Saturday, August 23, 2008

A State Without a Budget: Day 55 - DEMOCRATS IN CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY TO TAKE 3-DAY VACATION DESPITE BUDGET IMPASSE

Their time away from the Capitol coincides with the Democratic National Convention, but one official says that has nothing to do with their decision not to hold sessions.

By Michael Rothfeld and Nancy Vogel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

August 23, 2008  - SACRAMENTO -- With the end of the legislative session approaching, no budget in place and a $15.2-billion deficit hanging over their heads, the Assembly's Democrats on Friday unveiled their plans for the next week: a three-day vacation from the Capitol.

Their scheduled time away coincides with the Democratic National Convention in Denver, where 31 members of the Legislature are expected as delegates. But that has nothing to do with the decision not to hold sessions Tuesday through Thursday, a spokesman said.

"If we had work to do, we'd be here," said Steven Maviglio, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles). "It's literally silly for some of them to sit around in Sacramento."

Maviglio said the Assembly finished this week voting on most of the legislation sent over by the Senate, and new bills have not arrived. And it's legislative leaders, not the rank and file, who are negotiating the budget, he said.

Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at Cal State Sacramento, said lawmakers shouldn't go anywhere until they pass a budget.

"It's poor judgment on their part and only fuels the fire of the public's animus toward the Legislature," she said. "It looks immature and childish."

In the state Senate, half a dozen members said Friday that they had canceled their convention plans. Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland), who had intended to go, told his members to stay in town.

It is unclear how many of the Assembly members will attend the convention. Sandré Swanson (D-Alameda), a delegate, said Friday that he could not attend "in good conscience." Bass, also a delegate, canceled her plans. But she has not forbidden anyone to go.

"I don't know who is going to the convention from my caucus," Bass said. "What I do know is that our No. 1 priority is to settle the budget . . . and none of us would sacrifice that to go to a convention."

Even though many will not be in Sacramento, Assembly members will still get paid more than $1,000 in tax-free living expenses for the next six days because they scheduled a Monday afternoon meeting on water bond legislation and other matters, Maviglio said. Under Assembly rules, they can collect their allowance as long as they don't go four days without a meeting.

Democrats in California Assembly to take 3-day vacation despite budget impasse - Los Angeles Times

A State Without a Budget: Day 54 - CALIF. LAWMAKERS OPT NOT TO MEET DURING CONVENTION

By JULIET WILLIAMS, Associated Press Writer from San Francisco Chronicle

Friday, August 22, 2008 - 16:30 PDT Sacramento, CA (AP) -- Lawmakers in the state Assembly have opted not to meet for most of next week, despite a state budget that's nearly two months late and a looming deadline for hundreds of bills to pass out of both houses.

The decision makes it possible for members of the mostly Democratic body to attend the party's national convention in Denver.

Many said they still won't attend the four-day convention, which runs Monday through Thursday.

"I don't think I should festoon myself with buttons and signs and spend a week in Denver," said Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, who is a member of the convention's platform committee.

The state Senate said it would meet every day next week.

Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, scheduled Assembly sessions for Monday afternoon and next Friday morning, but denied she was shutting down the Assembly Tuesday through Thursday so lawmakers could attend the convention.

"I don't know who is going to the convention from my caucus. What I do know is that our Number 1 priority is to solve the budget," Bass said.

Her spokesman, Steve Maviglio, said Bass had canceled her scheduled events in Denver and her plane tickets and had no plans "at this point" to attend. Bass was scheduled to attend several events at the convention, including one with U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.

Maviglio said there's no need for the Assembly to meet every day next week because many of the bills the Assembly has to act on are still in the Senate, and with the budget unresolved, members have little to vote on.

The Legislature is supposed to wrap up its 2008 session by Aug. 31, although some bills, including the budget, can be acted on after that date.

Many Democratic legislators are delegates to the convention who would vote on the party's nomination of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as its presidential candidate.

Still, "I can't justify going when we don't have a budget," said Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Eureka.

Legislative leaders have been deadlocked for weeks over how to solve California's $15.2 billion budget deficit for the fiscal year that started July 1. Democrats and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have proposed several combinations of cuts and tax increases, but Republicans are staunchly opposed to higher taxes and have not offered an alternative.

Schwarzenegger has urged lawmakers to stay in Sacramento until a budget deal is worked out and has left his own appearance at the Republican National Convention the following week in St. Paul, Minn. in doubt.

"Given the fact that the Legislature is over two months past their constitutional deadline and our state faces a looming cash crisis, most Californians will probably be disappointed to hear that the Assembly has chosen not to hold session for most of next week," Schwarzenegger spokesman Matt David said.

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata said he turned in his convention credentials last week and expects his entire caucus to be in the Senate chamber at 11 a.m. Monday and to remain in Sacramento the rest of the week.

"I can't imagine anyone going. So if anybody goes there and they're not here, then I think all hell will rain down upon them," he said. "We ought to be here, and the public ought to be outraged if we're anywhere but here."

Perata said he was more upset about the overdue state budget than missing his party's biggest party.

Freshman Democratic Assemblyman Mike Davis of Los Angeles said he would go to Denver as long as a budget vote wasn't scheduled next week.

Other Assembly lawmakers remained on the fence, though, noting that only legislative leaders negotiate the budget, not rank-and-file members.

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, said she was still undecided, but added, "If we don't have official work that we're supposed to be here doing here, part of our job as Democrats is to help elect our next president."

Former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, whose is termed out in November, was rethinking his comments from earlier in the week when he said he would go to Denver regardless of the Legislature's schedule.

"I was gung-ho about going to the convention, but I'm going to take it one day at a time," said Nunez, D-Los Angeles. "I've got to think about what I should do, how it might look for me to be partying at the Democratic Convention when we're without a budget."

___

Associated Press Writers Judy Lin, Don Thompson and Samantha Young also contributed to this report.

Calif. lawmakers opt not to meet during convention

Friday, August 22, 2008

A State Without a Budget: Day 53 and counting - WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

Despite the requests from the Governor to stay at their desks and not go to their respective conventions - and assurances from the legislators that they would stay on the job ...and rumors that they would work through the weekend - none of the above seems destined to happen.  Marty D. Omoto, Director/Organizer of the California Disability Community Action Network reports Friday evening on the California Progress Report that No California budget deal appears cose but both houses will  meet on Monday.

Assembly Will Finish Up Work On Bills Aug 31

Assembly Will Meet Monday and Then No Session Until Friday

    The Assembly - with over 30 Democratic members scheduled to attend next week's Democratic National Convention - will convene on Monday (August 25) at 1 PM, but will not meet again until Friday, August 31 at 9:30 AM. That will allow State Senate and Assembly Democrats time to attend the Democratic Convention. The Republican National Convention is scheduled the following week.

Senate Schedule Not Certain

The State Senate is scheduled to convene on Monday (August 25) but has not scheduled sessions beyond that yet.

NEXT STEPS

* LEGISLATURE: Both State Senate and Assembly will meet on Monday with floor sessions to take final actions on bills. Assembly will then not meet again until Friday, August 31 to finish its work on bills for the 2008 legislative session. The Senate has not released its schedule beyond Monday yet. Those session dates could change if a budget deal is reached - but at this point, no agreement is even close and a vote on the budget doesn't appear to be likely any time soon.

* GOVERNOR: Bills passed by the Legislature are not being sent to the Governor, but are being held temporarily because of his threat to veto all bills sent to him until a budget is passed. The State Constitution give the Governor until September 30th to sign or veto bills (or allow bills to become law without his signature), so the Legislature could hold bills that it passed until close to that date in theory. This has never happened before however.

Omoto: With California now 53 days without a State budget, the State Senate and Assembly will convene on Monday (August 25) to continue finishing up work on regular legislation. Currently, the deadline to pass bills for the 2008 Legislative session is August 31.

Both houses have adjourned for the day (Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 ) and will not return until Monday. Leadership in both houses could call members back into floor sessions over the weekend if a budget deal is reached - though that is not likely to happen with Legislative Republicans and Democrats still far apart on any budget deal.

Earlier both houses had hoped to finish up work today and perhaps even recess the legislative session, but that hope vanished as the stand-off on the State budget grew worse.

