Calitics - Front Page

Calitics Transitions

Brian Leubitz — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:19:06 GMT

by Brian Leubitz

In August 2005, I worked with a number of amazing folks to push forward a community blog about California politics. It wasn't particularly pretty, but it allowed as many people as cared to get together to talk about progressive politics, goals for organizing, and a few unrelated topics as well. And we had a great team to build the site over the years, just to name a few: Dante Atkins, Robert Cruickshank, David Dayen, Lucas O'Connor, Julia Rosen Chaplin, and Jeremy Woodburn.

Over 15,000 posts, and nearly 50,000 comments, later, it is time for a change. Soapblox, the software provider behind Calitics for the past ten years, is shutting down. The software, originally developed by Paul Preston and then very capably managed by the good folks at Warecorp, was critical to the development of this site and many other progressive community blogs. (Take a peek at the Hillbilly Report's recap of the recent history of Soapblox)

So, over the weekend, this site will be transitioning to Wordpress. All posts, comments, and user data will be preserved, but links may change. Fortunately, wordpress and google will be able to search if you are looking for something back in the archive. User information should remain, but you may need to reset your password if you would like to log in.

And as you have probably noticed, I've sort of taken a hiatus from the task of day to day blogging. I've been busy with a range of projects, which initially made it hard to keep up my writing. But the greater issue is that once you get out of the daily rhythm of writing and doing all the other tasks of maintaining a site like this, it becomes hard to return to it. I don't plan on this being the end of Calitics, but it will be a different type of site. Going forward I'll do a bit of writing on Calitics, but if anybody else wants to help guide Calitics going forward, send me an email (brian AT calitics.com). I'd love to chat with you.

At any rate, keep watching the Calitics Twitter feed and Calitics facebook page for more information. I plan on keeping those updated and posting some thoughts on the state of California politics every now and then.

Thanks!

Brian

AB 219 Closes Wage Loophole on Public Construction Projects

California Labor Federation — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 19:26:30 GMT

By Steve Smith

California has long been committed to ensuring that anyone employed on a public works construction project earns a living wage. That just means the wages paid to women and men who build the public structures we all use aren't driven into poverty. The wages are set by region based on cost of living and other factors to ensure that both workers and taxpayers are protected. It's this kind of stability and fairness that ensures these important projects are completed on time by skilled professionals who do the job right.
But, like with many laws, there are loopholes. Drivers of ready-mix cement trucks who are employed by manufacturers are not covered under the state's prevailing wage law, meaning those drivers don't receive the same fair wages that other drivers doing the exact same work receive.

We've all seen a line of cement trucks preparing to pour on a construction project. Imagine that the first and third drivers are receiving a fair wage as required by law, while the second and fourth are receiving a substandard wage that makes it extremely difficult to support a family. Because of a loophole in the labor code, this isn't just a theoretical scenario. It plays out daily on construction projects throughout the state. As a result, public dollars are used to suppress the pay of hard-working men and women without rationale.

But today, the state legislature took an important step to rectifying this inequity by voting to close the loophole with AB 219 (Daly) so that all cement truck drivers working on public projects earn the same fair wage. Earlier this week, dozens of workers from the State Building and Construction Trades unions and the Teamsters lined the halls of the Capitol to urge legislators to close this loophole and support good jobs. Their message was simple: all workers on a construction site deserve fair treatment on the job and a decent wage to support their families.

While passing this bill may seem like a no-brainer to most, it's no shock that corporate lobbyists were coming out of the woodwork to oppose. Some big corporations like the loophole because it allows them to underbid responsible contractors who do the right thing by paying their employees a decent wage and offering healthcare and retirement benefits.

While there will always be corporations who try to get around the spirit of the law to cheat workers and pad their own bottom lines, taxpayers shouldn't subsidize this inherently unfair practice. When workers are mistreated, it endangers the entire project. It's in all of our best interest to ensure that workers doing the exact same work earn the same pay.

Governor Brown now has the opportunity to close the labor code loophole that treats workers differently solely based on who their employer is. By signing AB 219, the Governor would ensure that public works projects are completed by skilled professionals who earn a decent wage for a hard day's work.

Progressives Didn't Cause the San Francisco Housing Crisis

Robert Cruickshank — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 05:00:00 GMT

Unless you've been living under a rock lately, you know that San Francisco is facing an affordable housing crisis. This crisis is not new. It's been around for at least 40 years, and the city has faced a housing shortage for at least 70 years.

The question that many are asking is not only "how do we fix this?" but, in order to jockey for position in how to answer it, they're also asking "whose fault is this crisis?" Too often, the SF housing crisis is used to attack progressives from the right, in the service of free market solutions - even though, as the historical evidence makes clear, this crisis was not their fault.

Progressives have spent the last two decades fighting to make SF more progressive. Had they been listened to, perhaps SF might still be affordable today.
The most recent iteration of the "who made SF unaffordable?" discussion was kicked off today by the widely respected Gabriel Metcalf of SPUR. Writing at CityLab Metcalf argued that the roots of SF's housing crisis lay in progressive anti-growth policies:

San Francisco progressives chose to stick with their familiar stance of opposing new development, positioning themselves as defenders of the city's physical character. Instead of forming a pro-growth coalition with business and labor, most of the San Francisco Left made an enduring alliance with home-owning NIMBYs. It became one of the peculiar features of San Francisco that exclusionary housing politics got labeled "progressive." (Organized labor remained a major political force throughout this time period, and has allied with both pro-growth and anti-growth forces, depending on the issue.) Over the years, these anti-development sentiments were translated into restrictive zoning, the most cumbersome planning and building approval process in the country, and all kinds of laws and rules that make it uniquely difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to add housing in San Francisco.

