59th Assembly District News

MONEY RACE

Now that the primary elections are over, the November general election for the 59th Assembly District, which includes Claremont, is shaping up. Republican Tim Donnelly will square off against Democrat Darcel Woods.

The money race usually tells a lot, though this year the dynamics may be different. Donnelly won a very close primary race over Chris Lancaster in June. Donnelly's margin of victory was 631 votes and can be viewed as a sign of grassroots voter discontent this year with Donnelly, a self-described "tea party Republican," beating his party's insider candidate. Lancaster spent far more money than Donnelly ($167,000 to $23,500, respectively), but Donnelly still won.

According to the California Secretary of State's records, as of June 30 Donnelly's campaign had $626.78 in cash. The largest donor was Anna McBride in Palm Desert, who donated a total of $3,400.

Darcel Woods' campaign reported raising a total of $22,575 for the period from 1/1/10 to 6/30/10. Woods had $3,789.35 in cash remaining at of June 30. Woods' big contributors were unions:

• Service Employees International Union United Long-Term Care Workers Local 6434 State PAC - $7,800
  
  
• United Domestic Workers of America Action Fund - $3,900
  
  
• SEIU Local 721, CTW CLW State and Local - $3,900
  
  
• Service Employees International Union 121RN PAC - $1,500
  
  
• UAW Region 5 Western States PAC - $1,000
  
  
• California Teachers Association for Better Citizenship - $500
  
  
• United Transportation Union PAC - $500

The money Woods has raised is almost certainly an indication that Democratic Party supporters feel that Woods has a chance against Donnelly. This is certainly a change for an assembly district that has traditionally been a safe Republican seat. With redistricting on the horizon, it's likely that whatever replaces the 59th will be much more evenly divide between the two parties, so if Woods were to get in, she would presumably have an incumbent's advantage in subsequent elections.

A win by Woods might put a crimp in Claremont Mayor Pro Tem Sam Pedroza's long term plans. We suspect Pedroza may have been planning his own campaign in the 59th or its successor district. If Pedroza were ever to get elected from this area, he'd break a long losing streak by Claremont city council members in state legislative races. Sandy Baldonado, Al Leiga, and Corey Calaycay all failed in their bids to get represent our area in Sacramento.

The Daily Bulletin has an article today on the 59th Assembly race that mentions the idea that Woods may be able to appeal to moderate Republicans in the district. However, CMC's Jack Pitney thinks the election dynamics this year favor Republicans, and that may blunt any advantage Woods would traditionally have with moderates over Donnelly:

This is the kind of race where Democrats might have a very strong shot in another year," said Jack Pitney, a Claremont McKenna College political science professor who has said Democrats are battling Republican momentum this year. "But even so, it's not completely out of reach for them."

If Woods wins, she might represent the final vote Democrats in the Assembly need to solidify a two-thirds majority, an important benchmark in California politics. That thinking played a part in the union's decision, [SEIU-United Long Term Care Workers Local 6434 spokesman Wyatt] Closs said.

ADAMS ON SOCIAL NETWORKING

Speaking of the 59th district, current Assembly 59 representative Anthony Adams was quoted in the Daily Bulletin today. You'll recall that Adams chose not to seek reelection after angering Republicans for supporting last year's state budget agreement. Because he was one of a handful of Republicans in the state legislature who crossed the aisle to get the budget passed, Adams drew the ire of a good many Republican voters and would probably have faced a tough primary campaign.

The Bulletin article quoted Adams' comments on the possible regulation of campaign-related content on social media sites like Twitter or Facebook. The Bulletin piece said that California's Fair Political Practices Commission asked one of its subcommittees to look into the issue. The commission will consider the suggestions from the subcommittee next week.

Here's what the Bulletin said about the recommendations (we've included the Adams' quote):

Campaigns would face the same disclosure rules they do now, such as identifying who is financially behind an ad, but, for the first time, they would apply to Internet communication.

The report draws a line between paid political activity and unpaid grass-roots efforts. Political commentary by people unconnected to a campaign would not be affected, nor would sending or forwarding e-mails, linking to websites or creating independent websites.

....

"In order to keep our system honest, we need watchdogs," Adams said. "What these disclosures end up achieving is putting watchdogs, self-appointed or otherwise, in a position to maintain some integrity in the political campaigning area."

Jack Pitney, by the way, was quoted in this article as well.

June 8 Primaries

From Assemblyman
Anthony Adams' website
California's 59th Assembly District sprawls along most of the San Gabriel Mountains out to the west tip of the San Bernardino Mountains. The district, gerrymandered to guarantee a reliably Republican seat, covers parts of two counties, running eastward from La Crescenta. The district picks up Altadena, then goes on to Arcadia and Monrovia, continues east through La Verne and Claremont, reaches a finger out to Redlands, heads north into Crestline and Lake Arrowhead, and then out into the high desert to catch Hesperia and Apple Valley.