Impact of Budget Delay On People With Disabilities, Mental Health Needs & Seniors

The impact of budget cuts - both proposed and enacted, and the delay in the budget itself has major impact on hundreds of thousands of children and adults with disabilities (including developmental), mental health needs, seniors, low income workers and families, community organizations who provide services and supports because the State has cut off payments until a budget is in place.

The impact varies depending - some services have received funding through a special trust fund, but even that fund now has been exhausted. Community organizations - especially the middle sized and small ones across California are facing serious crisis in meeting payroll and paying other costs without receiving State reimbursements or knowing when it can receive those funds.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released a proposed budget compromise - referred to as the "August Revision" this week that includes $2 billion more in proposed spending cuts and also a temporary 3 year 1 cent increase in the State sales tax and budget reforms. But his budget compromise proposal was greeted with opposition by Legislative Republicans who strongly oppose any tax increases and by Legislative Democrats who oppose more spending cuts, especially to education, and have reservations about a sales tax increase as opposed to increase income taxes.

 

CPR: No California Budget Deal Appears Close—Both Houses to Meet on Monday

A State Without a Budget: Day 53 and counting - WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

Despite the requests from the Governor to stay at their desks and not go to their respective conventions - and assurances from the legislators that they would stay on the job ...and rumors that they would work through the weekend - none of the above seems destined to happen.  Marty D. Omoto, Director/Organizer of the California Disability Community Action Network reports Friday evening on the California Progress Report that No California budget deal appears cose but both houses will  meet on Monday.

Assembly Will Finish Up Work On Bills Aug 31

Assembly Will Meet Monday and Then No Session Until Friday

    The Assembly - with over 30 Democratic members scheduled to attend next week's Democratic National Convention - will convene on Monday (August 25) at 1 PM, but will not meet again until Friday, August 31 at 9:30 AM. That will allow State Senate and Assembly Democrats time to attend the Democratic Convention. The Republican National Convention is scheduled the following week.

Senate Schedule Not Certain

The State Senate is scheduled to convene on Monday (August 25) but has not scheduled sessions beyond that yet.

NEXT STEPS

* LEGISLATURE: Both State Senate and Assembly will meet on Monday with floor sessions to take final actions on bills. Assembly will then not meet again until Friday, August 31 to finish its work on bills for the 2008 legislative session. The Senate has not released its schedule beyond Monday yet. Those session dates could change if a budget deal is reached - but at this point, no agreement is even close and a vote on the budget doesn't appear to be likely any time soon.

* GOVERNOR: Bills passed by the Legislature are not being sent to the Governor, but are being held temporarily because of his threat to veto all bills sent to him until a budget is passed. The State Constitution give the Governor until September 30th to sign or veto bills (or allow bills to become law without his signature), so the Legislature could hold bills that it passed until close to that date in theory. This has never happened before however.

Omoto: With California now 53 days without a State budget, the State Senate and Assembly will convene on Monday (August 25) to continue finishing up work on regular legislation. Currently, the deadline to pass bills for the 2008 Legislative session is August 31.

Both houses have adjourned for the day (Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 ) and will not return until Monday. Leadership in both houses could call members back into floor sessions over the weekend if a budget deal is reached - though that is not likely to happen with Legislative Republicans and Democrats still far apart on any budget deal.

Earlier both houses had hoped to finish up work today and perhaps even recess the legislative session, but that hope vanished as the stand-off on the State budget grew worse.

Impact of Budget Delay On People With Disabilities, Mental Health Needs & Seniors

The impact of budget cuts - both proposed and enacted, and the delay in the budget itself has major impact on hundreds of thousands of children and adults with disabilities (including developmental), mental health needs, seniors, low income workers and families, community organizations who provide services and supports because the State has cut off payments until a budget is in place.

The impact varies depending - some services have received funding through a special trust fund, but even that fund now has been exhausted. Community organizations - especially the middle sized and small ones across California are facing serious crisis in meeting payroll and paying other costs without receiving State reimbursements or knowing when it can receive those funds.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released a proposed budget compromise - referred to as the "August Revision" this week that includes $2 billion more in proposed spending cuts and also a temporary 3 year 1 cent increase in the State sales tax and budget reforms. But his budget compromise proposal was greeted with opposition by Legislative Republicans who strongly oppose any tax increases and by Legislative Democrats who oppose more spending cuts, especially to education, and have reservations about a sales tax increase as opposed to increase income taxes.

 

CPR: No California Budget Deal Appears Close—Both Houses to Meet on Monday

A State Without a Budget: Day 53½ - ¡HASTA LA VISTA, ARNOLD!

EXTRA Political Diary

Stephen Moore in  the Wall Street Journal

August 22, 2008 6:47 p.m. -- Some things never change in the Golden State. Seven weeks into the fiscal year, California still has no budget and faces a Pacific Ocean-sized $15 billion deficit. On Wednesday, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger offered a "compromise" plan that kicks the legs out from his own party with a big new sales tax increase. "It's time to put ideology aside," he insisted.

[Arnold Schwarzenegger]

Now he faces a revolt from Republicans in the legislature who think this is precisely the time to be ideological. "Any tax increase plan won't pass with Republican votes -- absolutely not," a defiant Mike Villines, minority leader of the state assembly, told me shortly after the governor's scheme was announced. Mr. Schwarzenegger wants to raise the sales tax by one percentage point, which in jurisdictions like Los Angeles would raise the total sales levy to 10% -- one of the highest in the nation. "It will hurt the state and hurt people on fixed incomes," Mr. Villines protests.

He and his colleagues offer their own solution. First, no new taxes in a state that already has nearly the highest income and sales tax burden in the country. Second, a "hard" budget cap that limits spending increases to the rate of inflation plus population growth. Under Governor Arnold, in contrast, the budget has grown 40% in just four years.

Mr. Villines' Republican lawmakers face a stacked deck in the Democratic liberal majority, their own GOP governor, and the California media. Assembly Republicans walked out of a meeting with the governor earlier this week when he started talking new taxes, but Democrats desperately wanted an income tax increase, so Mr. Schwarzenegger views a sales tax hike as a down-the-middle "compromise."

This may be a war California conservatives can win for once in their tax-and-spend state. "There's a silent majority in California against yet another tax increase," Mr. Villines asserts. With gas prices, food prices, unemployment and mortgage foreclosures all rising in the Golden State, he may be right.

Call on College Presidents to Support the 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age

 

Dear Friend,

An estimated 25,000 lives have been saved by the 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA), which is why we were gravely concerned to learn that the college and university presidents and representatives listed below have added their names to a misguided initiative aimed at attacking the minimum drinking age of 21.

We are not alone in our concern. The public strongly disagrees with efforts to lower the drinking age. According to a new survey released by Nationwide Insurance this week:

  • 78 percent of adults support 21 as the minimum drinking age
  • 72 percent of adults think lowering the drinking age would make alcohol more accessible to kids 
  • Nearly half believe it would increase binge drinking among teens
  • More than half say they are less likely to vote for a state representative who supports lowering the legal limit or send their children to colleges or universities with “party school” reputations

Contact the college and university presidents who have signed on to this initiative and request they remove their signatures and support the 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age.

We must work together to find a responsible solution to the underage drinking problem, one that does not jeopardize a law that has saved nearly 25,000 lives since going into effect.  Solutions include: enforcing the drinking age, tightening alcohol policy, working within the college community to ensure the environment supports the above and working with parents to talk to their children well before peer pressure begins, around fourth grade.

We need your help to fight this effort to lower the drinking age. Please consider a contribution to MADDPlease help us spread the word about this issue - forward this alert on to family and friends.  Together we can make a difference!

