Governor Says He’ll Veto Everything … Unless
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is waving his veto pen at the Legislature again, saying, in effect, “Pass the water package or the rest of the bills get it.”
Actually, water’s only part of it. A spokesman for Schwarzenegger said Tuesday that action has to be taken on “the major issues facing our state – water, prison, renewable portfolio standard, appointments – before we consider other issues.’’
Schwarzenegger asked legislators to pull back any bills nearing their signing deadline and warned that otherwise he would veto any of them that had to be acted on either Tuesday or today. That led Darrell Steinberg, the Democratic Senate leader, to quickly grab 43 bills back from the governor’s desk. They will be resubmitted this week, which will restart the signing clock for them.
It was a Republican, Assemblyman Paul Cook of Yucca Valley, who had the misfortune to be the governor’s object lesson. Schwarzenegger squashed his AB 264, an innocuous bill designating March 30 as “Wecome Home Vietnam Veterans Day” and made it clear this was just the beginning.
Part-Time Legislature and Initiatives – The chicken and egg argument will continue
Looks like there’s concern out there that the idea of a part time legislature has legs. It certainly seems to be a concern from those on the left and those that defend the legislature.
Yesterday, I suggested that we consider a debate on the part time legislature in the context of the mushrooming use of the initiative process since the legislature became a full time institution. I wasn’t advocating for the part time legislature, just raising questions and pointing out facts. Frankly, I haven’t even made up my mind, yet, although I think a part time legislature in one form or another is worth considering.
In the comments section after my piece, Steve Magviglio, who often speaks for the Assembly Speaker, listed a number of reasons that have hindered the legislature from doing its job more effectively and warned of the dangers of a part time legislature.
Mixed Messages on Card Check
The labor movement, not for the first time, is sending mixed messages about “card-check” legislation.
In Washington, John Sweeney, the outgoing president of the AFL-CIO, said that he would support dropping the card check provision of the Employee Free Choice Act (which would permit unions to organize without elections) – in exchange for provisions that would call for speedy elections – within 5 or 10 days of a certain number of workers petitioning for the union.
In California, the United Farm Workers – which has the right to such speedy elections through the state’s landmark Agricultural Labor Relations Act – has decided such speedy elections don’t work and instead has been pushing legislation that would allow the union to organize by card check. Last week, UFW rallied its political and labor allies, and threatened to oppose badly needed water legislation if Schwarzenegger didn’t sign the legislation. (He vetoed it anyway).
So which is the better policy, speedy elections or card check?
There are a couple different answers to that.
Democrats, Style, Substance, Falling Polls and A Republican Response
What a difference 200 days can make. When Obama took the oath of office at the end of January, the Democrats had a 7% lead in the Rasmussen generic congressional ballot – a simple poll that asks the question if the election were held today, would you prefer a Republican or a Democrat for Congress (no names – just a question of Party preference). As of September 6, 2009, that lead was symmetrically reversed to a 7% Republican lead – a historic 14% swing.
There are two main reasons for that reversal – style and substance.
On the substance side, there is no doubt that nationalized health care is sending a political shock wave through the electorate. Voters are deeply concerned about this issue because most voters are smart enough to realize (1) that Obama’s numbers don’t add up, (2) that huge government programs don’t work and reduce personal choices, and (3) the fact that it involves their own health care not just some other group of people. The health care debate comes on the heels of similar, deep seated concerns about Cap & Trade and the utter explosion of the Deficit. Those issues and others have given rise to a sense of buyer’s remorse on substance – and not just among those Republicans that strayed to vote for Obama – but among Independents who now favor Republicans 43% – 21% on that same Generic Ballot.
Watch Out for an Increased Fee on Bottles and Cans
At the end of the legislative session, members of the State Assembly and Senate go on a mad dash to pass legislation before adjourning for the year.
It’s a great time to slip controversial items into “must-pass” appropriations bills, and the flurry of activity guarantees that some controversial items will make it into law without much debate.
One such item is a new and expanded tax – disguised as a “fee” – offered up by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of Berkeley. Skinner is trying to add an amendment to Assembly Bill 983 – a bill expanding after school activities – that would raise millions by doubling the California Redemption Value (CRV) on some beverages. It would also impose a CRV fee on larger juices, which currently are not subject to the fee.
Trashing Chevron in the Amazon Court – Part Deux
Bay Area newspapers have been a buzz over the past week regarding the latest video of Ecuador Judge Juan Nunez, the key legal figure in the Chevron Ecuador environmental damage case, who has been captured in a video stating that he plans to rule against the oil giant and for an award of $27 billion "more or less".
The San Francisco Chronicle’s blog covered it here.
The San Francisco Examiner weighed in with an editorial, “Video from Chevron reveals corruption in Ecuador lawsuit,” here.
The Chronicle carries the full text and videos. A picture is worth a thousand words so take a look. Here is the text of what Judge Nunez said to Wayne Hansen and Diego Borja who are environmental remediation contractors –