This is the common argument about SF - it's expensive because progressives got mad at developers and stopped new growth from happening in order to preserve the city in amber, with no thought given to new residents.

But is that actually what happened?

Let's take a look back at history. The first thing to keep in mind is that by 1960, San Francisco was mostly built out already. The Sunset should probably not have been packed full with two-story homes. But progressives didn't make that decision.

The modern era of progressive San Francisco begins in the early 1960s, and one cannot understand the progressive approach to SF housing policy without looking at that era, as I did a decade ago for research on a never-completed PhD dissertation.

Like most US cities, SF had its share of residential segregation. In the City, this meant that African Americans lived in the Fillmore and in the Bayview. The Fillmore's once-grand Victorians had become slum housing as a result of overcrowding and poverty, results of America's ongoing racist distribution of wealth and power.

In order to try and add more housing supply to SF, as well as to clear the slums, the San Francisco Housing Authority, under the leadership of Justin Herman, proposed to redevelop most of the Fillmore. They planned to use federal funds to demolish the existing private housing stock and replace it with a mix of publicly owned housing and privately built housing.

No provision was made by the SFHA for the relocation of the tenants during this years-long process. At a time when California voters had just repealed the state's fair housing law in 1964, this was a direct threat to the ability of people of color to remain in San Francisco.

African American residents protested vehemently. They formed groups such as the Western Addition Community Organization to fight against what they damned as "Negro removal." They failed. Ironically, the public housing projects built as a result of the SFHA plan are responsible for keeping any black residents in the Fillmore at all - yet according to the SFHA's own estimates from the late 1960s, most residents displaced from the Fillmore project areas left SF altogether.

The resistance in the Fillmore inspired similar resistance in the Mission, then populated by a mix of Latino and Irish residents. Unlike the Fillmore, the Mission succeeded in fighting off redevelopment.

In the 1970s, San Francisco leaders began clearing out the affordable single resident occupancy buildings in SoMa to make way for the Yerba Buena Center project. The loss of thousands of SRO units, never replaced, was a major factor that contributed to the city's sizable homeless population. In 1977 the famous battle over the International Hotel took place, where progressives rallied to defend Filipino renters who were facing displacement so that the landlord could redevelop the site.

These battles convinced progressive San Franciscans that the vulnerable populations of the city faced a very real threat to their homes from redevelopment, whether initiated by the private or public sector. Progressives generally don't care about a wealthy single family homeowner. But they care very much about people of color and retirees losing their homes.

That is a challenging situation in San Francisco. Because the city is completely built out, any new housing supply comes at the expense of an existing use - often displacing existing residents.

This problem was exacerbated beginning in the mid-1970s by rising housing costs. That increase began before San Francisco's population began to grow - as Metcalf's own article explains, SF didn't start to add population until after 1980. The rising rents were fueled by the national inflation that plagued the country in the 1970s.

SF residents voted to adopt rent control in 1979 in part to respond to this crisis as well as to respond to the passage of Proposition 13 - specifically to stop one landlord in particular, Angelo Sangiacomo, who refused to pass on property tax savings to renters.

Metcalf argues that progressives allied with NIMBYs to make it difficult if not impossible to add new housing supply in SF. But this misses the fundamental purpose and point of progressive housing activism in SF. The goal is to stop displacement - and given SF's attributes, a free market approach won't solve that.

Because SF is built out, and because land values began to rise in the mid-1970s, and because of macroeconomic policies that began to push investors to demand bigger profits from the private sector, this all meant that new construction in San Francisco was going to be expensive to build and therefore expensive to rent. The private sector was never all that interested in building housing for the poor or the low-income. And after 1980, the private sector certainly was not interested in building that kind of housing.

So for many progressive San Franciscans, private housing development was seen as a way to get rid of the leftists, the people of color, LGBT residents, and the poor. Stopping the loss of affordable housing became a priority.

However, this did not mean that SF progressives became anti-supply - or that they are responsible for the city's present crisis.

Since Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated in 1978 by a right-wing former cop, SF has been governed by pro-business moderates. There has been only one exception to this, the four-year term of Art Agnos from 1987 to 1991, and it's not clear whether he was more of a progressive or more of a NIMBY (in reality he appealed to both, but for different reasons).

Progressives haven't held the SF mayor's office in at least 24 years, by even the most charitable reading. Surely pro-business mayors like Frank Jordan, Willie Brown, and Gavin Newsom should be held accountable for the city's housing crisis.

During the last two decades, SF progressives worked hard to advance their own solutions to the housing crisis. Those solutions always included new supply.

Take a look at Tom Ammiano's housing policy in his 1999 campaign for mayor:

2) Make the Production and Preservation of Affordable Housing the Top Priority
Increasing housing opportunities that are affordable for San Franciscans of low and moderate incomes is a civic obligation to local residents who make up the foundation of our culture and economy. San Francisco currently has the worst of both worlds: market forces that give no consideration to the broader needs of the community and out-of-date regulation that interferes with development of housing of every type.
As mayor I will:
...Review and Reform Current Planning Guidelines that Stifle Increased Housing.
I will direct the Planning Department to report on Planning Code changes that will increase new housing in ways that are not detrimental to neighborhood character. I will promote a neighborhood-driven planning process to consider increasing density along established transit corridors in the eastern half of the City and implement the State statute that gives a "density bonus" to developments that set aside 25% of units for low income residents....
....Streamline the Permitting Process
The Ammiano administration will coordinate the permit processing and record-keeping of the Department of Building Inspection and the Planning Department, improving the approval and environmental review process for both the neighborhoods and developers, particularly non-profit developers. Neighborhood concerns will be accommodated before individual permit applications through Neighborhood Master Environmental Impact Reports. Public input will still be encouraged at scheduled hearings of relevant commissions.

