bumpy road, but our constituents expect us to work together and figure something out,” she told the San Francisco Chronicle.

To date, the governor has not let slip whether he would support or oppose a tax hike to make up the difference.

The 2013 measure guides additional dollars to districts with high concentrations of English-learner students, foster children and impoverished families, altering the funding formulas that have driven disbursement of state dollars for decades. Even before the reform became law, reform groups warned the funds will be steered into operating budgets and used to pay for raises for teachers orchestrated by their powerful unions.

A January Legislative Analyst’s Office report surveyed 50 California school districts, including the 11 largest, on how they were handling LCFF moneys. The LAO concluded that some districts were better than others, but that not one district had adequate safeguards.

In February, the Fresno County Office of Education formally asked the state Department of Education for guidance: Could broad raises be given with the additional funding?

Bureaucrat for tough standards, but his boss isn’t

The midlevel bureaucrat who responded in April — Jeff Breshears, administrator for the Department of Education’s Local Agency Systems Support Office — said that could only happen in unusual circumstances. The California Teachers Association strongly disagreed, as Edsource reported:

The Local Control Funding Formula was created to give maximum flexibility to school districts, and that includes creating competitive salaries to reduce teacher turnover, said Claudia Briggs, communications assistant manager for the CTA.

 

“We believe the law is clear: The money can be used to attract and retain quality teachers in the classroom, to lower class sizes and to restore programs that were cut,” said Briggs. And she said the CTA disagrees with the education department’s position that districts cannot use supplemental dollars for across-the-board raises if fewer than 55 percent of the students are English learners and low-income children.

 

“All control dollars are sent with no strings attached to suit the best needs of students. So if the percentage is below 55 percent, districts can absolutely still use those funds” for pay raises, she said.

After Brashears’ memo became public knowledge in recent weeks, Torlakson overruled his subordinate and said the funds could be used for broad teacher raises if districts could make the case that this would help English-learners and the other struggling students the LCFF was meant to assist.

Assemblywoman takes on party establishment — again

None of this sits well with a liberal second-term Assembly member who has already tangled with the Democratic Party establishment on teacher tenure and rules on how police body cameras can be used. In a statement published on the Union-Tribune’s website, San Diego’s Shirley Weber expressed frustration with Torlakson’s interpretation. Here are excerpts:

While teacher salaries are of great importance, supplemental and concentration grants are intended to achieve greater equity in our educational system by improving education outcomes for low-income students, English language learners and foster children. The Superintendent’s correspondence makes no connection to more equitable outcomes and use of those funds for salaries. Lowering the burden of proof for salary increases only further exacerbates circumstances that the poverty supplemental and concentration grants are intended to mitigate. …

The Legislature’s intent was clear when it enacted LCFF and the State Board reinforced this intent when it adopted regulations that these supplemental and concentration dollars were to “increase or improve” services and be “principally directed” to low income students, English learners and foster youth. Significant investments have already been made towards LCFF and an effective mechanism has yet to be implemented to actually track how these supplemental and concentration resources are being invested. There must be no ambiguity about who should benefit from these investments.

Weber is a former San Diego school board president and San Diego State professor.

]]> https://calwatchdog.com/2015/06/22/gov-brown-sides-teachers-union-school-funding/feed/ 2 81006 https://calwatchdog.com/2015/05/18/ca-democratic-convention-women-seek-close-gap-california-politics/ https://calwatchdog.com/2015/05/18/ca-democratic-convention-women-seek-close-gap-california-politics/#comments Mon, 18 May 2015 14:29:50 +0000 http://calwatchdog.com/?p=80073 Women remain the stars of the California Democratic Party.

This past weekend, Sen. Elizabeth Warren received top billing as the convention’s keynote speaker. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi earned rounds of applause from committee and caucus meetings. And, of course, the convention buzz focused on the U.S. Senate showdown between Attorney General Kamala Harris and Rep. Loretta Sanchez.

But, below the surface, there was a clear frustration from some delegates that women aren’t equally represented in Democratic politics. That’s why as Speaker of the Assembly Toni Atkins and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon were speaking to the women’s caucus, Janet Cook was outside the meeting, dutifully passing out stickers for her organization, Close the Gap.

“Women are only 26 percent of the California Legislature,” said Cook, a Close the Gap CA recruiter for the East Bay. “We think that sucks.”

Close the Gap’s Mission: 16 for ’16

To Close the Gap, the organization is recruiting Democratic women to run for office, then offering early training to those progressive candidates on how to run an effective campaign. After several years of working towards its mission, the group has updated its website and refined its pitch to a concise game plan: 16 for ’16. That’s recruiting 16 strong women candidates for 16 targeted seats in the 2016 legislative election.

The group proudly boasts that they’ve already found nine women for those targeted races – with a large number of women of color.

“At a time when Latinos are the largest and fastest growing demographic in California, Latina women are one of the least represented groups in the state Legislature, currently at five out of 120,” points out a joint campaign brochure for three Democratic women candidates running next year in two of the targeted seats.

Close the Gap selected its 16 targeted races by looking first and foremost at open seats, which they see as opportunities. According to an election analysis by the Center for American Women and Politics, there’s a big gap in the success rate for women picking up open seats compared to knocking out incumbents.

In 2012 races for the House of Representatives, women ran for 26 open seats, winning 15 campaigns for an overall 57 percent success rate. Compare that to the 74 open seats where women ran against incumbents, winning just 4 races or five percent.

State Assembly pays women less; fewer in top staff positions

Part of the challenge in recruiting women to run for state office is that candidates often rise through the ranks as legislative staff. Yet, as a CalWatchdog.com investigation revealed in 2013, the state Capitol remains a good old boys’ club.

Women who work for the California State Assembly face a glass ceiling, substantial pay inequities and limits to their career advancement. Female employees are paid less than their male counterparts, are less likely to serve in leadership roles and remain stuck in secretarial positions, our 2013 analysis of legislative payroll data found.

Since that analysis, a Democratic woman has taken over the speaker’s office, yet little’s changed. Earlier this year, a review by the Sacramento Bee found pay inequities persist in the state Legislature.  Those gender biases, Cook believes, are best solved by electing more women to office.

“We just keep at it,” she said. “It’s not a short process. I’ve been working at it a long time, and I’ll continue to work at it.”

Open Legislative Seats in 2016

In 2016, more than two dozen seats of the state Legislature will be vacant. The 16 seats that are being targeted by Close the GAP CA are noted below with an asterisk (*).

State Assembly

• AD 6 Beth Gaines
• AD 12 Kristin Olsen
• AD 14 Susan Bonilla*
• AD 16 Catharine Baker*
• AD 24 Richard Gordon*
• AD 27 Nora Campos*
• AD 30 Luis Alejo*
• AD 31 Henry Perea*
• AD 34 Shannon Grove
• AD 35 Katcho Achadjian*
• AD 37 Das Williams*
• AD 40 Marc Steinorth*
• AD 43 Mike Gatto*
• AD 48 Roger Hernandez *
• AD 68 Donald Wagner
• AD 71 Brian Jones
• AD 76 Rocky Chavez
• AD 78 Toni Atkins*

State Senate

• SD 3 Lois Wolk*
• SD 7 Vacant*
• SD 9 Loni Hancock*
• SD 11 Mark Leno*
• SD 25 Carol Liu*
• SD 27 Fran Pavley*
• SD 29 Bob Huff
• SD 35 Isadore Hall, III*