President
College
State

President Vincent Maniaci
American International College
MA

President Jerry M. Greiner
Arcadia University
PA

President Ronald Slepitza
Avila University
MO

President Elizabeth Coleman
Bennington College
VT

President Scott D. Miller
Bethany College
WV

President Bobby Fong
Butler University
IN

President David Wolk
Castleton State College
VT

President Mark J. Tierno
Cazenovia College
NY

President Carmen Twillie Ambar
Cedar Crest College
PA

President Esther L. Barazzone
Chatham University
PA

President John Bassett
Clark University
MA

President Anthony G. Collins
Clarkson University
NY

President James R. Phifer
Coe College
IA

President Rebecca S. Chopp
Colgate University
NY

President Robert Hoover
College of Idaho
ID

President Mary Pat Seurkamp
College of Notre Dame of Maryland
MD

President Frank Miglorie
College of St. Joseph
VT

President Richard Celeste
Colorado College
CO

Dennison Griffith
Columbus College of Art & Design
OH

President James E. Wright
Dartmouth College
NH

President G. T. Smith
Davis & Elkins College
WV

President William G. Durden
Dickinson College
PA

President Robert Weisbuch
Drew University
NJ

President Richard Brodhead
Duke University
NC

President Joseph R. Fink
Dominican University of California
CA

President Donald R. Eastman III
Eckerd College
FL

President Theodore Long
Elizabethtown College 
PA

President Thomas Meier
Elmira College
NY

President Richard E. Wylie
Endicott College
MA

President Jeffrey von Arx
Fairfield University
CT

President Kendall A. Blanchard
Georgia Southwestern State University
GA

President Janet Morgan Riggs
Gettysburg College
PA

President Sanford J. Ungar
Goucher College
MD

President Jack Ohle
Gustavus Adolphus College
MN

President Joan Hinde Stewart
Hamilton College
NY

President Walter M. Bortz
Hampden-Sydney College
VA

President Ralph J. Hexter
Hampshire College
MA

President Susan DeWine
Hanover College
IN

President Nancy O. Gray
Hollins University
VA

President Richard B. Gilman
Holy Cross College (IN)
IN

President John J. Bowen
Johnson & Wales University
RI

President William Brody
Johns Hopkins University
MD

President Barbara Murphy
Johnson State College
VT

Chancellor Leon Richards
Kapiolani Community College
HI

President S. Georgia Nugent
Kenyon College
OH

President Daniel H. Weiss
Lafayette College
PA

President Stephen D. Schutt
Lake Forest College
IL

President Thomas J. Hochstettler
Lewis & Clark College
OR

President Carol A. Moore
Lyndon State College
VT

President Leonard Tyler
Maine Maritime Academy
ME

President Thomas J. Scanlan, F.S.C.
Manhattan College
NY

President Richard Berman
Manhattanville College
NY

President Tim Foster
Mesa State College
CO

President Ronald Liebowitz
Middlebury College
VT

President Frances Lucas
Millsaps College
MS

President Mary Ellen Jukoski
Mitchell College
CT

President Christopher Thomforde
Moravian College
PA

President Robert Michael Franklin Jr.
Morehouse College
GA

President Joanne V. Creighton
Mount Holyoke College
MA

President Peyton R. Helm
Muhlenberg College
PA

President Randy Dunn
Murray State University
KY

President Thomas B. Coburn
Naropa University 
CO

President Fran Voigt
New England Culinary Institute
VT

President Debra Townsley
Nichols College
MA 

President Robert A. Skotheim
Occidental College
CA

President Lawrence Schall
Oglethorpe University
GA

President E. Gordon Gee
Ohio State University
OH

President Loren J. Anderson
Pacific Lutheran University
WA

President Phil Creighton
Pacific University
OR

President John Mills
Paul Smith's College
NY

President David W. Oxtoby
Pomona College
CA

President Robert A. Gervasi
Quincy University
IL

President Robert R. Lindgren
Randolph-Macon College
VA

President William E. Troutt
Rhodes College
TN

President David C. Joyce
Ripon College
WI

President Gregory G. Dell'Omo
Robert Morris University
PA

President Charles R. Middleton
Roosevelt University
IL

President Pamela Trotman Reid
Saint Joseph College (CT)
CT

President Timothy R. Lannon
Saint Joseph's University (PA)
PA

President Arthur F. Kirk
Saint Leo University
FL

President Patricia Maguire Meservey
Salem State College
MA

President JoAnne Boyle
Seton Hill University
PA

Vice Chancellor Joel L. Cunningham
Sewanee: University of the South
TN

President Carol T. Christ
Smith College
MA

President Paul LeBlanc
Southern New Hampshire University
NH

President Beverly Daniel Tatum
Spelman College
GA

President Robert E. Ritschel
Spoon River College
IL

President Daniel F. Sullivan
St. Lawrence University
NY

President Harold J. Raveche
Stevens Institute of Technology
NJ

President Elisabeth S. Muhlenfeld
Sweet Briar College
VA

Chancellor Nancy Cantor
Syracuse University
NY

President J. Patrick O’Brien
Texas A & M University-West Texas
TX

President Robert Caret
Towson University
MD

President James F. Jones, Jr.
Trinity College
CT

President John M. Stamm
Trinity Lutheran College
WA

President Lawrence S. Bacow
Tufts University
MA

President Walter Harrison
University of Hartford
CT

President Jennifer Hunter-Cevera
University of Maryland-Biotechnology Institute
MD

President C.D. Mote Jr.
University of Maryland--College Park
MD

President Jack M. Wilson
University of Massachusetts System
MA

President Steven H. Kaplan
University of New Haven
CT

President Louis Agnese Jr.
University of the Incarnate Word
TX

Chancellor William E. Kirwan
University System of Maryland
MD

President Geoffrey Shields
Vermont Law School
VT

Chancellor Robert Clarke
Vermont State Colleges
VT

President Ty Handy
Vermont Technical College
VT

President Tori Haring-Smith
Washington and Jefferson College
PA

President Kenneth P. Ruscio
Washington and Lee University
VA

President L. Baird Tipson
Washington College
MD

President Michael Bassis
Westminster College
UT

President Sharon D. Herzberger
Whittier College
CA

President James T. Harris
Widener University
PA

President M. Lee Pelton
Willamette University
OR

President Lorna Duphiney Edmundson
Wilson College
PA

MADD, 511 E. John Carpenter Frwy. #700, Irving, TX 75062

A State Without a Budget: Day 53 GOVERNOR MAY SEEK SPECIAL ELECTION FOR BUDGET

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget has gained no support... Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget has gained no support.  The last special election in California was in 2005 and cost the state about $50 million; California voters rejected all eight ballot propositions.

Matthew Yi, San Francisco Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

 Friday, August 22, 2008 - 4:00 AM -- Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday that the budget deadlock could last for several more weeks, a delay that would force him to call a special election.

Two significant pieces of his budget require voter approval, and many state lawmakers consider Sunday to be the drop-dead deadline for placing new measures on the ballot for the November election.

A budget deal after Sunday would mean the governor would have to put his budget measures - calling for budget overhauls and for borrowing against future lottery sales - to voters in a special election later this year or next year.

"We can have a special election. ... I prefer to put it on this ballot, but you always have to go for the next best thing. You can't always have it exactly your way," he said Thursday.

The last special election in California was in 2005 and cost the state about $50 million, according to Kate Folmar, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Debra Bowen.

California faces a $17.2 billion spending gap, which includes $2 billion in reserves. The governor and legislators have been unable to reach a compromise on the budget for the current fiscal year, which began July 1.

It could be weeks before a deal is reached, the governor said.

With his term ending in 2010, this November election would be his last chance to take measures that he supports - structural changes in state budgeting, water and high-speed rail bonds - to the ballot box unless there is a special election.

Schwarzenegger's statements drew mixed responses from legislative leaders Thursday.

"I'm optimistic that we will pass a budget in time for this election," Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, said in a written statement.

But Eileen Ricker, a spokeswoman for Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill from Modesto, said the senator is "willing to stay as long as it takes to get the right, responsible kind of budget for California."

The latest round of talks between Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders fell apart Tuesday when Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines, R-Clovis (Fresno County), stormed out of the meeting over talk of increasing taxes.

But budget negotiations are especially tough this year because Schwarzenegger wants structural changes, the governor said.

"I think we all could very quickly be on the same page if I would want to fix the budget problem only for this year and kick the problem down to next year. But is that what I want? No," he said, reiterating his stance that he doesn't want to borrow money to help fill the deficit.

"Republicans (in the Legislature) have no interest in thinking long-term," the GOP governor said.

Schwarzenegger made public on Wednesday his latest budget proposal, which he calls a compromise. The plan includes a temporary increase in the state sales tax by 1 cent per dollar, additional cuts and limits on spending that would allow the state to sock away additional revenue during economic boom years. He also proposes giving the governor authority to make midyear cuts during hard economic times.

