The Capitol Weekly

Getting at the Roots of California’s Deep Political Schizophrenia

Erin Drankoski — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:24:00 -0400

Maybe we Californians have such a hard time figuring out how to fix the state because we are too close to the problem. How might an analyst sent here from another world--think of him as an extraterrestrial Alexis de Tocqueville, well read in California history and deeply versed on political practices elsewhere on this globe--diagnose California's ailments?

Constitutional Overhaul Would Omit Prop. 13 Property Tax Changes | Capitol Weekly

Cecille Isidro — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:55:00 -0400

One of these is Mark Paul, senior scholar with the non-partisan New America Foundation. "I think it's silly to have a conversation about the future direction of California without talking about Prop. 13," Paul said. "I think it's fundamental. ...

State Workers, Agencies Try to Flee the General Fund | Capitol Weekly

Cecille Isidro — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:04:00 -0400

The move away from the general fund is a predictable response to a pair of trends that have been chipping away at this money for years, according to Mark Paul, a senior scholar with the non-partisan New America Foundation. First is the tendency to rely ...

The Housing Crisis: Main Street Needs Help, Too

Cecille Isidro — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:58:00 -0400

Seven hundred billion dollars to bail out the banking and financial industries is a lot of money. But let's not forget where this crisis started: in a failing housing market, the initial domino in the meltdown. The banks are being bailed out - but what about housing?

Too many people today are spending too much of their income on keeping a roof over their heads. Nearly half of Americans are "rent burdened," spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Whether it is high rents or a mortgage, these excessive costs drive people into debt. The problem has been escalating, and examples can be seen in all sectors of the housing market and all areas of the country.

For instance in April of this year, the Chicago Housing Authority opened its waiting list for Section 8 housing vouchers. More than 250,000 people signed up to be in a lottery for the 40,000 open slots. "Winning" a voucher meant its holder will "only" have to pay 30% of their income to rent. By winning this lottery they will have enough leftover money -- barely enough -- to afford food, medicines and other necessities, providing these families with some semblance of security.

Those are the lucky ones. Nearly 20% of families pay 50% of their income to housing costs. Those families have to make painful choices between housing, food and medicines that no one in this land of wealth should have to make. They are one paycheck or medical bill away from losing their home. Tens of thousands of these people could benefit from an expanded rental subsidy program, yet the federal budget for Section 8 housing vouchers is flat.

For homeowners the situation is no better. Adjustable rate mortgages have left many owners either barely or unable to pay escalating mortgages. So far in the first six months of 2008, foreclosures have risen to an all time high. In July of this year, 272,171 properties received a foreclosure filing or a default notice, were warned of a pending auction or were foreclosed on during the month.

Yet during the recent banking bailout, proposals that would have helped homeowners meet their mortgage payments and stay in the homes failed to gather sufficient bipartisan support. As more homeowners go into foreclosure and their homes are boarded up, that unleashes a domino effect where the blighted homes drag down the property values in these neighborhoods, worsening the situation for everyone and further sinking the economy.

But it's not just during the recent banking bailout that the nation's housing needs have been ignored. Looking at federal investment in public housing going back decades, we see that much of public housing is deteriorating and in need of repair. The lack of repairs puts the building's residents at risk, as well as threatens the viability of the building. Yet once again the federal budget for maintenance of public housing is shrinking. It's nothing less than tragic that, as the need for housing is increasing, the real dollar investment has been decreasing.

The national housing crisis calls for a different approach. As Congress and the President seek to ease the crisis, solutions must be found in programs that ensure the affordability and availability of safe and decent housing.

First, we must start with ensuring housing stability, and that will require investment in the existing housing stock. Second, legislation should focus on making sure that the thousands of people facing foreclosure or eviction are able to stay in their homes. Interest rates should be capped to make sure that each family's investment is protected, and this in turn will also help to make sure that the banks don't fail. Barack Obama has proposed a three month moratorium on foreclosures for some homeowners, and that's a good start.

Third, rental subsidies can be increased or rent control can be used to ensure that no one pays more than 30% of their income to rent. Finally, the government can build more affordable housing and make sure that it is well-maintained; part of this task can be accomplished with a sizable increase in the use of nonprofit housing corporations who build "social housing" for people, not for profits.

