Jan. 24
The Press-Enterprise on whether California should call off drought emergency orders:
As California mops up after the recent rainstorms, the state faces a decision.
Is it time for state leaders to lift the emergency policies meant to encourage water conservation during the multi-year drought?
That’s our Question of the Week for readers.
If you haven’t had time to keep track of the rainfall statistics while trying to keep the roof on, here are the basics: Several storms this winter have brought various areas of California two to four times the average rainfall for this time of year. On Sunday, Jan. 22, alone, between 2 and 4 inches fell on Southern California, and Los Angeles and Long Beach saw record rainfall for the date. The rain and strong snow storms in the Sierra Nevada have made a big difference in drought conditions.
A year ago, 86 percent of the state was said to be in severe drought or worse. But as of Tuesday, Jan. 17, that number was down to 44 percent - and expected to go lower thanks to the weekend drenchings and the melting of the replenished snowpack during the spring and summer.
The immediate benefits, though, were being felt mostly in Northern California, as coastal Southern California remained in “extreme” or “exceptional” drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.
Should Gov. Jerry Brown and the State Water Resources Control Board begin to eliminate or at least regionalize the drought emergency orders he begin issuing in 2014?
The Brown administration has signaled there will be no change in his drought orders until the spring.
But the water resources board has scheduled a vote Feb. 7 on whether to allow the expiration of emergency conservation rules aimed at reducing urban water consumption by an average of 25 percent, and it’s being lobbied by urban water districts to declare the drought over.
How should Californians approach water conservation now that our long dry spell is at least temporarily over?
___
Jan. 24
The Pasadena Star-News on Gov. Brown’s State of the State address:
A fiery and defiant Gov. Jerry Brown vowed in his State of the State address Tuesday that he will protect California’s “basic principles” - protection of the undocumented, health care and policies to fight climate change - from the new administration in Washington.
But before Gov. Brown attempts to save the world, he ought to focus on his very own state. Perhaps he should start first with California’s large budget deficit or perhaps our poverty rate or even our dismal public education system. But no, instead, he wants to wage war with President Donald Trump.
Missing from the speech was any mention of the news, verified this week by Politifact, that California now has the highest poverty rate in the nation. One in five Californians live in poverty under the U.S. Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which takes into account the cost of living, including taxes, housing and medical costs.
The governor said nothing about the brutally high taxes, energy costs and housing costs that are at least partly the cause of the state’s budget deficit, poverty rate and lagging public education system.
Brown made no mention of California businesses or the costs and regulatory burdens that are limiting hiring and wage growth. He said nothing about the state’s massive and unfunded liability for retiree benefits, or the budget shortfall despite growing revenues and new tax increases.
The budget deficit is “the direct result of Sacramento’s failure to break the shackles of the old ’tax and spend’ mentality and tackle California’s pension debt crisis head on,” said Republican Assemblyman Phillip Chen, who represents parts of Orange, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. Chen is right.
Brown focused on what he called “the broader context of our country and its challenges,” citing the need to “prepare for uncertain times.” The governor said his first “basic principle” is the preservation of California’s “protective measures for the undocumented: the Trust Act, lawful driver’s licenses, basic employment rights and non-discriminatory access to higher education.”
“We may be called upon to defend those laws and defend them we will,” Brown said.
Sadly, Gov. Brown’s speech completely missed the mark. Instead of focusing on crucial California issues like poverty, education and the budget deficit, Brown opted to position himself as the leader of the resistance against President Trump.
If he really wanted to “protect” California, he would focus on his own backyard which in some respects is in shambles.
The indefensible overspending and destructive regulatory policies that have slowly eaten away the prosperity and well-being of California residents is inexcusable.
___
Jan. 23
The Vallejo Times Herald on balancing the state budget:
Officials like to brag that California has had four consecutive balanced budgets - but only if you leave out some crucial details.
When you look deeper at state finances, the coffers are in deep trouble, and politicians in Sacramento need to publicly acknowledge this and do the job they were elected to do: cut spending until the budget is actually balanced.
Here is the politically inconvenient reality: Our state budget gets bigger year after year, taxes are raised on working Californians regularly, fees for government services rise consistently, politicians promise this revenue will balance the budget, and, yet, the state is now facing a budget deficit.
It’s irresponsible. It’s reckless. And the public ought to be outraged.
But there shouldn’t be outrage for only the short-term impacts of this year’s budget deficit. What about all of the forgotten costs for which we will eventually have to account, such as the state’s backlog in repairs to highways, roads and bridges, estimated at $130 billion?
What about the costs of unfunded pension and retiree health benefits? The governor’s office puts the liability at $236 billion, but it could be much higher if pension investment funds underperform expectations, which they often do.
In December, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System lowered its assumed rate of return from 7.5 to 7 percent over three years, adding $105 million to the $6 billion the state will pay CalPERS in fiscal 2018 (up from $3.2 billion six years ago).
Something else they’re not counting, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, is the full cost of pay raises for the state’s unionized workforce. Pending agreements with 13 separate bargaining units include compounded pay hikes of about 12 percent over the life of the contracts. Over 20 percent of these employees will also receive “special salary adjustments,” extra raises said to be needed to keep up with salaries in the private sector.
The pay raises will cost the state hundreds of millions more than the governor’s budget projects by 2021, the LAO says, partly due to higher overtime rates.
For example, the budget ignores indirect costs, like similar salary increases for managers, so that they still earn more than those they supervise. Pension and other costs will rise, too. The state pays 26.7 percent of pay toward pension benefits and 7.65 percent toward Social Security and Medicare. “For every $1 salary increase for state employees,” the LAO reports, “the state’s costs increase by $1.34.”