Those plans, which the governor had revealed to legislative leaders during a private meeting Aug. 3, so far have failed to win endorsements from lawmakers.

Schwarzenegger said while he doesn't like raising taxes, he is willing to compromise for a budget overhaul.

"Here's a chance to go to the Democrats and say, 'Look, you've never been for budget reform. Why don't you give us budget reform and in exchange we do a temporary sales tax increase?' It could work," he said.

But Republicans maintain they won't support any taxes. Plus, GOP lawmakers also have complained the governor's proposal doesn't include a spending cap.

Schwarzenegger said the problem with trying to institute a spending cap is that even if Democratic lawmakers support it, he is convinced there is little chance it will get voter approval, recalling his attempts in the 2005 special election when his measures were soundly defeated at the ballot box. At that time, the governor had sought to change the way legislative district lines are drawn and to impose budget reforms with a spending cap.

He said he is frustrated not only by a lack of compromise in budget talks, but also with its effect on bigger projects that the state needs to take on such as improving water infrastructure and building a statewide bullet-train system.

"When you travel around the world, you see the rest of the world building, building and building, and cranes everywhere. I want to see that in California, rather than Mickey Mousing around with all this nonsense and arguing about the budget," he said. "We can have a budget system in place so that we don't have to argue about the budget all the time. ... Then debate about the big things."

Governor may seek special election for budget

Thursday, August 21, 2008

A State Without a Budget: Day 52 STATE SUPERINTENDENT TO LEGISLATORS: "OPPOSE ANY FURTHER COMPROMISE TO THE 'BUDGET COMPROMISE'".

image

A similar letter was sent to all state senators.

Learning From the Mavericks: LESSONS FOR DISTRICTS FROM SMALL URBAN HIGH SCHOOLS

Education Week

Commentary By Regis Shields & Karen Hawley Miles | EdWeek

August 5, 2008 -- Creating new small high schools out of large failing ones continues to be a popular strategy for tackling high dropout rates and low performance in urban high schools. But, too often, districts create high-cost mini-versions of their large failing high schools because they do not have a vision of how small schools might “do school” in new ways, or how they would have to change their own practice and systems to support them.

Case studies of resource use in nine leading-edge small urban high schools can offer lessons for districts that are not satisfied with just a few examples of outstanding schools, but want to create entire systems of them.

We studied a set of widely recognized small urban schools—all with enrollments of 500 or fewer students—that represent a range of instructional, organizational, and governance models. These “Leading Edge Schools” serve student populations similar to their districts’, but outperform most local large high schools. Our sample included two state charter schools, four in-district charter schools, and three district-run schools located in Boston; Chicago; San Diego; Oakland, Calif.; and Worcester, Mass.

Here are four of the most salient lessons gleaned from our findings:

• There’s no one way, but there is a strategic way to organize schools.

Schools can best create high-performing organizations — or strategic designs — when they have the flexibility to organize resources along with guidance and support on best practices.

Rather than accept traditional schedules, staffing ratios, and job descriptions, Leading Edge Schools deliberately organize people, time, and money to support their instructional models and meet their students’ needs. Operating largely with public funds, they make tough resource trade-offs to prioritize teaching quality, core academic time, and individual student attention. Though these schools look very different from one another, they share a set of common practices that distinguish them from typical large urban high schools.

Principals carefully select teaching-staff members to fit their specific school needs, for example. Students spend an average of 20 percent more time in school each year—and 233 more days over four years—on core academics than their peers in traditional high schools do. And teachers devote an average of five times more hours to collaboration and professional development than local districts require.

• Strategic school design depends on resource-savvy principals.

The principals of Leading Edge Schools are savvy resource managers. They understand that deftly crafting resources to align with their instructional models and ever-changing student and teacher needs is key to their schools’ success. Not all principals bring these same skills to the job. To create strategic-resource schools at scale, schools leaders need help in figuring out and implementing new approaches. This suggests a new paradigm for supervising and supporting schools—especially as they are outlining their improvement plans, budgets, and staffing needs each year.

In this new paradigm, supervision would be less about enforcing a specific use of resources, and much more about enabling schools to more effectively match hiring, staff assignment, student grouping, and schedules to their particular challenges. This will require training for both principals and school supervisors in strategic resource use. It will also require districts to create templates for school designs that work within their funding levels at different school sizes and student populations. Though the Leading Edge Schools create their strategic designs from the ground up, there is no need for all schools to begin with a blank slate.

• Small high schools will require a workforce shift to include more-flexible teachers of core academic subjects.

Small size creates its own set of opportunities and constraints. Leading Edge Schools capitalize on smallness to create vibrant professional learning communities. But small size limits resources in two ways. First, the smallest schools—those with under 250 students—spend a significantly larger portion of their budgets on leadership and pupil support than larger schools do, leaving less money for teachers. In addition, the smaller staff size makes it harder to hire full-time teachers to play highly specialized roles teaching electives and advanced subjects or serving students with special needs.

Leading Edge Schools have three conditions that enable them to create their strategic designs. First, they are able to select core academic teachers with the expertise and desire to play the range of roles their small-school designs require. In eight out of nine Leading Edge Schools, 84 percent or more of all classroom teachers are “core academic” teachers. In contrast, at the typical high school, 60 percent or fewer of the teaching-staff members play these roles. Second, Leading Edge Schools can define teaching roles, allowing core academic teachers to play multiple roles and using community partners to expand course offerings and services. Third, they have the flexibility to define their own limited set of course offerings to maximize academic courses.

These conditions have implications for district practices around recruiting, staffing, course requirements, and partnerships. Schools will need far more math, science, history, and English teachers and fewer who teach only electives. Further, systems must find more cost-effective ways to deliver noncore subjects, including partnerships and part-time teachers.

• Union contracts and administrative practices need to change.

Given that the common practices described above often require significant flexibility to depart from teachers’ union contract provisions and administrative policies, it is not surprising that most of the Leading Edge Schools are charter or in-district charter schools. The lesson for school systems is that teachers are not interchangeable parts, and that teacher and student schedules cannot be universally or rigidly defined. Supporting schools will mean changing district policies and union contracts that control hiring, staffing, and scheduling.

The important idea here is that it’s not about creating flexibility for the sake of freedom. The goal of allowing more school leader discretion is to enable more effective school designs and empower leaders to make adjustments that balance limited and always-changing resources in ways that fit constantly changing student needs. Not all urban principals have the high level of expertise and experience that Leading Edge principals do, and they will require training, support, and, potentially, templates of organizational models.

As the Leading Edge Schools show, creating high-performing, successful small high schools is about so much more than size. Schools can best create high-performing organizations—or strategic designs—when they have the flexibility to organize resources along with guidance and support on best practices. They need resource-savvy leaders, who have the flexibility to hire whomoever they need, and to organize their available student time and teachers effectively.

While the Leading Edge Schools are all small urban high schools, these lessons for practice apply to schools of all sizes and types—making small school reform a powerful lever of system change.

Regis Shields is the director and Karen Hawley Miles is the president and executive director of Education Resource Strategies, a nonprofit organization based in Watertown, Mass., that works with urban schools and districts on strategic resource allocation. Their essay uses findings from “Strategic Designs: Lessons From Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools,” a study funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Campaign '08: POLL GIVES OBAMA EDGE ON IMPROVING SCHOOLS

Education Week

collection logo

By Alyson Klein | Education Week

20 August -- A greater proportion of Americans think that Sen. Barack Obama would be more likely than Sen. John McCain to improve public schools as president, according to a poll being released today.

The survey, conducted by Phi Delta Kappa International and the Gallup Organization, reports that 46 percent of respondents viewed Sen. Obama as the candidate for the White House better able to strengthen public education, compared with 29 percent for Sen. McCain. Twenty-five percent of respondents said they didn’t know which candidate would be better able to handle school policy.

The poll, released annually by PDK, a professional society for educators based in Bloomington, Ind., and Princeton, N.J.-based Gallup, was conducted from June 14 to July 3, using a national sample of 1,002 adults aged 18 and older. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The survey also showed that only a small proportion of Americans—16 percent—want to see the No Child Left Behind Act, the main federal K-12 education law whose reauthorization is pending in Congress, renewed without major changes. Thirty-one percent of respondents identifying themselves as Republicans and 50 percent of Democrats said would like to see the law extended, but changed significantly.