Our current Assemblyman is Anthony Adams, who last year avoided a recall election when recall petitioners failed to gather sufficient signatures to initiate a recall. The recall effort stemmed from conservative voters' anger over Adams crossing the aisle to vote with Democrats to temporarily raise taxes in order to resolve last year's state budget crisis.

Adams decided not to run for re-election, probably because he knew he stood a good chance of losing the June Republican primary. Given Republicans' 43% to 35% edge in the district's registered voters, the Republican primary effectively decides who will represent the 59th.

Adams' decision to step down left the district seat up for grabs. As a result, there are six Republican candidates (their occupations are taken from smartvoter.org) :

• Iver Bye, attorney (Apple Valley)
• Corey Calaycay, councilman/businessman (Claremont)
• Tim Donnelly, small business owner (Twin Peaks)
• Ken Hunter, real estate broker (Lake Arrowhead)
• Chris Lancaster, business executive (La Verne)
• Anthony Riley, businessman/school trustee (Hesperia)
  

The Riverside Press-Enterprise had a rundown of the field for the Republican primary. The article also notes that there is also Libertarian primary with two candidates: Dan Fernandes from La Verne and Apple Valley's Tony Tyler.

Darcel Woods, also from La Verne, is running unopposed in the Democratic primary. American Independent candidate Robert Gosney from Hesperia is running unopposed as well. Both will be on the ballot in the November general election.

There's a website called 2010californiaracetracker.com that breaks down all of California's local and statewide elections. The site has links to the candidates' campaign finance disclosures (if they've filed one). In the Republican primary, Chris Lancaster raised the most money for the 1/1/10 to 3/17/10 reporting period. Lancaster collected $116,974. Corey Calaycay was next with $73,097 for the same period. At the end of that reporting period, Lancaster had $70,513.50 remaining, and Calaycay had $54,416.44.

The election is in two weeks on June 8. Whatever your political inclinations, don't forget to vote.

Local News

COUNCIL COMINGS AND GOINGS

Well, as we predicted, at their meeting Tuesday night, the Claremont City Council appointed Councilmember Linda Elderkin mayor and named Councilmember Sam Pedroza mayor pro tem. Outgoing mayor Corey Calaycay was honored by a representative of State Senator Bob Huff's office, and Calaycay is off to make a run for the state assembly.

Calaycay hopes to fill the 59th Assembly District seat vacated by Anthony Adams, who, after avoiding being recalled for supporting last year's state budget agreement, decided not to run again.

The Claremont 400 is hoping Calaycay wins the Republican primary in June. Given the gerrymandered nature of our district, winning that race pretty much guarantees a win in the November general election. If Calaycay should win, that would free up the council to appoint a replacement or hold a special election to fill Calaycay's seat. We suspect that they would opt for naming a replacement, and the 400's candidate of choice, former Claremont Assistant City Manager Bridget Healy is waiting in the wings.

Healy couldn't win in last year's council election, so getting a free pass through a council appointment might just be her one chance at finding a seat at the council dais.


THE SCOOP ON JOHNSON'S PASTURE

A reader wrote in to request a public service announcement about Johnson's Pasture. The reader requests that the City install a doggie bag dispenser at the pasture's trailhead. Apparently, dog owners have not been picking up after their pooches, which makes for a mine field experience for walkers and runners.

Come on people, show some class. Pick up after your pets.

Sacramento Report

Wikimedia image
The state's budget impasse continued over the 4th of July weekend. California, as you have heard, has begun issuing registered warrants, or IOU's, because the state legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger have been unable to reach an agreement on how to bridge the budget gap. The IOUs began going out after the 2008-09 Fiscal Year ended on June 30.

Local governments, including the City of Claremont and the Claremont Unified School District, will just have to wait to see how much of a hit they're going to take once all the dust settles. Incidentally, while the bickering in Sacramento dragged on last week, the state's budget deficit rose by a couple billion dollars, from $24.3 billion to $26.3 billion. Hey, guys and gals, you're going the wrong way!

And some of our fearless leaders aren't going anywhere, right way or wrong way. State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) yesterday boycotted a meeting of the "Big 5" (the heads of both parties in the State Assembly and State Senate, plus the Governor). According to the Sacramento Bee, Bass is complaining that the Governor is pushing things unrelated to the budget crises (things like permanent fixes to avoid this situation in the future):

The Republican governor and legislative leaders are still discussing various permanent changes to state health and welfare programs that would tighten eligibility and Schwarzenegger believes would combat waste and fraud.

Democrats and labor unions insist that the governor is overstating the extent to which the state can save money from such changes, such as fingerprinting In-Home Supportive Services recipients and providers. But Schwarzenegger believes that such changes can bring in real cash, as much as $400 million to $500 million in IHSS alone -- and $2 billion in 2009-10 for all of his various changes to state programs.

Bass boycotted this morning's meeting on grounds that Schwarzenegger is demanding these changes in exchange for agreeing to fewer cuts. She said these reforms are "unrelated" to the $26.3 billion deficit and that leaders should instead work on other solutions that would bridge that gap, with a promise to consider the permanent program reforms later. She also warned she may not attend the afternoon Big 5 meeting.

