California Editorial Roundup

Dec. 15

Los Angeles Daily News on a legislative transparency bill:

One problem with political reforms, of the sort approved from time to time by the California electorate, is that many of them have to be implemented by politicians.

Because elected officials often are the targets of those reforms, they’re often less than forthright in carrying them out.

A fresh case in point is the fallout from Proposition 54, the state constitutional amendment passed by voters on Nov. 8 to bring new transparency to the legislative process.

Approved by nearly a 2 to 1 margin, Prop. 54 aimed mainly to stop the state Assembly and Senate from voting on a bill without first making it available to the public in print and online for at least 72 hours.

The general intent of the 72-hour rule was pretty clear: Keep legislators from ramming through new laws without giving interested members of the public and press, and the bill’s potential opponents and supporters, a good chance to examine it and say it’s good or bad or could use improvement.

Voters’ specific expectation was pretty clear too: The new rule would apply to any vote on a non-emergency bill by either of the two houses of the Legislature in Sacramento, and would apply to either the first vote in the house where the bill originated or the second vote in the other house that sends it to the governor for a signature.

This was certainly the understanding of the good-government groups that backed Prop. 54, and the understanding of this editorial board when we endorsed it a month before the election.

Unfortunately, to take effect for the legislative session that began last week, the new rule had to be written into the houses’ new operating rules by lawmakers themselves. Lawmakers who don’t necessarily like the restrictions Prop. 54 calls for. Lawmakers who in many cases are lawyers, skilled at twisting words to suit their interests.

Seizing on the initiative’s language saying the 72-hour rule applies to a bill “in its final form,” Assembly members on Dec. 5 adopted rules that apply it only to the vote of the second house to act on a bill.

This means a bill authored by an Assembly member could be rushed to a vote of approval by the full Assembly, and that would be OK as long as the Senate then publishes it for 72 hours before voting to approve it and send it to the governor.

This is a clear bastardization of Prop. 54. Since the work of crafting a bill is usually done mostly in the house of origin, that’s where the public should be allowed to exert its influence. Some bills are approved by the second house with little change, so the first house’s version may for all intents be “in its final form.”

Even the way the Assembly is reading it, Prop. 54 would help to fight legislators’ end-of-session practice of adopting last-minute “gut-and-amend” bills, using the amendment process to put entirely new language into existing bills. But it would not accomplish all of what voters had in mind.

The lesson here is not that the public and civic-minded activists, like Prop. 54 sponsor Charles Munger, should give up on passing reforms. The lesson is that on top of legal reforms, good government requires elected officials who honor the will of the people.

Assembly members should revise their operating rules to give full force to the 72-hour rule. If they don’t, Californians should remember it the next time we vote.

___

Dec. 18

San Francisco Chronicle on Uber vs. California:

Uber, the ride-hailing company, became famous for moving first and asking lawmakers, regulators and the public for permission later. But when it comes to operating self-driving cars on San Francisco’s streets, the company’s freewheeling credo needs to stop - immediately.

On Dec. 14, Uber announced, via blog post, that it is “bringing Volvo XC90s to San Francisco … Starting today, riders who request an UberX in San Francisco will be matched with a self-driving Uber if one is available.”

There was just one problem: They forgot to get approval for this innovation from the California Department of Motor Vehicles, which issues permits for companies to test autonomous vehicles on public roads. The DMV promptly slapped the company with a cease-and-desist letter.

“Two years ago the DMV developed regulations for manufacturer’s testing of autonomous vehicles,” wrote Brian G. Soublet, the DMV’s chief counsel. “The regulations were developed to foster technical innovation and ensure the safety of the motoring public.”

The DMV noted that 20 companies are currently approved to operate 130 test vehicles, and they are “obeying the law.”

On a press call Friday, Anthony Levandowski, Uber’s vice president of advanced technologies, said, “We respectfully disagree with the California Department of Motor Vehicles’ (legal) interpretation.”

The cars were still on the road as of Friday afternoon, he said, and Uber plans to keep them there.

Levandowski said that Uber’s vehicles are not fully autonomous because they still require drivers on board at all times; therefore, the company doesn’t believe the regulations apply to its vehicles. “The difference (in definitions of what is an autonomous vehicle) is not a legal nicety,” Levandowski said. “We cannot in good conscience sign up for regulation for something we are not doing.”

That may be true. But the place to work out this disagreement is not on the public streets.

In the courtroom, California regulators and Uber can debate definitions and consciences all they like.

On the streets, the lives of pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists are at risk.

Uber may complain about whether California’s regulation is appropriate, but the fact of the matter is that California officials have worked very hard to accommodate Uber over the past several years. Nor can Uber claim it’s just a struggling startup trying to lead the way on innovation: It’s a 7-year-old company with global reach that brought in more than $1 billion in revenue in the second quarter.

Uber should obey the DMV and take this battle to court if it believes such a battle is necessary. A company of this size and stature must play by the same rules the rest of us play by - the rules of public safety.

___

Dec. 19

Fresno Bee on a state tax overhaul:

Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress will start the new year by trying to make good on their promise to cut taxes - and that should prompt Gov. Jerry Brown and legislators to contemplate the state tax system to ensure Californians aren’t on the hook for more than their fair share.