And 25 percent of Democratic respondents said they would like to see the law scrapped entirely, compared with 27 percent of Republicans.

The results on which party’s nominee would be better for public schools represent a significant shift from 2004, when that election’s Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, was viewed as equally supportive of public education as President Bush, with each receiving the confidence of 41 percent of respondents on the issue. In 2000, respondents gave then-Texas Gov. Bush a slight edge over Vice President Al Gore on public education, with 38 percent of those surveyed saying they thought Mr. Bush would better handle K-12 policy, compared with 37 percent for Mr. Gore.

Campaign K-12 at the Political Conventions

Edweek.org brings you exclusive live coverage of education-related issues and events from the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. Education Week's top political reporters will be blogging at Campaign K-12 as events unfold. You can also follow them at Twitter.com/educationweek.

Those surveyed gave Sen. Obama, the Illinois Democrat set to officially gain his party’s presidential nomination next week in Denver, an edge on handling a range of education issues, including in promoting parental choice, typically a policy position more closely identified with Republicans.

Forty-three percent said they trusted Sen. Obama to do a better job on the issue of school choice, compared with 32 percent for Sen. McCain, the Arizona Republican slated to accept his party’s nomination early next month in St. Paul, Minn.

Respondents also gave Sen. Obama an advantage on closing the achievement gap between white and minority students, supporting research efforts for developing new curriculum courses and new educational assessments, and funding education.

The Education Party?

“Education has traditionally been a Democratic issue,” said Thomas Toch, a co-director of Education Sector, a Washington think tank. He said that both President Reagan and the current president were able to use the issue effectively, but that “the needle has moved back to where it traditionally is on education, in part because of the backlash against the No Child Left Behind Act.”

Jeanne Allen, the president of the Center for Education Reform in Washington, said Democrats may have an edge on the issue simply because Americans have little to go on in trying to determine how each candidate would proceed on education policy, because the campaign has featured so little discussion of it.

“People are responding based on uninformed opinions as the issues have only recently begun to surface,” Ms. Allen said. People are more likely to guess that Democrats would handle education better, because they are perceived as the “softer” party, typically more closely identified with domestic issues, she said.

Survey respondents also said that Democrats in general were more likely to be interested in improving public schools. Forty-four percent said they thought the Democratic Party would be more committed to strengthening K-12 schools, while just 27 percent thought the Republican Party would be.

That’s also a contrast from 2004, when survey respondents gave Democrats a smaller edge over the GOP on the same question, with just 42 percent saying they trusted the Democrats more on the issue, compared with 35 percent trusting Republicans.

This year’s PDK/Gallup poll results on that question mirror another recent survey, conducted by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University, which found that 62 percent of Americans believe that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to improve schools.

That poll, which was conducted by the polling firm Knowledge Networks last winter, is scheduled to be published in the fall issue of Education Next, a journal of research and opinion published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

The poll also showed a boost in public support for private school vouchers. In the 2007 poll, 60 percent of respondents said they opposed allowing parents to use public money for private school choice, while 39 percent supported that idea. But this year, just 50 percent of respondents said they opposed the use of public funds for school vouchers, while 44 percent supported it.

A State Without a Budget: Day 52 CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED US

Op-Ed by Jim Wunderman in the San Francisco Chronicle

Thursday, August 21, 2008 - California's government suffers from drastic dysfunction - our prisons overflow, our water system teeters on collapse, our once proud schools are criminally poor, our financing system is bankrupt, our democracy produces ideologically extreme legislators who can pass neither budget nor reforms, and we have no recourse in the system to right these wrongs. Drastic times call for drastic measures.

It is our duty to declare that our California government is not only broken, it has become destructive to our future. Therefore, are we not obligated to nullify our government and institute a new one?

Those were the rights and responsibilities that Thomas Jefferson wrote of in the Declaration of Independence, stating that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed and that whenever a government becomes destructive to the governed, it is a people's solemn right and duty to alter or abolish it.

Our state's founders gave us the tool to take this step - with a constitutional convention. We can either be led to a convention by our elected leaders in the Legislature, who, as fed up as we are, can authorize a convention with a two-thirds vote, or we can bypass any gridlock in Sacramento with a "citizen's constitutional convention." Changes from either would go on the ballot for a majority vote.

As rash as an act as this might seem, this is not unchartered territory. Nearly 30 years after the state was founded, California received a new government from a constitutional convention. We also had a California Constitutional Revision Commission from 1964-1976 and the voters approved and codified the commission's revisions in separate pieces in 1966, 1970, 1972 and 1974. Jefferson also cautioned that governments should not be changed for light and transient causes. So let us consider the seriousness of the ills and their relationship to the Constitution. California is the only state that has not passed a budget this year. While the budget battle rages, no other legislative matter gets real attention, despite an armada of problems requiring state attention - water, education, roads, prisons, health care, housing, economic policies and more. If this were a rare occurrence, then we could look the other way, but it has happened 18 of the past 22 years! The chief reason is that only Rhode Island, Arkansas and California have a constitutional requirement of two-thirds legislative budget approval, which in California is nearly impossible. Republicans contend this threshold is their only check on Democrats' profligate spending, but if Democrats do overreach, more Republicans would be elected. Likewise, some states pass two-year budgets, freeing at least one year for pure legislative work, but California's Constitution prevents such sensible practice.

California's primary system and gerrymandered Assembly and Senate districts, both parts of the Constitution, consistently produce candidates from the ideological extremes. In such an atmosphere, party orthodoxy rules all, and crossing the line to compromise is political suicide. For this reason, real, desperately needed change is blocked at every turn, and only bills like regulating tanning booths actually escape alive.

California's system of taxation and spending is almost entirely hardwired into the Constitution. It produces wildly fluctuating revenue booms and busts that put state services on a cruel feast-or-famine roller coaster that drags the poor, the elderly, children and even the business community along for the painful ride. Similarly, local funding is hogtied to the state's, forcing our cities and counties to suffer as well from outdated laws in the Constitution. California's bureaucratic red tape is legendary, reflecting nothing of our 21st century economy, culture and society.

That is because so many state agencies, boards and commissions have been placed forever in our Constitution. Texas actually has a Sunset Commission in which nearly all of its 150 agencies are automatically abolished after 12 years, unless legislation is enacted to continue them. Alas, our state Constitution prevents this, too. California's Constitution was always meant to be a living document that could adjust to the times. The time has come to make serious adjustments. As Jefferson would remind us, this is not just a right, it is a patriot's solemn duty.

Jim Wunderman is the president and CEO of the Bay Area Council.

A State Without a Budget: Day 52 LEGISLATORS NOT OPTIMISTIC ON BUDGET - North Coast Democrats grim as state fiscal impasse reaches 8th week

By ROBERT DIGITALE | Santa Rosa  PRESS DEMOCRAT

Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 4:30 a.m -- The 2008 state budget impasse is now among the fifth longest in the 22-year run of busted deadlines, and North Coast legislators -- all Democrats -- generally see little likelihood of a quick resolution.

What will it take to get a budget? "A lot of prayer," said state Sen. Patty Berg, D-Eureka, whose sprawling district stretches from the Oregon border to Santa Rosa.

She offered no specifics on what compromises she'd be willing to make, saying the budget is in the hands of "the big five," leaders -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the two party leaders in the Senate and Assembly.

"This is the worst impasse I've seen since I've been here," she said.

"State Sen. Pat Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, was no more optimistic. "We're not much closer than we were from Day 1," she said

California is beginning its eighth week without a budget. A vote Sunday in the Democratic-controlled Assembly fell short of the required two-thirds approval and failed to receive the support of a single Republican.

The latest signing of a state budget in the past 20 years occurred on Sept. 5, 2002. Last year Schwarzenegger signed the budget on Aug. 24, the third latest in the past two decades.

The legislators acknowledged that time is running out for a budget solution that could include items requiring voter approval this November.

"We probably need to lock everyone in the room and not let anyone out," suggested Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael.

The Secretary of State's Office has indicated that after this week it may be too late to get a measure on the November ballot. Republican lawmakers and the governor have warned that failure to get spending restraints onto the ballot could prompt a breakdown in negotiations.

Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, said it is conceivable that the Legislature still could get items on the Nov. 4 ballot after this week, but the cost might become prohibitive.