Bass' concern about any cuts in health services is understandable. Groups like the Service Employees International Union are some of the biggest donors to Democratic candidates, and any reduction in state health spending means fewer SEIU members. So Bass' willingness to tolerate a little waste and fraud makes sense when you see where her money comes from (what's a few billion between friends?). Hence the bait-and-switch: let's just patch things over and work out a real fix at some indefinite future time. Bass (and a good number of Republicans as well) doesn't want to admit that the budgetary landscape has shifted dramatically and that yesterday's political games are so, well, yesterday.

Meanwhile, as the debacle drags on, Fitch Ratings has cut California's long-term bond rating from A- to BBB. As a result, Californians will have to pay much more in interest in order to float bonds for things like big public works projects. The SacBee tells us how much more:

State Treasurer Bill Lockyer last week warned that a rating downgrade to BBB+ -- one grade higher than California's new BBB -- could result in an estimated $7.5 billion in interest costs over a 30-year period. California last had a BBB rating between December 2003 and September 2004, when the state grappled with a significant budget deficit.

Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar said that California will pay higher costs the next time it tries to borrow money for public works projects. He said he the state could be saddled with a lower credit rating for some time.

"The last time we got downgraded in this type of environment when we issued IOUs, it took years to recover," Dresslar said. "So even when we adopt a budget solution, our rating probably won't go up magically overnight."

The New York Times Magazine last Saturday surveyed the contenders for California's 2010 gubernatorial election, and the budget impasse formed the backdrop to the piece, which was titled, "Who Can Possibly Govern California?" The NYT Magazine piece described what Californians already know to be the root of the problem:

Passing a budget or increasing revenues in California is dicey in the best of times. The state constitution requires that two-thirds of the Legislature agree on a budget or higher taxes — the kind of overwhelming political consensus, in other words, usually reserved for amendments to the federal Constitution. (California is one of just a handful states that require a two-thirds vote to pass a budget.)

Complicating matters further, the major parties in California are both effectively controlled by their most partisan elements, a byproduct of gerrymandered voting districts that force lawmakers to appeal to their ideological bases. After many earlier failed efforts, a ballot initiative championed by Schwarzenegger finally passed last year that will redraw the districts. But that won’t take effect until after the 2010 census, so for now the two parties are largely controlled by what Bruce Cain at Berkeley calls “the Taliban.” The result? Gridlock in Sacramento, a standoff between the parties of “no more taxes” (Republicans) and “no more cuts” (Democrats).

The Taliban! You have to love that truth of the term and its emphasis on the blame both parties and the interests that back them share for this mess.

Cities at the Fiscal Brink

A year ago, facing falling revenues and saddled with overly generous employee pension obligations, the city of Vallejo declared bankruptcy. As we suggested at the time, other California towns are being dragged down by the same set of problems.

Vallejo (and potentially other local governments) sought bankruptcy to restructure its employee contracts, which included pension obligations the city can no longer afford. The state Assembly, however, responded to the possible coming wave of municipal bankruptcies by proposing legislation pushed by public employee unions that would require local governments to obtain the state's approval for bankruptcy filings.

The municipal bankruptcy bill (AB 155) is sponsored by Tony Mendoza (D-Artesia). Local governments and their representatives have lined up against the bill, according to a Sacramento Bee article published today.

The Bee article observes that the recession has pushed more local governments to the brink of bankruptcy, and some of those same agencies have apparently been using the fiscal crises as bargaining chips with their employees' labor representatives. The article says:

The fiscal crisis "raised alarm bells," said Carroll Wills, spokesman for the California Professional Firefighters.

"Municipalities up and down the state have either spoken publicly about bankruptcy or have contacted the bankruptcy attorney representative for Vallejo," Wills said.

But the issue goes well beyond Vallejo, he said.

"There's a central issue of the sanctity of the negotiated (labor) contract at stake," he said.

"Some of our local affiliates have been given this back-channel nudge (from management): 'If you guys don't respond (and make contract concessions), we're going to pull a Vallejo,' " Wills said.

Assemblyman Adams Defends Vote

Our area's State Assemblyman, Anthony Adams, spoke before the local Mountain View Republican Club last night at Harvard Square restaurant and explained his reasons for supporting the state's budget compromise in February. The agreement, which included a mix of budget cuts, tax increases, and borrowing, was supposed to balance California's then-$42 billion budget deficit.

The budget fix didn't last very long, as you know. Two things quickly threw the budget back out of balance. First, state tax revenues declined more than expected because of the ongoing recession. Second, the ballot propositions that were supposed to have provided the final pieces of the budget puzzle failed in the May 19 special election.

Adams said that by June 15th the State needed to come up with some $17 billion in cuts against a projected $23 billion deficit. He argued that there is no legal provision to allow California to go bankrupt and thus renegotiate its contracts and write down its debt; instead, he invoked the specter of insolvency and Federal receivership, accountable to no one, similar to the prison health care receiver J. Clark Kelso who under the aegis of the district court is demanding $7 billion of the $9 billion California corrections budget for prisoner healthcare.