While this isn't the libertarian "abolish all zoning" fantasy that some in the tech industry demand today, it's a far cry from the anti-growth platform that many imagine SF progressives to have held.

It wasn't just Ammiano. Matt Gonzalez's 2003 campaign for mayor had similar policies on housing that were pro-supply as well:

A balanced housing policy for San Francisco must include a commitment to increasing the supply of rental housing affordable to San Franciscans of all incomes. Increasing home ownership is a important goal, we will still need more affordable rental housing to meet current and future demand. Rent control is important for stabilizing housing and preventing displacement of existing tenants, but because of vacancy decontrols, assuring affordability requires that rental units are made permanently affordable through other means-inclusionary housing, which are permanently affordable units in market-rate developments, and construction or purchase of affordable rental units by nonprofit housing providers. As mayor, I will increase the supply of permanently affordable housing for San Franciscans of a range of incomes and household sizes.

I don't know how much clearer it could be. Both Ammiano and Gonzalez, heroes and leaders of the SF left, were pro-supply. Had they been able to govern SF, we might have seen a different outcome. But even their options were limited, and their campaigns came 25 years after the housing affordability crisis first hit SF.

There are other problems with Metcalf's argument, as Mark Hogan has explained. He shows how even Chris Daly, the arch-progressive of SF politics, helped deliver more housing supply:

Chris Daly (arguably one of the most "Progressive" politicians San Francisco has had in recent years) helped pave the way for the massive number of new units in SOMA by brokering a community impact deal in 2005, and these units are the majority of the housing that has been created in the last 10 years. The Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, which upzoned large areas on the east side of the City, was approved by a Progressive-majority Board of Supervisors. It should also be noted that most of the areas that have been upzoned are less wealthy and more dominated by renters than the areas that are primarily single family.

Hogan also challenges another part of Metcalf's argument:

The line that keeps getting repeated that we should have been building 5,000 units a year is absurd taking into account the realities of development. The math makes sense in the simplest way possible, but we all know that no developer is going to build those units at the bottom of a recession (and the economy is always cyclical), and nobody 25 years ago would have predicted the level of in-migration and income inequality we have right now- even taking the population boom that started in 1980 into account. Far more units than that have been permitted in each boom and in most cases developers have declined to build them (or deferred them until the next cycle). The fact that they haven't been built has more to do with economics than obstructionism.

Free market acolytes have seized on articles like Metcalf's to try and discredit progressives and their values, and to advance their pet theory that if we just got rid of limits on height and density, or maybe even got rid of zoning altogether, SF's housing woes would be solved. Longtime Calitics readers know that I have supported greater urban density and less restrictive housing policies for at least the last seven years. But not even Metcalf thinks that a free market approach will, on its own, solve the problem:

Let me say very clearly here that making it possible to add large amounts of housing supply in San Francisco would never have been enough by itself. A comprehensive agenda for affordability requires additional investments in subsidies for affordable housing. Given the realities of economic inequality, there are large numbers of people who would never be able to afford market rate housing, even in a better-functioning market.

And SPUR, which occupies a place in the SF political landscape that is hard to categorize, has a great set of ideas for how to make SF affordable again. There is much in those proposals for progressives to like.

Yet even SPUR's proposals share many of the same elements of the plans Ammiano and Gonzalez advanced in their 1999 and 2003 campaigns. There is greater convergence between SPUR and progressives than might be assumed.

Ultimately SF is at the leading edge of a problem that is now facing all US cities. Urban America has become expensive. As we live in an era of increasing inequality, and in a time where macroeconomic policies favor investments that benefit the rich over those that benefit the poor or the middle, no market solution alone can solve the problem.

Government will be needed to help solve the crisis - through rent control, through subsidies, through an expansion of public housing stock, and through facilitation of private sector housing stock too. Progressives have been calling for that for years. They weren't the ones in charge of SF when the crisis hit and they haven't had full control over city government in over two decades.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the blame lies not with progressives, but with SF's pro-business politicians, for whom solving the affordable housing crisis has never been a priority at all.

Gov. Brown quickly signs Vaccines Bill

Brian Leubitz — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 16:10:56 GMT

Bill eliminates most non-medical exemptions

by Brian Leubitz

While SB277 may have drawn a lot of attention and vocal minorities to the Capitol (and anywhere else legislators congregated). But after the recent passage of the legislation, Governor Brown wasted no time in signing the bill yesterday.

SB 277 requires all children entering day care, kindergarten or 7th grade to be vaccinated, although the legislature included a specific exemption if a child's physician concludes that immunization is not recommended for reasons including family medical history. ...
Sen. Pan, speaking on KPCC's AirTalk on Tuesday, said he was pleased that Brown had "listened to the science, listened to the facts about vaccination." Brown, he said, has "taken a very important step in assuring we stop the erosion of community immunity in California and that we prevent diseases that should stay in the history books."(KPCC)

You can listen to that AirTalk program here. The governor's full letter is the right from the Chronicle's Melody Gutierrez.

.@JerryBrownGov's signing message with #SB277 mandatory vaccine bill, which passed Legislature yesterday. pic.twitter.com/yuBfDEqgRZ
— Melody Gutierrez (@MelodyGutierrez) June 30, 2015

Justice Kennedy Pens 5-4 Decision for Marriage Equality

Brian Leubitz — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:08:11 GMT

Decision makes marriage equality the law of the land across the nation.

by Brian Leubitz

You can find many words on the marriage decision plastered all over the interwebs. But I wanted to point out the closing of Justice Kennedy's decision in the 5-4 Obergefell decision.