One of the primary roles of government should be to create conditions so that families can succeed. Rather than saying Wall Street and the banking industry are too big to fail, a better outlook would recognize that Main Street and all the people living in our communities are too many to fail.

It will not matter how much relief the government gives to Wall Street. If housing costs remain too high, Main Street will continue to struggle as more and more people are unable to pay their mortgages or rents.

Mark Paul in Capitol Weekly | 'Will Non-Profit Foundations Save Political Journalism?'

Communications — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:11:00 -0400

...But there is wide agreement that as the press corps diminishes, there is an increasing lack of quality state political information. "The importance of having an independent journalism that played a watchdog function is extremely important in keeping government honest and responsive," said Mark Paul, deputy director of the New America Foundation's California program... LINK

How to Revive Redistricting Reform

Cecille Isidro — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:40:00 -0400

In the movie Groundhog Day, the Bill Murray character, a weatherman who is doomed to repeat the same day over and over, asks a question that haunts redistricting reformers in California: "What would you do if you were stuck in one place and everyday was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered?"

With the recent failure of the Legislature to place redistricting reform on the ballot -- for the second year in a row -- reformers are scrambling for a way forward. One way would be to spend millions of dollars to gather signatures on a voter initiative. But without support from California’s Democratic leaders, that path likely would result in the Son of Proposition 77, a replay of the Schwarzenegger-supported measure that failed miserably at the ballot box in 2005.

Redistricting reform is snagged in the same web of incumbent and partisan self-interest that for years has bedeviled the best of well-intentioned efforts. But a statewide survey commissioned by the nonpartisan New America Foundation offers the best way forward.

The survey found that 70 percent of California voters are more likely to support political reform proposed by a panel of average citizens than they are to support the ideas of a government committee, or even a panel of independent experts. Revealing strong distrust of politicians, the survey also found 70 percent support for the convening of a "citizens assembly" of the type that has been demonstrated recently in Canada.

A citizens assembly is composed of 160 randomly selected voters who reflect the diversity and demographics of the population. This body spends nearly a year studying the election process and holding numerous public hearings.

Then, they are empowered to formulate reform proposals that are placed directly on the ballot, without tampering by the state legislature or governor, for ratification by their fellow citizens.

In short, a citizens assembly process creates a new, more deliberative route to the ballot for political reform that removes incumbency protection and partisanship from the process. And it holds the potential to engage the public in a way the current process will never do. Instead of relying on the whims of a self-interested legislature, or some Silicon Valley gazillionaire to buy her or his way on to the ballot, a citizens assembly allows average citizens to be in the driver’s seat via a very public process.

In the New America survey, three-fourths of the respondents said they would like to see the governor and the legislature create a citizens assembly in California. And more than two-thirds said if the governor and legislature failed to create one, they would vote for an initiative to create the citizens’ assembly.

Therein lies the key to reform. In recent years, a number of promising reforms have been proposed for California’s political system -- independent redistricting, term limits, "top two" primary, public financing of campaigns, instant runoff voting -- but all have faced the same obstacle: entrenched interests, including elected lawmakers, who benefit from the status quo.

Oftentimes the reform itself has been viewed as an extension of the partisan war, whether it’s redistricting perceived as a GOP gambit or Proposition 89’s public financing seen as a vehicle of certain labor unions.

So a citizens assembly solves a real dilemma: How do we enact meaningful political reform when political parties and special interests have conflicts of interest that induce them to manipulate the rules in their favor?

Californians want reform, but they want it to be done in a fair and nonpartisan way. What is overwhelmingly clear is that people don’t trust politicians or special interests to design our democracy.

For over two years, both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic leaders have said they agree on the need for reform but have been unable to come together on the details. Given the poll numbers showing Californians’ overwhelming support, the political moment couldn’t be riper for convening a California Citizens Assembly. Let average citizens propose to their fellow Californians what political reform is best for our state.

Kids' Accounts Warrant Debate

Cecille Isidro — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:38:00 -0400

Governor Schwarzenegger was cheered when he recently talked about post-partisanship in Washington, D.C. But the post-partisan waters don’t run deep back home in California. Two state senators who just crossed the aisle to forward a creative solution to a pressing problem are getting more grief than glory.