Adams defended his vote last February by saying that California would not have qualified for "payday" loans--tax "revenue anticipation notes" that had become SOP in financing State operations between tax collection dates. (This sounds more than a little suspect to us; don't most of our readers match their expenditures to their income cash flow? Why can't the State do that? And doesn't your employer withhold state tax weekly?) Adams claims that Wall Street made him break his "no tax" pledge.

This sounds a lot like our Congressman David Dreier who kept saying he hated his votes even as he supported the huge stimulus packages last fall--"Somebody stop me before I vote again"

In any event, the state's Republicans were incensed at Adams and five other Republican State legislators who supported the February budget agreement. Adams was berated on KFI AM 640's John and Ken Show (recall the head-a-stick business), and he is now the target of a recall petition campaign.

The Daily Bulletin covered Adam's remarks:

Adams admitted Thursday that he knew his vote was unpopular and "dangerous."

"I have no allusions [sic, Bulletin error] about that," he said.

"I made a decision to keep my state alive."

Adams said passage of the state budget was vital to generate new tax revenue in order to keep credit available to the state.

"I did not raise taxes because I thought it would stimulate the economy," he said.

"If we cannot make our state run, we run the risk of having the federal government take over."

More State Capitol News

State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass has a video posted on YouTube in which she addresses the state's budget problems. There's more than a little buck passing as she lays the blame strictly on the recession and the failure of the budget initiatives in the May 19 special election. Bass also warns of coming cuts in public services.

The fault, dear Karen, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. We are masters of our fate, Republicans, Democrats, and voters of all ilk. Voters want the services we want, but we don't want to pay for those services or take responsibility for the gridlock our voter initiatives have created. Nor do we want to acknowledge the level of idiocy we've allowed to rise to leadership levels in both major parties.

The day of fiscal reckoning is at hand. On the local level, that means a $2 million Claremont municipal budget deficit for 2009-10 automatically grows by a third.

Here's Assembly Speaker Bass:

Nell Soto (1926-2008)

Former state senator and assemblymember Nell Soto passed away Thursday. She was 82.

Soto represented California's 32nd Senate District and stepped down last March because of declining health. Soto also served on the Pomona City Council from 1986 to 1998.

The Daily Bulletin has an article by Mediha Fejzagic DiMartino about Soto's life and political career. It quotes Soto's granddaughter, Danielle Soto, who herself was elected to Pomona's City Council this past November:

In 2007, Danielle spent her summer break working with her grandmother in Sacramento where she gained first hand insight to the legislative process.

"I was grandma's right hand woman," Soto said. "If you needed an appointment you had to go through me."

Some of the lawmakers would tell her "I remember you when you were just this high."

Danielle accompanied Soto to the state capitol every day and attended floor sessions with her.

"That was very good political education," Danielle said. "To see the way she was viewed at the state level, her professional manner, because she was just a grandma to me."

When Danielle was elected last year to the same seat on Pomona City Council, her grandma was happy and supportive.

"She told me `Just listen in the beginning, don't form your opinion, listen and learn'," Danielle said.

"I'll miss the benefit of her wisdom and knowledge ... But I'm just going to miss her more as a granddaughter."

State Budget Report - UPDATED

UPDATED, 6:35AM: The Sacramento Bee reports that the California State Senate approved the state budget agreement early this morning, winning over State Senator Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, who got the three proposed constitutional amendments he wanted, minus a provision for withholding legislators' pay when they cannot approve a budget. The issue now goes to the State Assembly, where it expected to pass before being sent to Governor Schwarzenegger to sign.

California's budget standoff continues. The holdup remains the State Senate, which is one Republican vote shy of approving the budget patch to fix the state's projected $42 billion deficit through June, 2010.

The State Senate has been locked down, with senators having to bring sleeping bags into their chambers. A couple nights ago, it looked like there might be an agreement in the works, but that all fell apart as the Republican caucus sacked it's leader, Sen. Dave Codgill, and replaced him with a harder-line Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth.

The Sacramento Bee had the story on the leadership change:

Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark, who was named as the caucus' elections chair, said he hoped the change in leadership would "let California know where we stand on this $14.3 billion tax increase. We believe that tax increases are harmful to the people, the hardworking California families."

But [Sen. Abel] Maldonado said he disagreed with the change in the midst of budget negotiations.

"I just can't believe that in the middle of the night we would oust our leader," he said. "I didn't support Dave Cogdill for leader, but I didn't vote to vote him out today. It's the wrong time to make a change in this process."

Cogdill faced criticism throughout the weekend after negotiating a budget deal with other legislative leaders and Schwarzenegger but failing to secure enough votes in his caucus. Some members, including Maldonado, criticized his leadership skills, but others acknowledged that few members could control such a splintered caucus.

"I certainly wish the new leader all the best," Cogdill said before Hollingsworth was chosen. "It's an extremely difficult job."

