The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce announced Friday at a news conference its endorsement
of Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal to hold a special election in June to address
the State budget crisis with an equal combination of spending cuts and a
temporary extension of the tax increases put into place two years ago.

We believe that Gov. Brown’s proposal to combine dramatic budget
reductions with a temporary extension of higher rates on the State income tax,
sales tax and the motor vehicles registration fee is fiscally responsible.

Our first choice was to address the deficit through spending cuts only.
As we discussed this option at length, we simply did not feel that the basic
infrastructure of our State could be maintained if $25 billion in budget cuts
were put into place at this time. We know that extending the tax increases will
have a short-term negative impact on our members and the economy, but not as
negative as the dramatic reduction in education, infrastructure and social
services that would come from a $25 billion budget cut.

A recent editorial cartoon sums up the tension between average taxpayers and government employee unions. It shows two guys sitting at a bar. One, head in hand and looking glum, is labeled “public sector” and he says to his companion, “They’re trying to cut our pensions…” The other fellow, labeled “private sector,” replies, “What’s a pension?”

If this bar is in California – where the official unemployment rate is 12.5 percent not including those who have completely given up looking for work – Mr. Private Sector might also ask, “What’s a job?”

Over time, how much of the public views those who work for government has changed from “respected civil servants” to “militant special interest” dedicated to preserving and expanding their “entitlements” at any cost to taxpayers. In this case, perception is reality.

This perspective on the California Budget, written by Debra Saunders, was published today in the San Francisco Chronicle.

I am reluctant to join the chorus of scolds who chide Republicans for opposing Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal to put a tax-increase extension on a special election ballot in June.

But I will join the chorus, though first I must point out that GOP Assembly members and senators didn’t spend California to the brink of ruin. The Democrats and nominally Republican former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger share that honor.

I also am reluctant to blame the GOP because I believe that the necessary two GOP votes from both the Assembly and Senate will materialize.

Editor’s note: We’re happy to welcome Dan Weintraub to the Fox&Hounds Team!

Even as Republicans and Democrats fight over the future of health care reform in Washington, California is quietly laying the groundwork for what could be a revolutionary change in the way government policy keeps people from needing health care in the first place.

The effort, known as “Health in all Policies,” is roughly comparable to California’s response to the 1970s energy crisis. While others focused on drilling for more oil, mining more coal or securing alliances with foreign energy producers, California embarked on an aggressive initiative to reduce the state’s use of energy, especially electricity.

The energy efficiency focus sometimes makes California the subject of ridicule, as when it recently adopted new standards for big-screen televisions. But overall, the changes have paid off: Since 1975, electricity consumption per person in the rest of the nation has increased by 50 percent while it has remained nearly flat in California.

The Oscars are over. I actually went to the movies instead of watching the award show. I like movies but I’m not a fan of the celebrity-fest. But then I know I’m out of touch with this celebrity stuff. I’m still surprised that a short court hearing for actress Lindsay Lohan gets two or three times the number of TV cameras than come out to cover Governor Jerry Brown’s first visit to Southern California to discuss the budget mess, as happened a couple of weeks ago.

Movies can and do play a role in political debates.

The Los Angeles Times reported over the weekend that Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon visited with Hollywood bigwigs asking them to take up the fight against global warming. Specifically, the Secretary General wants movie and television writers and producers to educate the public on the issue by putting messages in their work or dramatizing the issue.

Recently, the the White House and the U.S. Department of Labor announced that they were getting into the legal referral business. I guess the government does not have enough on their hands so they needed to team up with the American Bar Association (ABA) to get them some more business.

Roughly 40,000 workers contact the U.S. Department of Labor every year with complaints about their bosses. Due to budget cuts, the Department cannot answer all the calls. So instead of throwing a little more money at the Department, they decided to form a new “alliance” with the ABA.

Instead of helping businesses create jobs, the Department of Labor seems more focused on creating more lawsuits. In 2009, Kiplinger reported that the 10 largest wage and hour settlements totaled nearly $364 million. That was 44% higher than the ten largest in 2008. One lawyer who was quoted in the article as saying that these cases are easy to win and involve big payouts, especially when you are looking at “two or three years of back pay and benefits.” If only the employees knew what they are getting into.

Cross-posted at RonKayeLA.

Poor planning, frivolous spending and shoddy work dog the sprawling system’s bond-financed construction program. Those are the headlines online on Part One of the LA Times powerful week-long investigate series by reporters Michael Finnegan and Gale Holland who examined what LA Community College District have done with the nearly $6 billion in taxpayer construction bonds.

The series is backed by interactive map, graphic on what each college got and a chart of the to 10 contractors and how much money they have donated to board members and to get the bond issues approved by voters.

With the election for four of the seven LACCD Board seats coming March 8, the series is a bombshell that ought to guide voters to cast ballots for fiscally responsible candidates like Lydia Gutierrez, Joe Essavi, Joyce Burrell, Erick Aguire and write-in candidate Mark Isler instead of the slate of candidates backed by the unions and developers.

They are Mona Field, Steven Veres, Miguel Santiago and Scott Svonkin. They must be held accountable or we are complicit in the waste, efficiency and corruption.

The Republicans have lighted a path for the governor to put
the tax extensions on the ballot if the governor is willing to take a
calculated risk – put tax cuts on the ballot as well.

The governor insists the people should vote on his tax
extension plan. Many Republicans say they will only put those tax extensions on
the ballot if equivalent tax cuts are also placed on the ballot.

It’s a risk to the governor and Democrats agenda, but how
big a risk? There really hasn’t been much call for a tax cut recently and there
doesn’t seem to be a demand for new tax cuts from the voters.

The tax extensions are a different matter. Defeating the tax
extensions might be considered the same as approving a tax cut because it would
affirm the current temporary tax levels expire. Governor Brown said he is willing
to take on that fight.

While Governor Brown
was acknowledging yesterday that pension reform is a
possible element of a budget solution, a bipartisan, independent state
commission released a report charting a bold path for
pension reforms that would create both short- and long-term budget savings.

The Little Hoover
Commission, of which I’m a member, unanimously adopted Public Pensions for
Retirement Security, calling for Legislative action to establish the legal
authority to allow state and local governments to freeze pension benefits for
current workers, and allowing those workers to accrue future benefits under
more sustainable pension plans.

After ten months of
public hearings and background research, Commissioners concluded that
California’s pension crisis cannot be solved without addressing the obligations
of current employees, many of whom have accrued generous benefits augmented
during the go-go years of the dot.com and real estate bubbles.