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered. (Obergefell v Hodges)

As many have stated, marriage equality isn't the end of the fight for LGBT rights or civil rights more broadly, there isn't such thing as the end of that fight. We've seen too much over the past weeks and months to think that is the case. Even within the LGBT community, there are a litany of lines that are arbitrarily drawn, yet the results are all too real.

Yet, for one day, love wins. And that makes this a good day. And for my fellow San Franciscans, what a happy #SFPride this will be.

Budget Deal Reached?

Brian Leubitz — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:48:43 GMT

Legislature passed bill yesterday with $750mil over Gov.'s budget

by Brian Leubitz

Yesterday, the Legislature passed a budget as was required by the Constitution (and 2010's Prop 25) to keep their paychecks coming.

Senate Budget Chair Mark Leno acknowledged there's no deal yet with Gov. Brown but says he'd challenge anyone who calls this spending plan a "sham."
"This budget, fiscally responsible, pays down more debt - faster; puts more money in our rainy day fund; puts more money into public education; and begins - if minimally - to reinvest in the needs of the people of the state of California," Leno said on the Senate floor Monday. (Capitol Public Radio)

That was all well and good, but both the Senate and Assembly leaders acknowledged that the budget they passed wouldn't actually become law. The Governor wanted to slice a few million off of their budget, and wasn't going to sign the measure they passed.

But they may have now reached a deal:

The Democratic governor is expected to hold a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday afternoon. ...
The deal is expected to include additional money for child care and preschool programs, but likely not as much as legislative Democrats originally sought, a source said.(David Siders / SacBee)

Details are still emerging, but it appears that the Legislative Democrats got at least some portion of what they wanted in their own budget. How much still remains to be seen.

Legislative Recap on Health: #Health4All; Out-of-Pocket Costs; Medi-Cal, Etc.

awright — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 16:38:53 GMT

The Senate and Assembly adjourned Thursday, one day ahead of the June 5th deadline to pass all bills out of the first legislative chamber. The good news is that most key bills of interest to health care consumers have passed out of the house of origin, while one bill, opposed by public health groups, was defeated. Bills moving forward deal with limits and protections against unfair out-of-pocket costs; efforts at improving Medi-Cal; and most notably a significant expansion of access to coverage for all regardless of immigration status.

These bills now head to the second half of the legislative process. For details on each bill, see our weekly bill matrix:
http://www.health-access.org/i...

Below the fold, full reports on:
* SB 4 To Take Historic Steps to #Health4All & Cover the Remaining Uninsured
* Patient Protection Bills To Limit Out-of-Pocket Costs
* Additional legislation on transparency, Medi-Cal, tobacco control, and more
SB4, THE FRAMEWORK FOR #HEALTH4ALL REGARDLESS OF IMMIGRATION STATUS

The most-watched health bill was SB4, the first bill to pass a state legislative body that would explicitly expand coverage regardless of immigration status. The California Senate passed SB4 on a historic and bipartisan vote, 28-11, with all Democratic senators and 2 Republican senators voting in support. This bill, which continues California's path to #Health4All, moves on to the Assembly Health Committee for consideration.

With last week's amendments in the Senate Appropriations Committee, SB 4 would:

* Expand Medi-Cal eligibility to all children regardless of immigration status, as an entitlement;
* Expand coverage for undocumented adults as budget allocations will allow (to be decided each year in the budget, and that enrollment will be capped if funding runs out).
* By way of a Section 1332 waiver (a formal request to the federal government), SB 4 would allow all Californians to purchase coverage through Covered California using their own money.

Senator Ricardo Lara, author of SB 4, called the vote "historic" and one that Senators will remember long after their term is over. "We are talking about our friends, our families, our neighbors. Illness doesn't care about our immigration status," said Lara, describing the bill as still "realistic, balanced, and fiscally prudent."

Several Senators rose to speak during the floor debate. From the opposing side, GOP Senators Jeff Stone, Janet Nguyen, and Bob Huff raised concerns about cost, arguing that expanding Medi-Cal was a "false promise" until the program addresses access issues. Several Democratic Senators responded to that argument, including Senator Richard Pan who stated, "We certainly need to make fixes to Medi-Cal, but certainly being on Medi-Cal is better than being uninsured." Senator Isadore Hall derided "excuses," Senator Ben Hueso wanted focus on the issue at hand: "We have a solution on the table, and we should move it forward." Senator Hernandez rebutted concerns about cost: "The most inefficient way to provide health care is through the emergency room-we all pay for it."

The most noteworthy speech was by GOP Senator Andy Vidak announcing his support for the bill while also raising the need to address Medi-Cal access issues and federal immigration reform. He and another Central Valley Republican, Senator Anthony Cannella, were the two GOP Senators to vote for the bill. Senator Nguyen abstained, with the rest of the caucus voting no.

This issue is currently pending in Budget Conference Committee as a $40 million item in the Senate's budget proposal. The next week or two will make a big difference in whether enrollment under SB4 would start in the budget year 2015-16.

BILLS LIMITING OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS

Four Health Access-sponsored consumer protection bills to prevent unfair out-of-pocket costs passed out of their "house of origin" this week and are heading to the second half and second legislative chamber in the weeks ahead. The remaining sponsored bill, AB 248 (Hernandez) on large employer junk insurance is further along in the process, having passed out of the Assembly several weeks ago.

* Requiring Accurate Provider Directories: SB 137 (Hernandez) would set standards for provider directories and establish more oversight on accuracy so people know whether their doctor and hospital are in network when they shop for coverage, change coverage, or try to use their coverage. SB 137 passed out of the Senate with bipartisan support. The final vote was 33-0.

* Preventing Surprise Bills: AB 533 (Bonta), which would protect patients from "surprise" bills from out-of-network doctors when they did the right thing by going to an in-network hospital, imaging center, or other facility, passed out of the Assembly with a vote of 74-1.