She said the two sides need to find an acceptable compromise. But to her what seems clear is that Democrats resist a "hard spending cap" on future government growth while Republicans reject new taxes.

A third option would be to balance the budget by borrowing more money, but Evans said that approach is "a large part of why we're in such a budget mess now." As such, the Democrats are "staying hard and fast to the rule of no more borrowing," she said. That's a position shared by Schwarzenegger but not his fellow Republicans in the Legislature.

Huffman said he is part of the leadership team on the budget for Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles. As such, he said, he has been "urging a budget vote for some time," and he maintained that Sunday's vote was helpful in allowing Republicans to vent and "blow off some steam."

Evans will become the new chairwoman of the Assembly Budget committee in November. She said she has been working with Speaker Bass and other budget committee members and staff.

The two also said they have been speaking individually with Assembly Republicans, trying to find any middle ground and to keep the discussions going.

"In the Assembly, that's not easy because both sides have been very polarized," Evans said.

Asked about her personal efforts, Wiggins said: "I keep telling locals and groups to push the governor to lead . . . He isn't doing that, but he should."

Evans and Huffman both said they "hate" the governor's proposed temporary 1-cent sales tax increase because of its regressive nature, meaning it takes a disproportionately larger bite from the pocketbooks of the poor. Still, they conceded they might support such a tax under certain circumstances.

Evans said her support for a sales tax hike would be tied to avoiding "huge hits" in the budgets of education, health care, parks, public safety and environmental protection.

Wiggins said she opposes the sales tax increase as regressive and too unpredictable for the amount of revenue it will provide the state.

Berg said she opposes the sales tax proposal and the Republicans' spending cap. "It's not how much money we have. It's how we spend it," she said.

Staff Writer Derek Moore and the L.A. Times contributed to this report

Legislators not optimistic on budget | PressDemocrat.com | The Press Democrat | Santa Rosa, CA

A State Without A Budget: Day 52: CALL SCHWARZENEGGER'S BLUFF - LET DEADLINE FOR BALLOT MEASURES PASS

 

by Casey Mills, Beyond  Chron/San Francsisco  --

2008-08-21Earlier this month, Governor Schwarzenegger vowed he wouldn’t sign any legislation before a budget was passed, an obvious attempt to blackmail Democrats into hurrying along the process and accepting a Republican-driven result. Since then, mainstream coverage of the budget battle consistently includes hand-wringing over the looming deadline – this Saturday – for placing or altering measures on November’s ballot. This sort of coverage goes on to cite all the ‘major’ initiatives that wouldn’t go before voters due to the current logjam. Yet of the four big initiatives that must meet Saturday’s deadline to move forward, none are essential to a progressive Democratic agenda, and all were initiated at least in part by Schwarzenegger himself. State legislators should let the deadline pass … and let the Governor eat crow.

There’s no doubt that vital legislation remains trapped due to the Governor’s freeze on signing bills. A variety of important health care initiatives, for example, would benefit immediately from the budget passing. Landmark bills involving farm worker protections and electoral reform are also winding their way through the process, and deserve immediate attention by the Executive once they’re ready.

However, when it comes to items that must be approved by Saturday in order to go before voters, the ‘Big Four’ shouldn’t make progressives lose any sleep. They include:

Water: The Governor and Senator Dianne Feinstein want voters to okay a $9.3 billion water bond, which would go towards a slew of major infrastructure improvements. For starters, the bill remains woefully inadequate in terms of utilizing simple, cheap and effective strategies like water conservation, efficiency and recycling, which has earned it the ire of many major environmental groups. But even more important, Democrats have not had ample time to develop a counter proposal. There’s no question California faces severe challenges concerning its water supply, but at this point waiting a year for a good proposal is far preferable to rushing a bad one.

Lottery: Back in May, the Governor proposed borrowing $15 billion from state lottery income over the next three years. While Democrats continue to seek legitimate and progressive sources of new revenue to ensure a sustainable budget, Schwarzenegger continues to push this one-time fix with dubious certainty of success. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass hit the nail on the head when she called it “a Rubik's Cube budget, not a long-term, structurally balanced budget.”

Not only that, but it would give more flexibility to the state lottery to grow its operation. This would come in the face of a recent California Budget Project report citing studies that show “individuals with lower incomes spend more on lottery tickets per capita than those with higher incomes,” and that “lottery sales are higher for individuals who have little or no formal education, are residents of urban areas, are between the ages of 45 and 65, and are not white.” Essentially, it’s a proposal to borrow our future on the backs of those least able to afford it.

Spending Cap: Creating a state spending cap has been a state Republican priority for years, and while it’s sold as a fiscally responsible move to the average voter, it’s a thinly guised attempt to annihilate public services. While some Democrats have toyed with the idea of agreeing to a cap in order to satisfy state Republicans and pass a budget, progressives have rightly stood firm against the idea, and should continue to do so.

High Speed Rail: Of the four, changes to the high-speed rail measure represent the only thing that might be an unfortunate casualty. The initiative would allow development of the rail line along its entire proposed route, rather than just between San Francisco and Los Angeles. It would also create more oversight to ensure the bonds get spent efficiently.

However, the measure continues to poll above 60 percent as it is, and changes to it could cause confusion on the ballot by creating a ‘Prop 1A,’ or even a new ‘Prop 12,’ instead of a the existing and simple ‘Prop 1.’ In addition, building the first leg of the route first could generate immediate public support for high speed rail, potentially making it easier to build the extensions to Sacramento and San Diego later on. Ultimately, the benefits aren’t significant enough to fight for it, particularly considering they were all Schwarzenegger’s ideas in the first place.

Given the nature of these measures, why would Democrats lift a finger to ensure they make it to the ballot? More specifically, why would they rush to pass a budget by continuing to negotiate with a Republican legislature with no intentions of compromising, simply to further a conservative agenda?

Instead, state Democrats should be working to ensure the measures don’t make it on the ballot. For starters, it robs Republicans of the ability to achieve some major policy goals. It also robs the Governor of the spotlight this election season should his water bond and budget-related proposals make it on the ballot.

Even better, it lays the responsibility for the measures failing to make it to the ballot directly on the Governor’s doorstep. It was him and him alone that dreamed up the ban on not signing legislation until a budget is passed. That he didn’t stop to think that the first casualties might be his pet projects is no one’s fault but his own. Even worse for Schwarzenegger, it’s becoming increasingly clear that it’s not the Democrats holding up the budget process, but blindly anti-tax members of his own party – politicians who continue to refuse to even offer a budget proposal of their own.

There’s no question Republicans will try and blame ‘obstructionist Democrats’ from preventing these measures from reaching voters. But the fact will remain that the entire debacle represents some serious egg on the Governor’s face. Rather than letting the deadline come and go quietly, Democrats should be relentless in pointing this out.

He made his bed – now it’s time to lay in it.

A State Without a Budget: Day 52 CALIFORNIA'S BUDGET BILLIONS

No matter what budget Sacramento comes up with, California voters will probably increase the deficit in 10 weeks.

By Mark Paul   Op-Ed in the LA Times

August 21, 2008 -- There's little chance that the state budget eventually passed in Sacramento will actually rid California of its stubborn $15.2-billion deficit. But in the improbable event that the Legislature and governor balance the budget without resorting to such gimmicks as raiding other accounts, enjoy the moment. In just 10 weeks, California voters will likely throw it out of whack again.

California has two budgets. One is passed by lawmakers. The other is improvised at the ballot box. The state's Constitution requires that the budget put together in Sacramento at least pretend to be balanced. The spending that voters enact operates under no such discipline. We do what we please.

And what usually pleases us is to add billions in spending obligations without providing any revenue to pay for them. Over the last decade, voters have passed bonds and programs, as well as shifted general tax revenue to transportation, that will cost the general fund -- when all the bonds are sold -- about $9.5 billion in debt service and spending a year, according to estimates by the Legislative Analyst's Office. That's equivalent to 9% of the current general fund,or about the total cost of all of today's state social service programs.

On Nov. 4, we will have numerous opportunities to spend even more. The ballot will include Proposition 1, a measure put on the ballot by the Legislature, which authorizes $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to build a high-speed rail system between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Money from two other bond measures, qualified for the ballot by their intended beneficiaries, would build/renovate children's hospitals (Proposition 3) and subsidize alternative-fuel cars and electricity generated from renewable sources (Proposition 10). Big water interests are pushing lawmakers, in budget negotiations, to add a huge waterworks bond to the menu.