Senator Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Robert Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, held a press conference on February 28 to introduce their bill to create a California Kids Account for every newborn. The goal is to encourage parents to start saving early for their children’s future and, in the process, build the whole family’s financial know-how. This bill is essential to equip the next generation with the expertise and tools they’ll need to gain a middle class foothold in a society where employers and government play a smaller caretaking role.

But the vision and purpose of this bill was twisted almost exactly backward by the political bombardment that followed the press conference.
Here’s how the accounts would work: California would deposit an initial $500. The money couldn’t be touched until the child turns 18. Then it could only be used to pay for college, technical training, to buy a home or invested in a retirement account. Parents, relatives and the child could make regular contributions to grow the nest egg

The $500 deposit isn’t a giveaway. It’s an investment.

But the bloggers and talk-radio junkies went ballistic. Before the bill could get a fair hearing, they wrongly slapped three labels on it, calling it: 1) socialist 2) big government and 3) an illegal-immigrant magnet. It’s this last one that Dutton’s office got over 1,000 calls about. Their office was so overwhelmed that they dropped off the bill.

There’s a long list of democrats -- including U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer -- with their own Kids Account proposals. But the Kids Account isn’t a Democrat or Republican idea. It’s an American one.

And big government? Kids Accounts grow out of the reality that the era of big government is over. Kids Accounts recognize the growing responsibility families have to manage their own health, education and retirement needs. That’s especially tough when you start with no assets to your name, the situation for a quarter of white kids and more than half of blacks and Latinos. Kids Accounts give all kids a head start. From the day they’re born, we’ll start to grow more savers, investors and owners, and fewer people who are dependent on the state.

The most ridiculous beef with the proposal is that Kids Accounts would encourage illegal immigration. The notion that prospective parents will enter California so that, 18 years later, the child will have limited access to $500, is absurd. Moreover, every child born in the United States is a U.S. citizen, not a second-class citizen.

Finally, what can California expect if this bill becomes law? We can look to Great Britain. Great Britain launched a version of KIDS Accounts, called the Child Trust Fund, for each of the 700,000 children born in the U.K. every year, beginning in September 2002. As a result, the percentage of those who electronically deposit monthly savings in bank accounts for children has since doubled. And the amount being saved each month is up 60 percent. Preliminary analyses show the greatest savings increases amongst low-income families. Projections show most children will reach 18 with a financial springboard of more than $18,000.

Kids Accounts aren’t cheap. They’d run about $280 million a year. But let’s put that number in perspective. Last year’s infrastructure bonds had a $37 billion price tag. Those bonds are costing us about $1.8 billion a year in interest. If we can pay people $1.8 billion a year in interest, we can invest 15% of that amount in kids, our most precious infrastructure.

Kids Accounts ask us to look at our world in a new way, so the bill naturally demands a legitimate and vigorous debate. Unfortunately, political attacks can stifle a policy debate. But they can’t stop the future from coming.

National Direct Election of the President is Good for California

Cecille Isidro — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:12:00 -0400

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sitting on his desk a bill that he ought to sign. Signing AB 2948 would establish California as a national leader in the effort to create a nationwide popular vote for president, which recent elections have shown would be a more democratic method than the 18th Century Electoral College.

Unfortunately, AB 2948 has become bogged down in the usual divisive partisan sand-box squabbling that afflicts our national politics. Democratic legislators voted to pass this bill with near unanimity, while Republican legislators treated this legislative bill as if it is radioactive. Perhaps the Republican view opposing changes to how we elect the president has become skewed by the 2000 election, where Al Gore won the national popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote and the presidency.

But this is a misreading of the partisan consequences of the Electoral College. In fact, the current method nearly cost George W. Bush the presidency in the 2004 election. If a mere 60,000 voters in Ohio had changed their minds and voted for Democrat John Kerry instead of President Bush, Kerry would have won the presidency even though he still would have lost the national popular vote to Bush by 3 million votes. No doubt if that had occurred, quite a few more Republicans would be questioning the relevance of the Electoral College.

But, beyond partisan considerations, there are other reasons that the Electoral College -- which has not been copied by any states to elect governors and by no other democracy around the world -- is failing our country. Its greatest defect is that it turns what should be a national election into one where only a handful of states and a handful of voters matter. Voters are treated differently based on where you live.