* Limiting Prescription Drug Cost Sharing: AB 339 (Gordon), which would prevent discrimination against consumers with health conditions by setting standards for cost sharing on prescription drugs passed out of the Assembly with a vote of 48-29.

* Capping Individual Out-of-Pocket Costs: AB 1305 (Bonta) on limitations on cost sharing in family coverage passed out of the Assembly with a vote of 78-0. This bill ensures that the ACA individual out-of-pocket maximum (now $6,600) will apply to individual patients-even if they are in a family plan (which has an overall family out-of-pocket max of $13,200).

* Prohibit Subminimum Coverage: AB 248 (Hernandez), which would prohibit sale of subminimum coverage by insurers to large employers passed out of the Assembly several weeks ago with a vote of 51-27 and will next be heard in Senate Health.

TRANSPARENCY

SB546 (Leno) would advance transparency in our health system by extending rate review to large group health coverage. This bill, which requires justification of above-average rate increases, passed out of the Senate with a vote of 23-16.

Other transparency bills faltered earlier this year, including SB 26 (Hernandez), which sought to create a health care cost and quality database, was held in Senate Appropriations Committee amid questions on how to finance it. Earlier in the process, AB 463 by Assemblyman Chiu to facilitate more disclosure on prescription drug costs was stalled in Assembly Health Committee. These efforts will likely be revisited in future years.

MEDI-CAL

Several bills designed to improve the Medi-Cal program, which now covers almost 12 million Californians, advanced out of their house of origin.

* SB 33 (Hernandez), which would limit estate recovery in Medi-Cal to the federally required minimum of long-term care services and eliminate recovery from the estate of a surviving spouse of a deceased beneficiary, passed out of the Senate with a vote of 33-0.
* AB 1231 (Wood), which would facilitate practical access to Medi-Cal specialty care through coverage of nonmedical transportation, also passed out with a vote of 76-0.
* AB 635 (Atkins), which would require the Department of Health Care Services to seek federal funding to establish a program to provide and reimburse for certified medical interpretation services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries with limited English proficiency, passed out of the Senate with a vote of 72-2.
* AB 366 (Bonta), which would require the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to report to the Legislature on Medi-Cal access passed out of the Assembly with a vote of 77-0. Originally introduced as a measure to restore Medi-Cal provider reimbursement rates and bring them up to Medicare levels in future years, this bill came out of the Appropriations Committee's suspense hearing significantly scaled back in scope. A companion measure SB 243 (Hernandez) was held in Appropriations during the suspense hearing and is not moving forward.

TOBACCO CONTROL

A handful of bills aimed at the negative health impacts of tobacco use passed, including SB 151 (Hernandez) to raise the smoking age from 18 to 21. SB 140 (Leno), which would revise the definition of tobacco products to include e-cigarettes, thus subjecting such products to the same regulations as other tobacco products, passed out of the Senate with a vote of 25-12. Public health groups, including the Heart Association, Lung Association, and Health Access supported that measure and opposed the related bill SB 24 (Hill), which did not classify e-cigarettes as tobacco. Research suggests that e-cigarettes have much the same negative effect as cigarettes. SB 24 (Hill) failed passage.

OTHER KEY CONSUMER BILLS

A full matrix of the latest on all active bills supported by Health Access and other health and consumer advocates is available online (here). That list includes ACA implementation legislation like SB 43 (Hernandez), which would extend the sunset date on essential health benefits standards from 2016 to 2018 and incorporate recent changes in federal guidance regarding habilitative care (services that help you keep, learn, or improve skills and functioning for daily living); AB 1117 (Garcia) would help bring more resources to Medi-Cal to improve immunization rates for 2-year-olds and AB 1299 (Ridley-Thomas) seeks to improve the delivery of mental health services for foster youth.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Now that these bills have passed the critical house of origin deadline, they will next be heard in the "other house," meaning if the bill was introduced in the Assembly, it will be heard in the Senate, and if the bill was introduced in the Senate, it will be heard in the Assembly. Committee hearings will resume on June 8th. Policy committees have until July 17th to meet and report bills out of committee.

This blog entry is cross-posted at http://blog.health-access.org. It was written by Sawait Hezchias-Seyoum, Health Care Policy Advocate, Health Access. Stay tuned for tools and talking points to bring these bills to the finish line.

The Mighty Bay Bridge?

Brian Leubitz — Thu, 28 May 2015 17:31:36 GMT

Another rod fails testing

by Brian Leubitz

When you spend $6.5 billion on something, you expect it to last a few years, even if it is one of the world's widest bridges. (That $6B+ price tag also set a Guinness record!)

Caltrans officials downplayed the failure, stressing that 99 percent of the 407 rods that underwent testing passed, and said that the cause will need to be determined by further tests in a materials lab. But the failure of a second rod leaves the possibility that more rods could eventually fail.
"Hydrogen embrittlement and corrosion occurs over time," said Steve Heminger, executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and one of three people on a committee overseeing the east span construction. "They could last 20 years or 50 years, but with this bridge, we want 150 years." ...
"This bridge is safe, and it's going to perform well in a major seismic event," he said. "The engineers are saying it's terrific."
Some independent experts are not convinced, however.
"That would suggest it did not strip, but that it fractured," said Bernard Cuzzillo, a Berkeley mechanical engineer. "Because a fracture results in a sudden release of elastic energy, which causes a pop or a bang sound. Stripping is a slower failure and typically does not result in an audible sound." (SF Gate)

Tollpayers will now be paying for a few million dollars worth of additional testing to give us all confidence, but doubt abounds. The rods are intended to grant additional stability during a seismic event, so perhaps it is natural that even one failure brings about a little nervousness in drivers using the bridge.