Voters also will decide three crime measures with fiscal consequences. Proposition 5 calls for more spending for drug treatment in prison. Proposition 6, an anti-gang measure, would increase state spending for a variety of criminal justice programs and lengthen sentences for some crimes. Proposition 9 would prevent the state from saving money by releasing prisoners before their sentences are up to reduce prison overcrowding.

Leave aside whether these measures are worthy as policy. Just look at the dollars involved. If voters pass all six, we will cumulatively add about $2.7 billion a year in bond debt service and direct state spending to the budget -- without including an extra dime to pay for them. That amount would grow to more than $3 billion if the water bond lands on the ballot and is approved. The sum is about what the state annually spends on the University of California, and it would be plopped into a budget already badly out of kilter because of a big spending/revenue imbalance.

California's spending addiction at the ballot box is thoroughly bipartisan. State Sen. George Runner of Lancaster, who chairs the Senate Republican Caucus and beats the drums against "the bloated budget," is the sponsor of Proposition 6, which would cost taxpayers about $600 million a year, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office. Proposition 5, funded by liberal drug-policy reformers George Soros and John Sperling, would annually spend about $1 billion to expand drug treatment programs for criminals and rehabilitation for parolees, in the hope of eventually reducing the inmate population and the need to build more prisons.

In a little-noticed report, Treasurer Bill Lockyer projected last year that, at current tax levels, California will not be able to pay for its existing programs and its debt service at any time in the next two decades if voters keep approving bonds at the same rate as they have over the last 20 years. Every ballot proposal that comes without a funding source adds to the problem. But that hasn't stopped people from putting spending measures on the ballot and voters from passing them. Fiscal discipline -- that's the Legislature's job, isn't it?

Mark Paul, senior scholar at the New America Foundation, was formerly deputy treasurer of California and deputy editorial page editor of the Sacramento Bee.

Prop 6/The Runner Initiative: STEALTH INITIATIVE THREATENS CALIFORNIA YOUTH, IMMIGRANTS

 

Silent but deadly, Prop. 6 is the ballot measure that no one has heard of, but that could have catastrophic effects on young people in California, writes Kevin Weston.

by Kevin Weston in New America Media

Aug 21, 2008 -- SAN FRANCISCO -- With Proposition 6 on the California ballot this November, young people in the Golden State have a reason to vote that trumps putting the first non-white man in the White House.

The Runner Initiative – or the “Safe Neighborhood Act” – is the single worst thing that could happen to California youth since the passage of Proposition 21 allowed 16 year-olds to be tried as adults. Prop. 6 does Prop. 21 one better – it would allow 14-year-old “gang members” to be tried as adults.

This “son of Three Strikes” (Prop. 184) – Prop. 6 was written by Three Strikes author Mike Reynolds -- is like the Stealth Bomber of laws, cruising at the speed of sound past California voters with a payload of nukes aimed at youth and undocumented immigrants. I sat in a roomful of journalists last week and not one had heard of it. This speaks to the lack of beat reporters in California as the newspaper industry implodes. Hundreds of journalists have been laid off or bought out, leaving the public ill-informed about this impending legislative hurricane.

One of Prop. 6’s most troublesome aspects is the gang enhancement stipulation that would add time and other penalties to those identified as gang members.

California’s gang database CAL/GANG, the largest statewide gang database in the country, lists more than 100,000 names. The data is so untrustworthy that former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer refused to forward them to federal authorities. He told the San Francsico Chronicle: “This database cannot and should not be used, in California or elsewhere, to decide whether or not a person is dangerous or should be detained.”

Young people who have been unfairly labeled as gang members would now face the harshest of penalties through a system that is already broken and flawed.

The proposition would prohibit undocumented immigrants charged with certain offenses from being released on bail or on their own recognizance, pending trial. Already under tremendous social pressure from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, state and local governments, this is just one more nail in the coffin of immigrant rights in California.

It would create temporary prisons in counties that are currently experiencing overcrowding. Imagine tent prisons housing the overflow of inmates that the Proposition would create. The California prison system is already under fire over everything from inadequate health care to overcrowding caused by mandatory minimum sentences.

Funding priorities would be switched from mental health, drug treatment and community programs. All monies would have to pass through county probation departments before reaching mental health and drug treatment programs. Prop 6 stipulates that the funding “shall be distributed…to assist counties for the expense of housing juvenile offenders.”

The implication here is that money for anything other than housing would be in jeopardy. Rehabilitation programs could be wiped out.

Prop. 6 significantly increases expenditures for criminal justice programs, including net program costs likely to exceed $1 billion, and is estimated to cost an additional $500 million a year after that. This new spending comes during a period in which the state of California is facing a budget crisis of historic proportions, prompting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to ask for steep cuts the Democratic controlled state legislature is refusing to pass. Services like child care centers and nursing homes are feeling the crunch during the impasse.

The state is already on the hook for billions going to prison health care and new education mandates that will require students to pass algebra by the eighth grade.

California simply can’t afford to take money from the general fund – mainly education – to pay for this ill-conceived initiative.

Adding insult to injury, the law would require local governments to conduct annual criminal background checks on recipients of federal housing subsidies. Everyone in the house must be background-checked and if anyone is found guilty of a drug crime or a violent crime, the whole family would be evicted.

Prop. 6 would also significantly increase (to life in prison) the penalty for home invasion robbery, carjacking, carrying firearms and extortion.

Ironically, the billionaire who financed the initiative, Henry Nicholas III, was indicted this summer on numerous felony charges including charges of supplying prostitutes to big-ticket customers, drug use and trafficking, conspiracy, security fraud and making death threats. People like Nichols are hardly in a position to pass judgment on the immigrants and young people of California.

While gangs and violence are a major concern to voters, laws like Prop. 6 don’t work. An editorial in the New York Times states, “Criminologists warn that juvenile offenders who are thrown in with adult prisoners are exposed to social pressures and develop personal contacts that make it far more likely that they will become career criminals than those held in juvenile facilities.”

While Prop. 8 – the Gay Marriage Initiative – gets all the headlines, Prop. 6 is sneaking under the radar of the media, politicians and the immigrants and young people it targets. Obama holds a double-digit lead in California over John McCain. Youth who were energized to vote for change through Obama now have a better reason to go to the polls this fall: voting against Prop. 6.

Kevin Weston, director of new media and youth communications for New America Media is the publisher of YO! Youth Outlook Multimedia. Paul Billingsley and Charles Jones are content producers at New America Media.

Stealth Initiative Threatens California Youth, Immigrants - NAM

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

A State Without a Budget: Day 51½ GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER TRIES TO FORCE BUDGET COMPROMISE

Politics is California is so much fun: "Governor" and "Schwarzenegger" can be packaged as role and actor in a plot that isn't a comedy ...and "force" and "compromise" aren't mutually exclusive. - smf

By Mike Zapler | Mercury News Sacramento Bureau

08/20/2008 02:55:00 PM  -- SACRAMENTO — Eager to break a two-month impasse over the budget, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today unveiled what he called a compromise spending plan and implored legislators to look past their partisan differences in the interest of the state.

The announcement marked the first time that the Republican governor has publicly acknowledged his proposal for a temporary 1 cent sales tax hike, despite campaigning for office twice on a no-tax platform. The budget plan, his third this year, also calls for deeper spending cuts than Democrats want and a larger "rainy day" reserve to head off future budget crises.

"Republicans must step out of their ideological corner on the right, and Democrats must step out of their ideological corner on the left,'' Schwarzenegger said at a news conference.

"We must meet in the middle," he said, calling it "shameful" that California, reeling from a $15.2 billion deficit, is still without a budget 51 days into its fiscal year.

Still, much of what the governor described simply made public ideas that he's pitched in private ... and in thus far unproductive ... negotiations. The reaction from legislators did not offer much encouragement that his announcement would yield a breakthrough.

Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines, R-Fresno, said after the news conference that Republicans would not soften their opposition to higher taxes no matter what the governor says. California requires a two-thirds vote to pass the budget, so Schwarzenegger must win over some members of his own party to move his plan through the Legislature.