Maldonado may prove to hold the single game-changing vote. The Bee reported early yesterday evening that State Senate Democrats were drafting three proposed constitutional amendments that Maldonado sought. The measures would go to the voters as ballot propositions. According to the Bee:

Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, could provide the crucial 27th vote necessary to pass a budget package that has been stalled since Saturday. In a lunch meeting at Spataro with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maldonado asked for ballot measures to create an open primary system, prohibit legislative pay raises in deficit years and stop legislators from receiving salaries if they do not pass a budget on time.

Measures containing those three constitutional amendments are being drafted today. Maldonado spokeswoman Brooke Armour said constitutional lawyers are reviewing the three measures.

The sticking point for the Republicans is taxes. The Republican State Senators took pledges to not raise taxes, and going back on those pledges might be a killer for the political careers of a good many of them. They're really caught between a rock and hard place on this one. As L.A. Times columnist George Skelton pointed out on Monday, when you look at the budget math, no matter how much you hate the idea of raising taxes, there's really no way of balancing the budget without some form of tax hikes.

To begin with, there's all those payments on various bonds California voters have approved over the years to finance all sorts of education, healthcare, transportation, law enforcement, and environmental projects. Claremont's own Padua Ave. Park was slated to be partially funded to the tune of $850,000 by money from just those sorts of state bonds, and Claremont feeds regularly at the state bond trough.

All that those bond payments get paid out first because California's credit rating would take a huge hit if the state started missing payments to its bond holders. So, right away you have about a 5% chunk of California's annual revenues that can't be touched. (That ratio is likely higher now that sales tax and capital gains tax revenues have cratered.) The state's Legislative Analyst's Office had a breakdown of the state's bond debt prior to last November's election:



The LAO estimated California's bond payments to be about $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2007-08 on a total bonded indebtedness of about $53 billion. The state also has approximately $68 billion in unsold bonds that have been approved by voters.

So, if you're totally against raising taxes, where do you find the $42 billion in savings? The Times' Skelton wrote:

Well, you could fire every state worker under the governor's control and the savings wouldn't come close to balancing the budget.

According to the state budget document, there is the equivalent of 205,000 full-time jobs controlled by the governor. There actually are more workers than that because some are part-time. Do the math based on 16 months, since that's now the time frame of the projected deficit, assuming a balanced-budget package could be implemented by March 1.

You could lay off all those state workers -- rid yourself of their pay and benefits -- and save only $24.4 billion.

Meanwhile, you would have dumped 160,000 convicted felons onto the streets because all the prisons were closed after the guards and wardens were fired. There'd be no Highway Patrol because all the officers were canned. State parks would be closed because there were no fee-collectors or rangers.

Truth is the savings wouldn't even add up to $24.4 billion because some of those employees are paid out of small special funds that are self-sustaining. It's the big general fund that suffers the deficit. But let's say the books could be shuffled mysteriously and all that savings realized. You'd still need a lot more.

OK, lose the Legislature, you say. It's good for nothing. But it's also not worth much when you're trying to fill that size deficit hole. The Legislature's 16-month cost is roughly $400 million.

So now one branch of government is critically wounded, and another is dead. And we're still $16 billion short of enough savings.

What many people don't realize is that around three-fourths of the state's general fund flows out to schools and local governments, much of it because of voter-passed laws.

But there is another place to look for savings: You could cut off all state money to higher education -- the two university systems and the community colleges. That would save the remaining $16 billion.

Don't like any of the above -- all those firings and slamming college doors on kids?

Instead, you could eliminate virtually all state money for healthcare and social services -- grants for the aged, blind and disabled, assistance for the homebound, medical care for the poor, mental health treatment, welfare. . . . No exceptions.

Of course, you'd then be turning away tons of money from Washington, which shares the costs. And you would be violating some federal laws. But there, it's done. You've avoided a tax increase. What a state!

And those are the choices. Voters, it's time to take responsibility for your past decisions on your representatives and on the debt you've approved. You decide. And those of you who don't vote? You get no say.

Make a Move

The Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert reports today that the special, late night State Assembly and Senate legislative session yesterday ended in the early morning with yet another standoff when it became clear that the proposed budget agreement lacked the three Republican votes needed to pass:

Sen. Dave Cox of Fair Oaks, widely viewed as a potential third vote in the Senate, voted no. He was heavily courted by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, throughout the night, having been called into private meetings in both officials' offices late Saturday night and early Sunday morning.

Cox emerged from Steinberg's office past 1 a.m. and pronounced that he was a no vote, saying he didn't need any more information.

Senate Democrats believe a new $10,000 state tax credit for homebuyers is enough to sway Ashburn to provide the second Senate Republican vote for the plan, however.

Less controversial parts of the package were winning passage with relative ease and little debate in both houses. But the most contentious measure, a bill that would increase a variety of taxes by a total of $14.3 billion, had not been taken up.

Support for the tax-hike package is believed to be set in the state Assembly, but Republican lawmakers in that house were unwilling to support the plan without assured passage in the Senate.

