There were massive student strikes at UCLA where the UC regents held their meeting and at UC Berkeley where many of Northern California Students Coalesced.
That he has not formally declared for the race is a mere formality. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom brought those factors into play when he finally did what he had been rumored to do for weeks–drop out of the race.
California spends $137 million per year on the death penalty and has not had an execution in almost four years, even as the state pays its employees in IOUs and releases inmates early to address overcrowding and budget shortfalls.
A report was released earlier this week by the Death Penalty Information Center. It concludes that states are wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on the death penalty, draining state budgets during times of economic crisis when money could be used more effectively on other programs.
Earlier this week, the Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes released a report that concluded that the furlough savings was illusory at 24.7 facilities, specifically at state hospitals, prisons, and other 24/7 facilities that are under state operation. This finding by itself carries a considerable consequence, but amazingly it is not the only finding of its kind.
But another study done by UC Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education released on Thursday found that:
They wrote:
“The economic crisis has made this a countrywide phenomenon, with devastating cuts in some states, including California. Historically acclaimed public institutions are struggling to remain true to their mission as tuition rises and in-state students from middle- and low-income families are displaced by out-of-state students from higher socioeconomic brackets who pay steeper fees. While America is fortunate to have many great private universities, we do not need to add to the list by privatizing Berkeley, Illinois, Rutgers, etc. On the contrary, we need to keep our public research and teaching universities excellent and accessible to the vast majority of Americans.”
On July 27, 2009 The Vanguard received a notice from the legal department at Google. The notice read:
“Google has received a civil subpoena for information related to your blog and anonymous comments posted on your blog. The case is entitled Calvin Chang v. Regents of University of California, Superior Court, County of Sacramento, State of California.”
The case involves a story posted on the Vanguard’s old Blogger site run through Google. The article, “Former UC Davis Officer Claims Violation of Settlement Agreement” highlights the lawsuit that UC Davis Police Officer Calvin Chang brought against his former department and University in part for harassment and in part for a violation of a previous settlement agreement. There were seven postings that were either anonymous or pseudonymous that according to Officer Chang might have originated from a former supervisor and therefore go to the heart of the case.
Last week Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger attempted to balance the budget by using his line-item veto authority to cut from various sectors of government in order to balance the budget while building a half billion dollars into the reserve. He focused his cuts on social services and health programs that have already experienced huge cuts.
While the Governor argued that he was forced to do by the Assembly which removed some of the money from the budget they passed including taking local money that goes for infrastructure and also removing offshore oil leases as a solution, Democrats such as Assemblymember John Perez (D-Los Angeles) immediately cried foul.
The Sacramento Bee has launched a new database to show how much money the state’s new budget takes away from cities and counties. Overall the state is taking away 2 billion dollars of direct money from cities and counties along with another 1.7 billion dollars from local redevelopment agencies this fiscal year.
During the budget agreement cities threatened lawsuits against the state if the state followed through with a suspension of Proposition 1A which was passed by the voters to prevent the state from raiding monies that are designated for cities and counties. While the cities and counties were able to get a devastating take away from transportation funds, the state prevailed in taking monies from redevelopment and also Prop 1A. Cities and counties are now in the position where they will have to decide whether or not to sue the state.
There were not many pieces of good news in the budget however there was some. For environmentalists the defeat of the Tranquillon Ridge oil drilling project in the majestic waters of the Central Coast was the result of strong and almost unanimous pressure from environmental organizations. Republicans in the Assembly fought the reimbursement of education for the funds that were raided but were defeated in that effort. Cities won some on Friday as monies that were raided on Monday were restored in the floor fight.
All told, the legislature ended up falling short of closing the entire budget deficit. In the meantime education, health care, support for disabilities, state workers, and other programs took huge and devastating hits.
This is going to sound a lot like what I said back in February, but it is so much worse in part because these cuts are top of what was cut back in February. The budget is an all-cuts budget that cuts over 26 billion dollars from the budget. There are no revenue enhancements here, only cuts.
