Pay Cut Decision is a No-Brainer
I’m no legal scholar, but Attorney General Jerry Brown’s decision yesterday to allow for an 18 percent salary cut for the state’s lawmakers and constitutional officers was a political no-brainer. The budget is in woeful deficit, unemployment is at record levels, public employees are on furlough – of course, the state lawmakers must share the pain.
The fact that legislators tried to avoid the pay cut during these difficult times separates them even further from average citizens. Legislators claim their fingerprints are not on the request seeking the opinion on the legality of the cuts. The administrators of the Senate and Assembly made the request to Brown. Right. And, I’m prepared to buy that bridge in Brooklyn.
The state’s independent pay commission authorized the cut in May. Commission chairman Charles Murray, in agreeing with the attorney general’s opinion, said on this issue, “We represent the average Californian.”
He’s right. The proof is the result of the only ballot measure that passed at the May special election.
Budget Should Be Focus of Tobacco Tax
Don Perata apparently has decided that cancer research is sexier than the state budget when it comes to his election plans.
Perata, who wants to be Oakland’s next mayor, was at that city’s Children’s Hospital Monday, touting the launch of an initiative drive to boost the tobacco tax to raise money for cancer research.
Two days later, the Legislative Analyst’s Office put out a report showing that California is looking at a $20.7 billion budget hole next year and deficits bigger than that in each of the two years following.
Perata, a Democrat who was the state Senate leader until last year, knows exactly the type of devastating cuts that will be needed to close that budget gap and the type of damage those reductions will do to both the state and the people who depend on its services.
“Blame Bush” Becoming Moot
Throughout the 2008 campaign, California Democrats ran its printers seven days a week, issuing an endless stream of press releases touting their voter registration gains. With a certain smugness, Democrats pointed to the impact of a lengthy, involved primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and each campaign’s reach to a large network of youth, minorities and first-time voters. This fueled an intriguing narrative for political commentators and the media that a new political realignment was taking shape – even prior to the election results in November
In the election aftermath, stories were written, proclamations were made, and rumors of the death of the Republican Party, here in California and across the nation, were greatly exaggerated. The wake of so-called “Age of Obama” – voters registration gains, an unseen fundraising behemoth, and the accompanying electoral tsunami – foretold a serious decline for the GOP that began with the loss of congress in 2006.
High Times and Misdemeanors in L.A.
On the same day that a new police chief assumed the helm in Los Angeles, a battle waged at City Hall over marijuana dispensaries.
Here in L.A., we have experienced an explosion of such dispensaries over the past four years. While other cities in California acted to limit the numbers of dispensaries, our city council opted to keep punting the issue to avoid having to favor important constituencies over others.
Today, it is estimated that there are approximately 1,000 pot dispensaries in the City of Los Angeles, many of which are concentrated in the San Fernando Valley where I live. One is located just one block from my house, and another is located two blocks from my kids’ elementary school.
For those with chronic pains or facing deadly diseases, I don’t think very many people object to them being able to get relief. The objections usually arise from residential and commercial neighbors who complain about the dispensaries’ clientele, who, in some cases smoke pot inside the store or in the parking lot or loiter in front of the store. Others worry that some stores are a magnet for crime.
Tax Commission’s Recommendations are a bad place to start
Recently, the Commission on the 21st Century Economy held hearings around the state to determine the best way to reform California’s tax system, which many believe is outdated. There were hours of testimony from economic experts, tax groups and businesses of every size, including small business owners and representatives of the National Federation of Independent Business. We all agree – the system needs to be reformed in order to get us out of a feast-or-famine revenue stream.
The efforts of the Commission have brought to the forefront a major challenge to business growth in California and deserve a critical analysis by all parties including legislators and other state officials, the small business community, organized labor groups and taxpayer organizations. The fact that most of these groups have already expressed concern over some of the recommendations put forth by the Commission should be enough reason to pause before implementation of any of the recommendations. But certainly it does not shut down all discussion of ways in which the Governor and Legislature can reform our state tax structure to improve our economic and fiscal situation.
Corretion: Public Service or Public Disdain?
Please note: the original version of my article, Public Service or Public Disdain, referred to actions of sisters-in-law and fathers that could disqualify a person from service on the Citizens Redistricting Commission. However, administrative regulations adopted by the State Auditor have defined the term “immediate family” as used in Proposition 11, to include only those family members who have lived with an applicant for at least thirty days in the previous year or with whom the applicant has a shared ownership or financial relationship worth $1,000 or more. Consequently, two paragraphs have been rewritten to remove references that could cause confusion.