But the one certainty we have with the new eastern span is that this won't be the last we hear about corrosion and botched grouting.

Fast Food Owners and Workers Unite to Strengthen Jobs, Business

California Labor Federation — Wed, 13 May 2015 17:12:47 GMT

By Kathryn Slater-Carter and Jon Youngdahl

News headlines often depict the growing economic divide in our nation as a tug of war between workers and business, but in one critical sector of our economy - franchise enterprises -- entrepreneurs and workers are both being pushed into economic peril. Workers and franchise business owners are both being squeezed by giant corporations like McDonald's, having critical decisions that affect their livelihoods and their dignity forced on them by a faceless corporate headquarters. Workers and franchise owners alike face retaliation and the loss of their income if they speak out. For these reasons, both workers and franchise owners are coming together to fight for AB 525 (Holden), a bill that protects jobs by giving franchisees a fair shake so they can keep and grow the businesses they've nurtured.

A generation ago, McDonald's valued its franchisees as partners who built the strength of the brand in communities across the country. Now, McDonald's and other corporations built on the franchising model have gone the way of so many other industries that look to post short-term gains rather than build real value, even if it means driving franchise owners and workers into poverty.

Today, franchise agreements are so one-sided, franchisees have virtually no say in the businesses they've risked their life savings and dedicated years of their lives to build. Corporate headquarters control nearly every aspect of the business, can force new and unexpected costs onto franchise owners, and franchise owners can be punished for speaking out or joining with other franchise owners to improve business conditions. Franchises can even be shut down for arbitrary reasons, as Kathryn Slater-Carter experienced firsthand after working 30 years to build her Bay Area McDonald's franchise.

A survey of 1,100 franchise owners released in April found Kathryn's case is far from an isolated incident. Dissatisfaction with franchisors -- the parent corporations of franchise businesses - is widespread, and retaliation against franchise owners who speak out about problems is frequent. More than half of franchisees say they can't earn a living from their business. Four in 10 reported threats of having their franchise agreements terminated for taking actions they thought were appropriate for their business, and nearly 20% said their franchisor increased the frequency of inspections after the franchisee raised questions or spoke out about problems.

California franchisees and workers are both striving to be a part of California's economic future and AB 525 brings us one step closer to stabilizing small businesses so they can continue serving the needs of California's communities and strengthen the jobs that build our economy and provide for families.

The bill, the Small Business Investment Protection Act, would significantly expand the rights of franchisees and establish stronger protections against unfair termination or nonrenewal of contracts by franchisors. California workers support the bill because they know when franchisees can make decisions that are in the best interest of their businesses, they can invest in their employees.

Franchise owners and workers want the same thing - a fair shot at the American Dream. That's why we've formed an unlikely alliance to support AB 525. By ensuring franchisees have a fair shot at surviving as corporations squeeze more and more from franchisees and workers, AB 525 protects California small businesses and jobs.

Kathryn Slater-Carter was a McDonald's franchise owner for more than 30 years. Jon Youngdahl is the Executive Director of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California, which includes 700,000 private and public sector workers as members.

State Budget Preview: Medi-Cal, #Health4All, other health investments needed

awright — Wed, 13 May 2015 00:40:16 GMT

The annual state budget process, which began in January, comes into focus later this week when the Governor releases the May Revision of his proposed 2015-16 budget. Health and community advocates are urging the Governor and the Legislature to include funding for critical health programs in upcoming budget negotiations. These investments continue the Affordable Care Act's momentum by removing barriers to coverage, ensuring those covered in Medi-Cal get access to care along with important benefits, and extending coverage to the remaining uninsured.

The deadline for the Legislature to pass and the Governor to sign a budget is June 15. The Governor's May Revision sets the stage for a short month of negotiations, shaped by information about how much of a surplus is available given the state revenues that came in during April tax time, and constitutional formulas that limit the use of these funds.

Recent Budget Subcommittee Hearings: Since introducing the budget in January, the legislature's budget subcommittees have reviewed the Governor's proposed budget along with budget requests from advocates. In recent days, the Senate and Assembly Budget Subcommittees on Health and Human Services completed their reviews of the Governor's proposed budget, along with a range of urgent and needed health investments that were not included in the Governor's proposed budget, from expanding coverage without regard to immigration status to limiting estate recovery in Medi-Cal to restoring Medi-Cal benefits. The subcommittees left most of these items open for further discussions pending the May Revision. Many consumer and community organizations including Health Access California were on hand to strongly support these critical investments.
Immigrant Health Care. Although the Affordable Care Act made health coverage possible for millions of Californians, it excludes undocumented immigrants currently living and working in any state. If and when the President's executive order on immigration is upheld in court, those newly eligible for deferred action will have access to Medi-Cal. Advocates are proposing to expand that access to all Californians income eligible for Medi-Cal, without regard for immigration status, as proposed in SB 4 (Lara). The cost would be a small fraction of last year's proposal, amounting to only 2 more cents for every dollar spent on Medi-Cal, but would make a world of difference for not just immigrant families, but for our health system and society.

Estate Recovery. Advocates are also seeking that California limit Medi-Cal estate recovery to costs associated with long term care services and supports, consistent with minimum federal requirements. Last year, the Governor vetoed a bill to limit Medi-Cal estate recovery, arguing the policy change should be considered in the budget instead. Health Access will continue to vigorously advocate for this policy change so that older low-income Californians don't have to make a trade-off between seeking health care coverage and keeping their family home.