Sacramento's Finances in Tatters

California's money woes continue to dominate the local news. California Controller John Chiang has issued dire warnings that the state may run out of money in two months and would then have to issue IOU's to vendors, and the the state legislature and governor's office continue their deadlock over any sort of budget fix.

California is currently facing a $14 billion deficit in the current fiscal year and a $42 billion deficit through the end of FY 2009-2010. And the state's Standard and Poor's credit rating is now tied with Louisiana's for the lowest of any of the 50 states. As a result, the state last week had to suspend the sale of bonds, placing infrastructure projects up and down California on hold.

Who's to blame? It depends on whom you ask. Democrats blame Republicans for refusing to consider any tax increases, while Republicans say Democrats are refusing to cut any spending. The Daily Bulletin today had an article quoting Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's spokeperson as fixing blame on Democrats and Republicans both:

By the afternoon, Schwarzenegger Communications Director Matt David lashed back on behalf of the governor. He said neither side has been willing to transcend party politics and special interests to make concessions.

"The Democrats want to block cuts to state government spending, and the Republicans want to block revenue increases because they have signed pledges to protect special interests," David said in a statement. "Legislators were sent to Sacramento to fix problems, but now what they're doing is making the situation worse because every day they don't act our problem gets $40 million worse."

If lawmakers fail to pass an updated budget plan, state Controller John Chiang said his office will be forced to defer billions of dollars in payments or issue IOUs to state contractors. He says the instability of the banking industry has made borrowing money to bridge the gap an uncertain possibility.

The state would not be able to pay vendors who provide everything from food for prisoners to nursing care for seniors.

"The state's dire cash position not only jeopardizes and places at risk our ability to meet our financial obligations in a timely manner, it threatens our ability to respond to natural disasters and protect our communities from crime," Chiang wrote.

The Los Angeles Times had an editorial today that argues it's high time to do away with the requirement of a two-thirds majority to pass a budget. The Times piece noted that California is one of only two states (Arkansas and Rhode Island being the others) that has such a stricture. The super-majority budget vote has been in place since 1933. At that time, the two-thirds majority was only needed if the budget was going to increase by more than 5%. In 1962, the law was extended to cover all proposed state budgets.

Some Republicans apparently see the hazards of the super-majority requirement and are arguing for change as well. The Times described two proposals for fixing the problem, one from Democratic State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and one from Republican State Senator Mimi Walters:

Going back to majority votes for budgets, as was the case before 1933, would put California in the company of most other states, and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) introduced a constitutional amendment to that effect at the beginning of the current session. It adds a twist: The simple-majority requirement evaporates, and once again becomes two-thirds, for any budget bill not adopted by June 15. That's similar to Illinois, Maine and Nebraska, where, the argument goes, there's an added incentive for the majority to get its work done on time.

But California Republicans, too, recognize the problem caused by the runaway supermajority rule. Sen. Mimi Walters (R-Laguna Niguel) also has introduced a constitutional amendment. Hers would be a pre-1962, but not pre-1933, simple-majority measure. It's actually quite shrewd: Democrats, or whoever is in the majority, would be able to adopt a budget on a majority vote, but only if it represents growth of 5% or less over the previous year. The Republicans would have their spending cap, but it could be breached. That's similar to Connecticut and Hawaii, but it's worth noting that it has been years since California produced a budget with growth smaller than 5%.

However we get it done, we need some grown-up leadership in Sacramento. On the local level we're every bit as bad, spending far beyond our means without setting aside any sort of serious rainy day fund and counting on grant money to rain down from state and federal agencies to subsidize our municipal projects and services. Now that the flow's been shut off, we'll get to see how grown-up our own leaders in City Hall are.

Money Makes the World Go Around

The race for the State Assembly's 61st District seat will almost certainly be decided by next Tuesday's Democratic primary. The 61st is safely gerrymandered to have a Democratic majority, so barring some major scandal on the winner's part, there shouldn't be much of a race in November.

The Daily Bulletin's Monica Rodriguez profiled the four Democratic candidates (in alphabetical order): Paul Vincent Avila, Maurice Ayala, Norma Torres, and Ken White.

Based on campaign donations, Pomona Mayor Norma Torres appears to be the frontrunner, a May 10th Bulletin article reported. At that time, Torres had reported raising $200,000, compared to $20,000 for Ayala and $5000-$6,000 for White. Torres total, however, has increased significantly in the latest reporting period, which ended on May 17th.

From 1/1/08 to 5/17/08, Torres' campaign reported raising a total of $335,746.58. The Torres campaign also reported spending $246,161.25 during that same period. Including money raised before 2008, Torres had $207,006.05 remaining in her campaign war chest.