Taking the brunt of the blow once again is education which has now had over 17 billion dollars in cuts in the last two budget deals. That represents nearly one-third of the funding for education which is also the single largest line item on the budget.
Suspension of Prop 98 May Be Last Sticking Point – Late last night it was announced that talks had stalled and word leaked out that the point of difference was what to do about education, specifically Proposition 98. Education has already suffered cuts of well over $10 billion and that number could increase even more if the legislature agrees with the Governor to suspend it.
Ten days have passed since that point, the state is out of cash, had the Governor simply taken the partial solution, at least we would be solvent at this point and would have enough cash to pay our bills. Instead people are not being paid with IOUs. The average person probably has not felt this yet, but that will be coming. The Governor is now talking about a fourth furlough day or another 5% paycut for state employees (which is functionally the same thing) and state employees are talking strike.
By Justin Smith – The California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission consists of the State Treasurer, the Governor or the Director of Finance, the State Controller, two local government finance officials, two Assembly Members, and two Senators.
Justice Moreno in his dissent argues that enforcing equal protection requires protection for all aspects of the law.
Many on the right have argued the results of this election should be interpreted as an extension of the Tea Parties that emerged in April and a revival of the tax revolt from the 1970s. The problem with that interpretation is that many of the people who voted against the ballot propositions were actually political liberals who had a very different reason for voting against it.
An additional problem with this interpretation is that of the propositions, only Proposition 1A impacted taxes and even that only two years down the road and only to continue already implemented tax increases for an additional two years.
In most ways, what happened at the polls yesterday (or perhaps what did not happen as most people did not vote) is only symbolic in terms of the bigger scheme. The voters were asked in a way to codify an imperfect and in the end insufficient budget deal from February to balance the budget shifting, borrowing, repaying, and eventually capping future spending.
The voters rejected such overtures and probably Assembly Majority Leader Albert Torrico hit the nail on the head when he said last night:
It is ironic that in the last week, the very measures that Governor Schwarzenegger has trotted out to “scare” voters into for the measures, are the very reason I am now going to vote against all of the propositions. The deficit is too large and passing the propositions makes too little impact on the budget deficit to warrant holding my nose. I will briefly get into each one of them individually, but many of them rely on simply shifting and borrowing monies. That’s not much of a solution to the longer term problem.
Critics are crying foul with the timing of Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger’s announcement that the state will face a deficit of 21 billion dollars should the state not pass the ballot initiatives next Tuesday. But at this point it almost does not matter. If they do pass it, the deficit will be a mere 15 billion dollars, hardly cause for celebration.
At this point, six billion is helpful if Propositions 1C, 1D, and 1E pass. That state would gain six billion dollars against the total total deficit by virtue of shuffling monies around.
There is an election one week from Tuesday and the electorate is angry. And the electorate has every right to be angry.
According to a recently released survey from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), Californians are extremely pessimistic about the California economy, give the governor and legislature approval ratings that hover near record lows, and show less trust in state government than they have ever before. The PPIC survey found that a mere 16 percent of likely voters say they can trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right. And they think the nation as a whole is in better shape than California.
As we discussed at the end of March, Proposition 1B ensures that schools receive $9.3 billion over time, so that the money cut during the current budget crisis is not permanent. The payments to schools will come out of the newly created rainy day fund, but not until 2011-2012 when the state’s fiscal outlook is expected to improve. However, in order for that to occur, there must actually be a rainy day fund. This means that Prop 1B is contingent upon Prop 1A passing. If both Prop 1A and Prop 1B pass, it would guarantee $8 billion in school payments.
As it turns out that is just the tip of the iceberg for education. To see that we need to do a little math. In March, it was announced that the state was already $8 billion in the hole despite the budget agreement from February 20, 2009. Frankly, it may be worse than that by now, but let us assume that is the case. The ballot propositions provide for a variety of shifting and borrowing on monies. If they do not pass, the state will have to find another $7 billion. So the total impact will be roughly $15 billion that the state has to find.