The task won’t be simple. Voters approved Proposition 55, which locks in a state income tax rate of 13.3 percent for the wealthiest Californians, the nation’s highest. That and other voter-approved tax measures could limit legislators’ ability to answer whatever the new administration does.

Sen. Bob Hertzberg, a Los Angeles Democrat, has been working on the notion of lowering sales and income tax rates while expanding taxes on consumption of legal services, accounting and entertainment, among other services. California’s economy increasingly is based on services, giving the idea, which would require voter approval, some appeal.

As part of any tax discussion, state policymakers should look for ways that assist Californians who work for low pay, and people who aspire to be working in good, high-wage jobs.

Brown signed legislation two years ago creating an earned-income tax credit for low-wage workers. California’s version is similar to a federal earned-income tax credit, though less generous. Under the state credit, people who earn $13,800 or less can get rebates of hundreds or thousands of dollars, depending on the size of their families.

Almost 400,000 workers claimed the credit in 2016. But to qualify, they need to be employed. At a minimum, lawmakers should expand the state credit to include people who are self-employed, an acknowledgment that people who go from one gig to the next make up an ever larger segment of the workforce.

Another tax break worth expanding - assuming there’s money - is one that exempts green technology manufacturers from having to pay sales taxes on manufacturing equipment. The credit is intended to help green entrepreneurs start their businesses, and hire workers. For now, it’s capped at $100 million. Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, a Democrat from the Peninsula, introduced a bill last year to lift that cap, but it stalled. He plans to reintroduce it in 2017.

Tesla, the high-end Palo Alto-based electric car manufacturer, has been the biggest beneficiary, receiving $120 million so far, and a board overseen by Treasurer John Chiang awarded it another $47 million last week.

The state bases the awards on a formula that considers benefits to the environment, overall taxes that would be paid, and number of workers who would be employed. By the state’s calculation, the $47 million sales tax exemption on Tesla’s nearly $1.2 billion in equipment purchases will result in nearly $7 million in net benefits.

Chiang’s aides say they work to ensure upstart companies have a fair shot at their share. And that’s important. Tesla is able to hire sophisticated consultants and lobbyists. But it’s hardly General Motors or Toyota. And Elon Musk’s company wasn’t always the player it is now. Few people had heard of Telsa in 2010 when it moved into the NUMMI auto factory in Fremont that was abandoned by GM and Toyota.

It employs 6,000 people in Fremont and plans to hire 3,249 more workers, thanks in part to the sales tax exemption on robots and other equipment needed to produce Tesla’s new, less expensive Model 3.

Brown and other Democrats who control Sacramento make much of their war against climate change. They need to do more to help ensure Californians get their piece of the green economy. This state should be the center of green manufacturing and the jobs that come with it. And the state should use its tax code, wisely, to help make that happen.

___

Dec. 20

East Bay Times on Gov. Brown and climate change:

Gov. Jerry Brown was right to issue a direct challenge to the incoming Trump administration on any efforts to slow scientific research on climate change.

It was a welcome message for 3,000 scientists gathered in San Francisco to hear. Many are fearful that their research will get scuttled, leading to disastrous consequences for the planet.

“Some people say they’re going to turn off the satellites that are monitoring the climate,” Brown said. “Well, I remember back in 1978, I proposed a Landsat satellite for California. They called me Gov. Moonbeam because of that. I didn’t get that moniker for nothing. If Trump turns off the satellites, California is going to launch our own damn satellite. We’re going to collect that data.”

Brown went on to remind the scientists and Californians that the state, if it were a separate nation, would represent the world’s sixth-largest economy.

“We’ve got a lot of firepower,” Brown said. “We’ve got the scientists, we’ve got the universities. We’ve got the national labs, and we have the political clout and sophistication for the battle. And we will persevere, have no doubt about that.”

Fifty-two percent of state residents call climate change a “very serious” threat to the state’s future, and 27 percent say it is “somewhat serious.”

In contrast, Trump has foolishly called climate change a “hoax” pushed by China to weaken our economy. The president-elect has added climate deniers to his Cabinet, including Texas Gov. Rick “Oops” Perry, who has previously proposed eliminating the agency he will be charged with leading, the Department of Energy.

Brown reminded the scientists that, as governor, he is the president of the UC Board of Regents, and that he won’t look kindly at efforts to shut down research efforts. “Keep your hands off,” Brown declared. “That laboratory is going to pursue good science.”

Scientists have good reason for alarm. Trump’s transition team sent a survey to the Department of Energy that asked for the names of employees who worked on climate issues and attended United Nations climate conferences. It has also been suggested by more than one member of the Trump team that his administration might want to totally eliminate NASA’s Earth sciences department.

President Barack Obama rejected the request, and Trump officials later disavowed the survey, but it remains clear that the people Trump is surrounding himself with are people who reject the view of 95 percent of active climate researchers and the position of the academies of science from 80 countries.

It’s comforting to know that Brown will continue to lead the fight to save the planet, making this promise to scientists and Californians: “We will set the stage, we’ll set the example, and whatever Washington thinks it’s doing, California is the future.”