And where did that money for Torres' campaign come from? Several donations (appropriately) came from garbage companies (waste management in politically correct circles):

• Mission Recycling - $3,000, $3,261, and $361
  
• Valley Vista Services - $3,600
• Grand Central Recycling and Transfer Station - $3,600 and $3,600
  
• West Coast Recycling, dba Mission Recycling (?) - $249
• E & S Recycling Resources -$1,000
• Athens Services - $1,000, $1,000, and $1,000
  

Some came from the insurance industry:

• Zenith Insurance Company -$3,600
• Mercury General Corporation - $3,500
• Micra CA PAC of Norcal Insurance Company - $3,600
• Blue Shield of CA - $3,600
• Personal Insurance Federation of CA PAC - $1,500
• Employers Direct Insurance Company - $1,000
  

A little came from groups connected to the gambling industry:

• The Bicycle Casino - $3,600
• CA Thoroughbred Breeders Association - $1,000
  

More came from the builders, developers, real estate investors, and realtors:

• Auburn Management Holding Co. - $1,000
• Green Century Development, LLC - $300
• State Bldg. & Construction Trades Council of CA PAC - $2,500
• CA Apartment Assn. PAC - $1,000
• Majestic Realty Co. - $2,600 and $3,600
• David R. Lewis - $3,600
• Lewis Investment Company, LLC - $3,600 and $3,600
  
• Arteco Partners - $3,600 and $3,600
  
• Jeved Management, Inc. - $1,691 and $1,691
  
• Steven R. Ross - $1,000
• Bryan Industrial Properties - $500
• Wetherly Capital Group, LLC - $1,000
• Western Manufactured Housing Communities PAC - $1,000
• CA Building Industry Association PAC - $2,500
• CA Real Estate PAC -$3,600
• Linus Investments, LLC - $3,600 and $3,600
  

Public and private sector workers associations and unions also gave a lot of money to Torres:

• All City Employees Association Local 3090 AFSCME PAC (Los Angeles) - $2,500 and $1,000
• AFSCME, AFL-CIO Local 36 (Los Angeles) -$3,600
• AFSCME Local 3634 PAC (Los Angeles) $500
• AFSCME CA People (Sacramento) - $6,000
  
• CA Federation of Teachers COPE - $3,600
• CA Teachers Association /Association for Better Citizenship - $7,200
• CA Statewide Law Enforcement Association PAC - $3,600
• CA State Council of Service Employees - $7,200
• CA Professional Firefighters PAC - $1,000
• United Nurses Association of CA - $1,000
• Teamsters Joint Council 42 - $1,500
• So Cal Painters and Allied Trades Dist. - $500
• Service Employees Int'l Union Local 1000 - $7,200
• SEIU Uhw PAC - $7,200
• SEIU Local 721 Ctw, Clc State & Local - $3,600
• SEIU Local 121 Rn PAC - $3,600
• Pace of CA School Employees Association - $2,000 and $2,000
• Los Angeles Police Protective League PAC - $3,600
• Local 770 Ufcw PAC - $1,000
• Laborers Local 300 Small Contributors - $3,600
• International Union of Operating Engineers - $3,600

Pomona City Attorney Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman's law firm also gave Torres' campaign a total of $10,800 in three contributions of $3,600 in March this year.

And you, Joe and Jane Average Voter, where do you fit in the Norma Torres Grand Scheme?

Following the 61st Assembly District Race

The race for the State Assembly's 61st District has been getting some local coverage. As we've observed, the seat is pretty safely Democratic, so it'll be the June primary that decides the eventual winner.

The Daily Bulletin has noted that Pomona Mayor Norma Torres has raised the most money of any of the Democrats and has also garnered the endorsement of the incumbent Nell Soto, who is retiring due to poor health. Soto, missed a good chunk of the last year's worth of legislative sessions because of her health problems.

The Bulletin reported that Torres had raised $200,000 as of May 10th, which dwarfed the $20,000 reported by fellow Democratic candidate Maurice Ayala. Cal Poly Pomona professor Ken White had raised between $5,000 and $6,000, according to the article.

The Bulletin piece also noted that Torres had spent some of her money on polling, which is usually pretty expensive and is another sign that Torres has money to burn. Torres is the state Democratic Party's anointed one in this particular campaign, due solely to her work within the party. Her party associations helped get her a PR piece in the Los Angeles Times, for instance, and has enabled Torres to raise money from deep pocket donors - the type that usually end up wanting a favor from a bought assembly person somewhere down the road: Say, Norma, how about some help killing that bill in your Assembly committee, or Hey, Norma, can you vote for this [fill in the blank] bill?

As the Bulletin piece also noted, the 61st Assembly District is drawn in such a way that it's become a Democratic monopoly:

The Democrat who wins the June 3 primary is expected to easily defeat the Republican nominee in the November election.

The 61st District, like most districts in the state, has been gerrymandered by the Legislature to protect the incumbent party. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 46 percent to 33.6 percent.

The problem here is that as with any monopoly, competition has been quelled - competition for ideas from within the party as well as from the outside. So, with this gerrymandering repeated across the state and the country, can there be any end result other than gridlock?

It's no surprise that Soto endorsed Torres. Torres is, after all, Soto's protégé, just as Three Valleys Municipal Water District boardmember Xavier Alvarez was Torres' after a fashion. Alvarez, who used to call himself a Medal of Honor winner, also used to represent Pomona, before KABC TV News reassigned him to Claremont.