Restore Medi-Cal Benefits Eliminated in the 2009-10 Budget. Major cuts were made during the budget crisis that have yet to be restored, including Medi-Cal rates and benefits, and consumer advocates including Health Access request undoing those cuts. In this part week, the budget subcommittees heard a proposal to restore non-federally mandated yet critical Medi-Cal benefits that were eliminated for budgetary, not policy reasons, in response to the state fiscal crisis. They include, among other things: acupuncture, audiology, chiropractic, podiatry, speech therapy, and full restoration of adult dental coverage. Partial restoration of adult dental was done in the 2013-14 budget, which gives Medi-Cal beneficiaries access to preventative care, restorations, and full dentures. However, important services such as gum treatment and partial dentures or implants are still not covered in Medi-Cal. According to a recent study published in Health Affairs, California emergency departments experienced a spike in visits for dental issues after comprehensive dental benefits for adults were cut from Medi-Cal. The study further found that the lack of adult dental benefits shifts dental care needs to costly emergency departments where dental issues are not adequately addressed.

Medi-Cal Provider Rates. Many providers and consumer groups have sought to rescind the 10 percent Medi-Cal provider rate cut, which will encourage more providers to participate in Medi-Cal and help increase access for Medi-Cal beneficiaries. In fact, California's Medi-Cal provider reimbursement rates are among the lowest in the nation, making access to doctors, specialists, and beneficiaries harder for some of the 12 million Californians with Medi-Cal coverage.

What's Next: The Governor is expected to release his May Revision of the budget later this week. The budget subcommittees will then hold hearings to review the May Revision the following week (May 18-22), and the Budget Conference Committee will convene at the end of the month to hash out differences between actions taken by the two houses. A final budget must be passed by June 15th. Stay tuned for updates!

What is Carly Fiorina Running for?

Brian Leubitz — Tue, 05 May 2015 21:30:30 GMT

Pundits already discounting the failed Senate candidate

by Brian Leubitz

It is never good when an officer in your own party in your home state says this about your candidacy:

California GOP Vice Chairwoman Harmeet Dhillon said Monday she could envision Fiorina's campaign propelling her to a cabinet post or even a vice-presidential nomination.
"But I don't know a single person who thinks she'll be our presidential nominee," Dhillon said. (Josh Richman/BANG)

Perhaps she is using the campaign as a way to elevate her national profile for a cabinet gig. But that seems an awfully expensive and laborious task just to raise one's profile.

She's failed at HP, though I do give her credit for um, reducing costs while she was there. She's a failed Senate candidate here in California, and now she is looking to also become a failed presidential candidate as well?

You have to admire her tenacity against all the odds in this somewhat quixotic run, but at least I have high hopes for more Demon Sheep videos:

A Sunset Fit for Earth Day

Brian Leubitz — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:26:52 GMT

by Brian Leubitz

Because I love the beauty of this state, how about a series of photos of a coastal sunset.

STUDY: Prevailing Wage Adds 17,500 Jobs to California Economy

SmartCitiesPrevail — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:50:21 GMT

Prevailing Wage policies add 17,500 jobs and $1.4 billion in output across California's economy, according to a new study released by Smart Cities Prevail - a leading construction industry education and research organization.

Entitled, Building the Golden State-The Economic Impacts of California's Prevailing Wage Policy, the first-of-its-kind report was co-authored by Colorado State University-Pueblo Economist Dr. Kevin Duncan and Smart Cities Prevail Researcher Alex Lantsberg. The study was conducted using IMPLAN software (the industry standard for analyzing the effects of government policy choices on the economy) to model the impact of eliminating California's prevailing wage standards.

In addition to measuring the policies' impact on job creation and overall economic output, the study also concludes that prevailing wage policies facilitate broad improvements to the construction industry as a whole--including substantial reductions in materials waste and dramatic increases in both local hiring and overall workforce productivity.

To Download the Full Report, Click Here.
"While past research has already concluded that prevailing wage promotes workforce development, safer job sites, less dependence on public assistance, and has only negligible impacts on project cost, these new findings show the value of these standards both to the construction industry and our economy as a whole," said Dr. Kevin Duncan. "From creating jobs to increasing efficiency, it is clear that prevailing wage policies provide taxpayers with a far better return on investment than the less beneficial alternative."

While California has recently enacted new legislation (SB 7) to encourage more of its cities to enact prevailing standards, several other states-including Nevada, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan--are either considering or have recently passed laws to weaken prevailing wage requirements on public works.

"This study provides important context for the recent changes to California's prevailing wage laws, but also for the debates that are happening in other states across our country," Lantsberg said. "The data shows that the decision to weaken or eliminate prevailing wage is a choice that can increase poverty, export more tax dollars out of state, and eliminate thousands of jobs in the process."

Lantsberg added, "It's important to note that this study focuses on the benefits of the state prevailing wage policy, but does not analyze the additional positive benefits that come from federal and local policies. For example, the state and federally funded high speed rail project in California is estimated to create 20,000 prevailing wage construction jobs in the first 5 years of construction, and tens of thousands more in the years that follow."

Consequences of Prevailing Wage Elimination in California:

- Gross job losses of 48,500 and net job losses of 17,500
- 3%-5.5% increase in out-of-state contracting
- State Economic output reduced by $1.4 billion
- Real income reduced by $1.5 billion
- More construction professionals living at or near the poverty line.
- 12% decline in workforce productivity and 5% increase in materials waste

Kevin Duncan, Ph.D. is a nationally recognized economist specializing in labor and regional economics. Dr. Duncan currently works as a Professor of Economics in the Hasan School of Business at Colorado State University - Pueblo and Senior Economist at BCD Economics, LLC. he teaches regional economics where his students learn economic impact analysis.

Alex Lantsberg is a researcher with Smart Cities Prevail specializing in economics, land use, and urban planning. Mr. Lantsberg holds a Master's Degree in City Planning from the University of California, Berkeley and an undergraduate degree in finance from Northern Illinois University.