"I don't really view this as anything different than what he's been saying for a couple of months," Villines said in an interview, adding that while he respects the governor's intentions, "I don't think it necessarily moves the process forward."

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, said she was glad the governor finally went public with his tax proposal. But "it would have been nice if it had been a few months ago.''

COMPETITION KEY TO EDUCATION EXCELLENCE + OUR GOAL: STRONG SCHOOLS

●●smf's 2¢:  No one disputes the value of competition or the goal of strong schools.  I feel strange defending Roy Romer - I miss him sometimes but he could always defend himself! What is going on here however in insidious; Rep Tancredo is using the technique of 'The Big Lie' - stating personally held belief as proven fact and arming himself and his cause with spurious and suspect proof.

THOSE WHO DO NOT STUDY HISTORY WILL INEVITABLY MISSTATE IT:  Fuzzy thinking proves noting except perhaps the inferiority of fuzzy thought and the absurdity of fuzzy thinkers.

Let us begin with Tancredo's description of Romer: "Romer left Colorado to become superintendent of schools for the Los Angeles Unified School District, a job he held for more than a decade. That district's school board was controlled by the teachers union and he had a friendly City Council as well." 

Really?  Whatever Rep. Tancredo taught when he was a teacher - and thankfully he's not teaching now - it must not have been history!  Romer was Chairman of the DNC after he left Colorado.  Romer's LAUSD superintendency lasted six years. Six, count 'em: six! And he had a 'friendly city council' as well?  The only three times  the city council had anything to do with LAUSD  (the state constitution and the city charter forbid them meddling therewith):

  1. They voted unanimously to support the mayor's (illegal) takeover of the school district under AB1381 - in direct opposition to Romer.
  2. They helped appoint a commission to investigate the governance of the school district.
  3. They put a ballot measure on the ballot that:
  • raised school board members salaries
  • and limited the terms of  school board.

(Wait: two things in one ballot measure? ...isn't that illegal?   Oh well, another windmill for another time)

  • When Romer became superintendent the school board was not 'controlled' by the teachers union; if anything the opposite was true. A majority was 'supported' by [anti teacher's union] Mayor Riordan and Eli Broad.
  • And the teacher's union - it must be remembered - also broke with the board they 'controlled' and supported AB 1361.

The rest of Tencredo's argument is similarly and substantially hogwash.

 

Competition Key to Education Excellence

By U S Rep Tom Tancredo (R/CO) : OpEd in the Rocky Mountain News (Denver)

Wed, Aug 20 - Last week, Gov. Bill Ritter and former Gov. Roy Romer wrote a column about the state of education in America. In it, I believe they've unwittingly made a powerful argument for precisely the kind of educational reform that they have publicly opposed for many years: school choice.

In 10 years, the governors want to cut the high school dropout rate in half and double the number of college degrees awarded to in- state Colorado students. These are great goals for our state but the only way to achieve them is through a competitive educational system.

They lament poor math and science scores, alarming dropout rates and the declining performance of American students relative to kids from the rising economies of Southeast Asia.

What's worse, we are left with these embarrassing results despite record-shattering "investment" (i.e., government dumping your tax dollars into a hopelessly broken system) by state, federal and local governments.

And while all of this is very disappointing, it is not surprising. This is precisely the kind of abysmal result that we routinely see whenever we turn an important task over to a government-run monopoly.

I am a former public school teacher, and like it or not, education is a product. As we all know, you don't get a better product by stifling competition or imposing a rigid regime of government protectionism.

If we want a better product when it comes to education - higher educational achievement levels by our school graduates - our government policies must be geared toward satisfying the consumer: students and their parents. They cannot be driven by a concern for what education bureaucrats, substandard educators or the out-of- touch teachers unions demand.

If we need a current example of the obstructionism of the teachers' union, just look at their opposition to the merit pay proposals in Denver. The union insists on automatic increases in the base pay for all teachers, and they oppose linking pay increases to merit. Should the best teachers get higher pay than mediocre ones? Not according to the unions.

Teachers unions not only oppose school vouchers, they oppose home schooling. In California this summer, the state teachers union filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a California Court of Appeals case arguing that parents who home-school their own children must have teaching credentials identical to classroom teachers. This requirement would effectively destroy home schooling. Thankfully, they lost the argument.

Romer left Colorado to become superintendent of schools for the Los Angeles Unified School District, a job he held for more than a decade. That district's school board was controlled by the teachers union and he had a friendly City Council as well. So, why is Romer not bragging about what he achieved in that position? Maybe because the product of his stewardship in Los Angeles mirrors the awful product of the union-controlled public monopoly in Colorado.

If history has taught us anything, it is that solutions to some of the world's most complex problems have come only when we have unleashed the power of the free market. The answer to the education problem, simply put, is more choices for parents, and more competition by schools for students. It is not another ambitious big government "solution" put together by the same special interests that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - a status quo that even Romer and Ritter admit leaves our students lagging far behind youngsters from Seoul and Singapore as they enter a newly competitive global economy.

Sadly, I suspect that liberals like Ritter, Romer and their underwriters in the labor unions will continue to use every resource at their disposal to deny the children of poor and middle-class parents access to the same private schools that many of them send their children to.

I hope that when parents listen to the left's disingenuous arguments about why they shouldn't be free to send their son or daughter to any school of their choosing, they will remember the words of Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman: "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

 

 

Our goal: strong schools

By Gov. Bill Ritter and Roy Romer :opinion: The Denver Post

 

Wed, August 13 - Next weekend, the Democrats will gather in Denver and one of their first priorities will be to adopt a party platform. The following week, the Republicans will gather in Minneapolis with a similar mission. The parties' final platforms will likely note rising energy costs, increasing unemployment rates and this nation's ongoing housing crisis — all important issues.

But amid this discussion, we need a clear and reasoned voice to continually make the case that strong public education is the best driver of future economic growth.

New research by economist Eric Hanushek shows the inexorable link between the quality of a nation's schools and its economic productivity. He concludes that if the U.S. can improve its performance on international assessments to match top-scoring countries like Canada and South Korea, the U.S. economy will produce an additional 4.5 percent in gross domestic product in less than two decades.

That increase would amount to what the United States currently spends on K-12 education.

Bold education reform is needed to achieve these economic benefits. Consider these alarming statistics: Nearly 70 percent of U.S. eighth-graders are not proficient in reading. More than 1.2 million students drop out of high school every year. In a recent international assessment of 30 countries, U.S. 15-year-olds placed 21st in science and 25th in math.

We as a nation have the capacity to reduce dropout rates, improve student learning and enhance our international competitiveness, but we need the political will to achieve these goals. That's why we have joined together in support of the Strong American Schools campaign.

In Colorado, our 10-year education goals are ambitious: cut the high school drop-out rate in half; slice achievement gaps in half; and double the number of college degrees awarded to in-state Colorado students.

To help achieve those goals, we need to continue to enact groundbreaking education reforms to make our students competitive — not just with other states, but also with other countries. And it will take strong leadership at every level — including the presidential level — to ensure our efforts are successful.

At present, Colorado students perform higher than the national average. We're five points higher than the national average in fourth-grade reading levels, and eighth-grade minority reading levels beat the national average by five points as well. But it is not enough. Every state's standards need to be benchmarked against the best performing nations in the world.

As a nation, we are falling behind. As a nation, we must re-examine our standards and assessments to ensure that every student is equipped with the 21st century knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy. As a nation, we must enact rigorous standards and relevant assessments that challenge students and teachers so that we are providing American businesses with the best-educated and best-skilled workforce in the world.

In a global job market, Americans are competing for jobs with workers from around the world. We cannot allow our current generation of students to be the first generation of Americans whose economic outlook is worse than that of their parents.

We know it won't be easy; providing clear solutions to complex problems is never simple. But we do know that changing the course of public education will only occur if the next president makes it a priority from day one.

The Strong American Schools campaign is making a determined effort to ensure that education is a priority in this election and we are having an impact.

Our schools can be the best in the world again, preparing students to compete with the brightest. In doing so, we will not only protect our economic security, but we will also maintain our standing in the world.

Bill Ritter Jr. is Colorado's governor. Roy Romer is chairman of Strong American Schools and former three-term governor of Colorado, head of the Democratic National Committee and superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District.