Nell Soto, herself a former Pomona councilmember, preceded Torres within the party, then picked Norma as a successor. Torres in turn backfills the lower-tier political positions with folks like Xavier Alvarez in order to build a layer of politicians on the local level loyal to her. As a result, Torres' right to represent her district owes nothing to her performance as Mayor of Pomona and everything to her social and political network.

So, the fact that Torres instigated a silly feud with Pomona's police chief or that her city's budget is in the red a projected $3.6 million, have no bearing on her qualifications for office. The very inevitability of the ascension of a relatively mediocre mayor to state assembly embodies the corruption at the heart of the system.

And, lest you think we're trying to favor one party over another, keep in mind that the Republican party has had its own troubles and is equally culpable for the gridlock at the state and national level. Both parties need to step back and realize that competition makes them better. If they really cared about the public welfare, they'd scrap the current system of drawing districts and create one that results in as many balanced districts as possible.

Let's see them have to work to get elected. The very act of having to earn one's vote tends to make one more sensitive to one's constituency. Here in Claremont, we've seen in the recent past, a ruling group dependent on its social network and firmly ensconced in power move farther and farther out of step with the community, creating unnecessary crisis and community turmoil.

It's really been nothing more than a microcosm of what's happening at higher levels of government. Both parties have for too long been more interested in preserving their own power than in serving the public, and they have run from competition rather than embracing it. In doing so, they've encouraged the rise of mediocrities like Norma Torres, much to the detriment of voters everywhere.

Soto to Retire?

Centinel at the Foothill Cities Blog came across a news bit from Capitol Alert, a Sacramento Bee website that covers state government, reporting that Assemblywoman Nell Soto (D-Pomona) has missed every legislative session since September and that she may not run again in November.

The FC Blog first broke the story last year that Soto had been absent from the Assembly for a couple months due to health problems and that she had continued to receive per diem during her absence. Soto, who was at her home in Pomona while she was sick, returned to Sacramento, but apparently has had additional health problems.

The Capitol Alert piece noted that while she was absent in 2007 Soto collected $22,032.00 in per diem for travel and living expenses (for an apartment Soto maintains in Sacramento). So far in 2008 Soto has collected $10,000 more.

Capitol Alert noted that ever-ambitious Democratic Party superdelegate and Pomona Mayor Norma Torres, is ready to seek Torres' seat:

Norma Torres, a Democrat, is laying the groundwork for a run in preparation for Soto’s potential retirement.

“To date, she has not pulled papers. I am getting ready,” said Torres. “The primary is just around the corner.”

This Friday is the deadline for incumbents to file for re-election. If Soto does not file, the deadline will be extended one week. The Democratic primary for Assembly District 61, which is considered a safe Democratic seat with a 12-point registration advantage, takes place on June 3. No Republican has filed for the seat.

Torres said Soto's deteriorating health prompted her to consider running. The legislator has battled multiple bouts of pneumonia since her election in 2006, [Soto campaign aide Mike] Lewis said.

“That’s one of the reasons I started exploring this and talking a little bit about what it means,” Torres said.

Capitol Alert also indicated that Torres will have some competition with Maurice Ayala, the son of former Chino state senator Ruben Ayala, for the seat. Ayala High School in Chino Hills is named for Ruben, who served in the state . You can read the Capitol Alert article here (registration required).

Torres for Assembly?

A reader sent us a link to California List, a political organization that describes itself as "a political network to elect Democratic women to California state government."

The organization's website posts the California List newsletter. The February 11th edition is interesting because it lists Pomona Mayor Norma Torres as a candidate for the California Assembly's 61st District, which includes Chino, Montclair, Ontario, and Pomona:

(Click to Enlarge)

Torres, you may recall, has had a rough past year, feuding with Pomona Police Chief Joe Romero and having Xavier Alvarez, the person she endorsed for the local Three Valleys Municipal Water District, arrested on a federal charge of falsely claiming to be Medal of Honor recepient.

Torres is seeking the seat currently held by Pomona's Nell Soto, who preceded Torres on the Pomona City Council (1986-1998) and on the State Assembly (1998-2000 and 2006-2008). From 2000 to 2006, Soto served as a State Senator.

Soto herself had some problems last June, when she was discovered missing in action because of health problems that were well-chronicled in The FC Blog.

Wikipedia's entry for Soto also had this to say about Soto's sick time in 2007:

Controversy

In 2007, Soto was not in Sacramento for 25 days while she was out sick, but collected a total of $22,032 as a per diem that is supposed to be for travel and living expenses - as long as the Legislature is not in recess for more than 3 days in a row. Soto's office defended her taking the money, claiming that she was entitled to it because she has to maintain an apartment in Sacramento and "The rent for the apartment wasn't waived by the landlord" while she was at home recuperating, as explained by her Chief of Staff, Paul Van Dyke.

If the California List information about Norma Torres' candidacy is true, perhaps Soto's health and/or age (she's 81) may account for her not running again since she is not being termed out from the Assembly.