Prevailing Wage is the standard rate paid on publicly funded projects to a worker in a given trade, in a given region. Prevailing wage laws were first established federally and in some states in the 1930s - and supported by leaders from both political parties - in order to raise the quality of government funded construction projects and encourage more local hiring.

Smart Cities Prevail is a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization and California's leading research and informational resource on prevailing wage. For more information, visit www.smartcitiesprevail.org.

What Color is the Sky in Joel Fox's Fantasy World?

California Labor Federation — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:03:52 GMT

by Steve Smith

There's been a lot of attention lately on California's turnaround. As it turns out, that nonsense about all our jobs moving to Texas was a just Texas-sized whopper. Last year California created about 500,000 jobs to lead the nation in job growth, outpacing the conservative darling Texas.

Basically, the corporate narrative about California has gone up in smoke. In the last several years, California has done a litany of things that the corporate crowd claims kill jobs. We raised the minimum wage. We raised taxes on the rich with Prop 30 to better fund schools and public safety. We guaranteed paid sick days for all workers. We eliminated the wasteful enterprise zone tax credits for big businesses that cost the state nearly $1 billion per year. We got rid of another tax giveaway to business with Prop 39 and instead funneled those funds into clean energy projects that create good jobs. We strengthened regulations that protect workers and the environment. The list goes on and on.

So imagine my surprise when I read Joel Fox's blog on Fox & Hounds claiming that the Chamber of Commerce was actually responsible for the job growth in California. Oh, ok. Sure. That makes total sense, Joel. The Chamber constantly derides California as the most anti-business state in the country and now wants to claim credit for our success? That makes about as much sense as that idiotic scheme you participated in during the 2012 election to help the Koch Brothers and their rich, out-of-state friends funnel millions into California to help pass the anti-worker Prop 32 and defeat Prop 30. But, I digress.

Hidden at the bottom of Fox's inane blog is the one line we should all pay attention to in the context of this argument.

The Chamber's goal is to keep business costs low to improve the economy statewide.

By lowering "business costs" he means eliminating protections for workers and the environment, shrinking wages for workers, while cutting taxes on CEOs and the wealthiest among us. California has roundly rejected this shortsighted notion, unlike, say, Kansas, which is seeing the disastrous effects of implementing the big business plan.

California, under Gov. Jerry Brown, has shown the real path forward. You can create jobs AND protect workers and the environment. You can put more money in the pockets of those at the bottom while creating shared prosperity that benefits the economy as a whole. You can make the rich pay their fair share to fund our schools, public safety and other important services without hurting job growth. You can protect immigrant workers against exploitation and strengthen the ability for all workers to stand together in unions without hurting competitiveness. In fact, when you do those things, jobs DO grow. Wages DO grow. The economy gets stronger. And most importantly, lives change for the better.

Still, too many workers are struggling today. Now isn't the time to go backward on workers' rights. Instead, it's time to step on the pedal so we raise standards for all workers to combat growing inequality. The last few years we've put to rest the narrative that says doing good things for workers and the environment kills jobs.

So let's not waste time and let's continue doing more of what we know works. More investment in California's working people makes California a better place to live and raise a family. More support for workers and their families lowers poverty while creating an economy that works for everyone. And we do this not with the help of the Chamber of Commerce and its corporate CEO funders, we do it in spite of them.

New website reveals billionaire's campaign to dismantle retirement security

California Labor Federation — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 19:56:01 GMT

by Carolyn Constantino

A new website reveals that Enron-billionaire John Arnold has spent up to $50 million of his own fortune to dismantle retirement plans for firefighters, nurses, teachers and other public employees.

The website - Truth About John Arnold - is sponsored by the National Public Pension Coalition (NPPC) and Californians for Retirement Security and traces the wide financial influence that one billionaire has on public pension fights. John Arnold amassed his fortune as an Enron trader, where he earned an $8 million bonus as the company's collapse decimated $1.5 billion in public pension assets. Arnold turned his $8 million into billions as a Wall Street hedge fund manager.

Dave Low, California School Employees Association (CSEA) Executive Director and Chairman of Californians for Retirement Security explains,

"John Arnold is the second youngest billionaire in America. John Arnold has decided to spend his billions to take hard earned retirement benefits away from school bus drivers, teachers, nurses, firefighters and other public employees. What is in the heart of someone who, having become one of the richest people on the planet, decides to use that wealth to undermine the retirement security of working class Americans who have dedicated their entire careers to public service?"

Arnold's spending has touched every facet of anti-retirement campaigning, including tainted research, political advocacy organizations, ballot initiatives, journalism, and the campaign coffers of extreme politicians. He is involved in battles to limit retirement security across the country through his foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and his political PAC, Action Now.

"Lawmakers, workers, and the public at large deserve to know that the funding to dismantle retirement security for firefighters, nurses, teachers and other public employees across the country can be traced back to one source - Enron-billionaire John Arnold," said Bailey Childers, Executive Director of NPPC.

The truth about John Arnold:

- In 2013, Arnold was the leading financier of former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed's failed effort to put a statewide pension-gutting initiative on the ballot.
- Arnold was the lead financier ($150,000) of an effort to end public pensions in Ventura County. A judge declared the effort unconstitutional.
- Arnold spent more than $1 million dollars on a ballot initiative in Phoenix to close the pension system. That effort was defeated by voters in 2014.
- The Laura and John Arnold Foundation underwrote a PBS series called "Pension Peril." The PBS Ombudsman declared the $3.5 million contribution inappropriate. The grant was returned and the series pulled from the air.
- Arnold underwrites Pew Charitable Trusts' pension work with a $4.85 million contribution.

Learn more about John Arnold here.

Cross-posted from CSEA.