In 2016, 12 percent of the general fund, over $13 billion, went to pay for employee salaries and benefits, and now part of the cost of retiree health benefits is being paid from the “rainy day” fund. Expect higher costs for the teachers’ pension fund - and don’t even ask about Medi-Cal.
The state’s finances are like a cartoon character that has run off the edge of a cliff and slammed on the brakes in mid-air before plunging. Spending under Gov. Brown has increased dramatically, and continues to rise, while lawmakers in Sacramento consider more tax increases: a sales tax on services, a higher gasoline tax, a split-roll property tax that would change Proposition 13 to raise taxes on commercial property. It’s a prospect that will certainly make businesses hesitate to expand and hire in California.
Enough is enough. In the past, we’ve applauded Gov. Brown as being the adult in the room within the Democratic Party in Sacramento. But his approach now is too soft, and his budget is too large.
This is not budget restraint at all. The spending growth is reckless and dangerous. But perhaps this is what we should expect with a supermajority in the Legislature, where one political party controls all of government. Voters need to wise up to the shenanigans being played by their state leaders and the governor, or prepare to open their wallets to pay for this money pit being created by our one-party system. California deserves better.
___
Jan. 24
San Francisco Chronicle on Gov. Brown’s plans to stand up against Trump administration:
If it’s not war, it sure sounds like it. Gov. Jerry Brown unleashed a full-scale attack on President Donald Trump, declaring California won’t give up a string of policies ranging from climate change curbs to immigrant-friendly laws.
Brown used his annual state of the state address to tick off his selected accomplishments and quickly moved to his real target: the broad brush initiatives taking shape in the White House that could undercut the state budget and California’s custom-made programs.
“The future is uncertain, and dangers abound,” Brown said in his address to the state Legislature, where majority Democrats cheered him on frequently.
Brown’s dukes-up posture is more than rhetoric. If Trump and Republicans in Congress repeal the Affordable Care Act, which covers some 5 million California residents, the state budget will “possibly be devastated” by the loss of billions in federal revenue. Brown’s signature feat of reviving state finances would be in ruins if Republicans cut off health care funds.
On climate change, California may be able to fashion its own future, Brown suggested. That means sticking with energy use policies that trim fossil fuels by limiting tailpipe emissions and push utilities to use more renewables. Trump has already begun revoking clean-air orders limiting power plant pollution.
With immigration, Brown promised legal challenges if the Trump team goes after state laws that limit police cooperation with federal border authorities and assure access to education, drivers licenses and job rights for undocumented residents. “We may be called on to defend those laws and defend them we will,” he said. Moments before his speech, Brown swore in Xavier Becerra as attorney general, who previously served as a Latino leader in Congress.
A few grains of common ground may exist, though. Like Trump, Brown wants to spend big on public projects, which for the governor is his controversial twin tunnels plan to divert water around the Sacramento and San Joaquin delta. “Amen to that, brother,” Brown ad-libbed when he noted Trump’s $1 trillion proposal for roads, bridges and airports.
But the overwhelming tone was ridicule and resistance. Like other state Democratic leaders, Brown has stewed angrily over the Trump ascension to the White House. His annual address gave him the chance to vent and promise to oppose looming changes in Washington and he ended his speech by citing folk singer Woody Guthrie who strummed that “Nobody living can ever make me turn back.” It’s a challenge that’s hard to ignore.
___
Jan. 20
East Bay Times on keeping the Oakland A’s:
With it seemingly clear that the Oakland Raiders are about to come the Las Vegas Raiders at about the same time the Golden State Warriors move across San Francisco Bay, it’s time for Oakland to concentrate its efforts into keeping the one remaining franchise - the Oakland A’s.
The Raiders officially filed paperwork with the NFL earlier this month to obtain permission to move the franchise from Oakland to Las Vegas.
It appears the Raiders have the cleared the most important hurdle - the money. With the NFL money is always the most important thing. Always.
The team says it has financial commitments to build a nearly $2 billion domed stadium in Las Vegas. Assuming those commitments are deemed solid, the proposed relocation plan will face its final major test when it goes before the NFL owners. The move must win the approval of 24 of the 32 owners. That vote could possibly come at the league’s meetings in Phoenix in late March.
The only real issue with the plan was that it involved $650 million from casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, but the NFL has rules against casino owners owning a stake in a team. Raiders owner Mark Davis told the NFL that he had secured a commitment from Goldman Sachs even if Adelson wasn’t able to participate.
The new plan commits $750 million in Clark County hotel room tax revenues, $650 from the Adelson family, and another $500 million from the Raiders and the NFL.
The Raiders showed little interest in a plan to redevelop is current Coliseum site that was hatched by former Raiders and 49ers great Ronnie Lott. Little wonder. When compared to the Las Vegas package it was a feeble effort.
While the City Council and county Board of Supervisors approved a framework to begin exclusive negotiations with Lott’s group, the framework had very little chance of success.
“There’s no way this would slow down a viable deal in Las Vegas,” Stanford sports economist Roger Noll told columnist Dan Borenstein in December. “Because it is non-binding and non-specific, it cannot be evaluated, and the NFL would not regard this as sufficiently complete to warrant consideration.”
If all goes according to plan, by the end of the decade Oakland, a city that once had three professional sports franchises, will be down to one - the Oakland A’s baseball team. The A’s haven’t exactly been the most willing tenants either. They spent years trying to move to San Jose, only to be blocked by the Giants’ market rights.
Rather than spending much more time chasing rainbows regarding the Raiders, the city of Oakland and the people of the East Bay should redouble efforts and figured out how to keep the A’s in the East Bay for the long term.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.