“Parent Trigger” Hearing at State Ed Board a Test for Brown
The State Board of Education holds a hearing on the Parent Trigger law today and how the board reacts will be a first test of the Brown Administration’s view on school reform. Last month, Brown, in one of his first acts as governor, dumped a majority of the 11-member education board, removing advocates of the Parent Trigger and replacing them with new members, a number with ties to the teachers’ unions.
Teachers’ union officials have opposed the new Parent Trigger law. The Parent Trigger allows for major changes to be made to an under-performing school, including converting the troubled school to a charter school, if more than 50-percent of the parents sign a petition. One teacher union official complained that the law amounted to "mob rule."
However, some parents see the Parent Trigger as a way to shake up a failed school and seek a better education for their children. In Compton, 63-percent of the parents signed a Parent Trigger petition seeking change at the McKinley Elementary School. A heated battle over the petitions broke out with charges of signature tampering shouted by both sides.
Playing Chess with Election Dates
Initiative proponents and consultants often calculate in which election they would like their ballot measures to appear. So when I heard that a bill in the California legislature would eliminate the February California presidential primary for 2012, I wondered if a little politics was at play.
The bill’s author, Assemblyman Paul Fong (D-Cupertino), insists that the reason for eliminating the February primary and joining the presidential primary to the primaries of state officials in June is a cost saving measure. Keeping the February presidential primary would make three statewide elections in 2012. And, this after a possible special election this summer, supposedly a non-election year.
However, in initiative-mad California, eliminating a potential election day can change the strategy for certain ballot measure proponents who, like grand master chess players, often make their move to file an initiative depending on which election the proposition will appear.
Other states are looking to get rid of early primaries that were created last presidential cycle so the states would have a relevant role in nominating presidential candidates. The Los Angeles Times’ Mark Z. Barabak yesterday had a good synopsis of the potential changes coming for the 2012 presidential primaries.
Discussing Reagan’s Legacy
We are living in the age of Reagan said presidential historian Douglas Brinkley at a panel discussing Ronald Reagan’s legacy Wednesday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
Richard Reeves, author and historian, was more succinct. “Ronald Reagan is still president,” he said, meaning the country is living with a political philosophy set out by Reagan. In the same way, Reeves continued, Franklin Roosevelt was president for 30 years.
Reeves said Reagan changed American politics by reversing the populist political attitude of one that believed business was the villain to making government the adversary. Reeves called this an “incredible political achievement”
As part of the celebration of Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday on February 6, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation has partnered with four universities around the country to examine the life and times of the 40th president. The first session was coordinated with USC’s School of Policy, Planning and Development.
Gov. Wilson: Reps Unlikely to Put Taxes on Ballot
Former governor Pete Wilson thinks its unlikely that Republicans in the legislature will vote to put Governor Jerry Brown’s tax extensions on the ballot.
I caught up with Wilson yesterday after he appeared on a panel at the Reagan Presidential Library discussing Ronald Reagan’s legacy as part of the centennial celebration of Reagan’s birth. (I’ll have more on the Reagan legacy panel discussion in tomorrow’s post.)
Wilson said with gerrymandered districts, Republican legislators live in districts in which their constituents do not want tax increases.
If the tax measures were to make it on the ballot by whatever means, Wilson thinks the taxes will be difficult to pass. "The only thing that would make it remotely saleable to the public would be if they combine it with a real, honest-to-God spending limit like the old Gann Limit," he said.
Good Move Cutting State Cell Phones and Cars, but could it Backfire on Gov?
Governor Jerry Brown’s executive orders to have 48,000 state cell phones turned in and to cut in half the number of state owned vehicles were smart ways to illustrate the governor is cutting down on waste. Cars and cell phones are items the public can relate to. They have their own phones and cars, which, for the most part, are not subsidized by their companies or anyone else.
By cutting these items, Brown has left his mark that the new sheriff in town is trying to clean up the mess.
As most reporting on Brown’s executive orders note, the savings from the cuts range in the millions of dollars and make only a small dent in the multi-billion dollar shortfall the state faces.
And, there in may lay a problem for the governor and his plans in the long run.
The Right to Vote Applies to More than Taxes
Listening to Jerry Brown quote the California Constitution in his State of the State speech — "All political power is inherent in the people" — gave me a bizarre case of déjà vu. Howard Jarvis, Brown’s nemesis three decades ago, used to cite that same phrase from the constitution all the time.
However, the goals of Brown and Jarvis are at cross-purposes.
Jarvis wanted to encourage a vote of the people through the initiative process to cut taxes. Brown wants the people to vote to raise, or extend taxes.
Perhaps that is the beauty of this constitutional provision — it is a general rule that applies to different points of view.
Republican response to Brown’s State of the State speech criticized what Brown did not say. Some Republicans said Brown should have offered up thoughts on pension reform. Others were looking for reductions in regulations, or an emphasis on job creation.
Notes from the Week that Was
COURT SAYS BALLOT MEASURE SUMMARIES MUST BE IMPARTIAL
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Court of Appeal
victory yesterday says the legislature cannot dictate the ballot label, title
and official summary. The legislature did just that for the High Speed Rail
bonds that narrowly passed in 2008.
HJTA president, Jon Coupal, said in a release, "the Court’s ruling is a stinging rebuke of the
California Legislature for manipulating voters by substituting the proponent’s
advocacy for what is supposed to be a neutral summary by an impartial third
party."
While the decision is a victory
for California voters, the ruling begs the question about the partisan office
of Attorney General being an impartial third party. The AG is assigned the task
of writing the impartial ballot label, title and summary. Over the years,
attorney generals from both parties have been accused of political maneuvering
in drawing up ballot information.
Perhaps it is time to turn the
task of writing impartial ballot titles and summaries over to a non-partisan outfit
like the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Analyzing PPIC Poll on Taxing Business
A superficial read of the latest PPIC poll might encourage the Brown Administration to change course away from across the board tax extensions to taxing businesses. But, such a move would be a mistake.
All ready, the Brown administration is informing business leaders that if the tax extension plan included in the governor’s budget doesn’t move forward, Plan B could be to tax individual industries. Not surprisingly, the poll shows voters would rather tax corporations than tax themselves. PPIC reports that 55% of likely voters favor raising state taxes paid by corporations. Meanwhile likely voters turned thumbs down on the idea of raising personal income taxes (70% No), state sales taxes (64%), and vehicle license fees (62%).
However, PPIC pollsters did not follow up with any questions to test the idea of taxing corporations. Since businesses provide jobs, and increased taxes mean less revenue businesses would have to hire employees, and jobs are important to the electorate (31% of likely voters said it was the most important issue the state faces), clearly reminding the voters of the connection between higher taxes and fewer jobs would effect election results.
Reoccurring Debate on California’s Tax Burden
That old debate over California’s tax burden is making its
familiar reappearance due to a couple of articles I read recently.
First came Dan Walters’ Sacramento Bee column last Friday titled, "Just the Facts on California’s Tax Burden." Walters acknowledged that,
"Sorting through the tax rhetoric is not easy." He produced data compiled by
The Tax Foundation,
using the measure of taxation as a percentage of personal income, which ranks
California as sixth-highest in the nation based on 2008 figures.
Walters notes this calculation occurred before the 2009
temporary tax increases in the Golden State that the governor hopes to extend.
However, he acknowledges other states have also raised taxes during the
recession and concludes that, "California has one of the nation’s highest
state-local tax burdens."
Is There a Deal to be Made on the Special Election?
If tax extensions make it onto a special election ballot, they will probably have lots of company from reform proposals. At least that’s a scenario that is suggested by a varied cross section of state political observers.
At the beginning of last week, I wrote the governor and legislature put it “all on the ballot,” meaning besides taxes, the voters should decide on spending limits and pension reform.
A few days later, Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton said a way to get taxes on the ballot is to address what Republicans want to see: “Offer a spending cap, regulatory streamlining and relaxation of workplace rules, along with Brown’s deep budget cuts. Toss in more public pension reform.”
On the same day, conservative commentator Andy Caldwell wrote, “I would offer to swap Gov. Jerry Brown five years of temporary tax hikes he is asking for — not because I believe they are necessary but because he and his fellow Democrats are holding all the cards — in exchange for pension reform and five years of serious regulatory relief from the laws….”