In this era of Red vs. Blue America, most states have become lopsided strongholds for one of the two major parties. No more than 10 out of 50 states are up for grabs, the rest -- including our three largest states, California, Texas and New York -- are predictably safe for one party or the other. In fact, months before the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, it was obvious that the elections would be decided in only two states: Ohio and Florida.

All the other states, and the voters who live in them, were ignored. The candidates did not visit most states, they didn’t even spend money on TV ads in most states. And the 2008 presidential election likely will be decided in Ohio and Florida as well.

But it gets worse. In the modern era of campaigning, political strategists are guided by polls and focus groups to figure out which Ohioans or Floridians are comfortably in one camp or the other, and which voters are undecided. All campaign appeals and TV ads then are targeted at the undecided voters -- the infamous swing voters. The issues of the presidential election thus become ones that appeal to a small number of voters.

So, what should be a national election in which the candidates are debating the most pressing issues of our times instead becomes one decided by a handful of voters in a handful of states. The issues are dumbed down to those that pander to a small minority. All other voters, and the issues they care about, are left on the political sidelines. Most voters don’t even need to bother showing up, and the campaign strategists know it.

This is leading to the impoverishment of our national politics, since most voters are not engaged during the most important of our elections. So, the current Electoral College system is not good for Republicans, Democrats or for Americans. It is a product of another century, and the readings of Madison’s recordings of the Constitutional Convention reveal that its design was not one founded on the framers’ brilliance, but rather drafted by a confused group of men who had no precedents to guide them. The Electoral College broke down within the first couple of elections, prompting the passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804.

Now, in the 21st century, it is creating havoc again, and it is time to shove the indirect election of our president into the historical dustbin, just as our nation once did when we passed the 17th Amendment to require direct election of United States senators.

The bill sitting on Schwarzenegger’s desk takes baby steps toward creating a national direct election. Rather than passing a constitutional amendment, AB 2948 utilizes the ability of states to enter into treaties with each other to award each state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Once a critical mass of states wielding a majority of electoral votes (currently at least 270) has agreed to the treaty, only then would it go into effect among all those states. At that point, the presidential election would become a de facto national popular vote.

So, signing this bill does not commit California to any change until a majority of Americans in other states enact the treaty as well. By signing AB 2948, Gov. Schwarzenegger will show Californians -- indeed the nation -- how to rise above knee-jerk partisan reaction and do what is right for our state and our country.

California Should Improve Awareness of EITC Refund

Cecille Isidro — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 03:00:00 -0400

New research reveals that California is dead last in bringing home the country's largest resource for working-poor families. By April 17, hundreds of thousands of Californians will miss out on applying for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a source of sizeable refunds that give a financial boost to those at the low end of the pay scale. Golden State residents leave almost $1 billion in federal funds unapplied for. California families pay a big price when they leave these dollars sitting in Washington, D.C. People who earn up to $37,263 can claim EITC refunds that average $1700, but can be up to $4400 for working parents.

Simply put, these tax windfalls help families make it. Studies show people spend them to fix the car or pay for the big expenses they sometimes can't cover with their regular paychecks. These tax windfalls also give many Californians their best chance to save each year. This is important, given that almost 8 million Californians live in "asset poverty," meaning they don't have enough savings and assets to survive for three months at the poverty level if they lost their jobs. The EITC has been proven to lift more children out of poverty than any other federal program.

Rosa Hernandez heard about the EITC from a friend and applied for the first time this year. A mother of three, she teaches pre-school in Kerman, a small town outside Fresno. She received $4400 to supplement her $15,000 salary. She plans to make the refund go a long way toward catching up on bills and caring for her children.

People like Hernandez don't apply for the credit because they don't know about it. Or they think they don't earn enough to file a federal tax return. Latinos, non-English speakers and people in the Central Valley are especially likely to miss out.

Low-income neighborhoods also lose big. In urban and rural areas throughout the state, often 25 percent of eligible people never apply. Millions of unclaimed EITC dollars will never be spent at local grocery stores and other neighborhood businesses. Most California cities miss out on tens of millions of dollars.

It's odd the state doesn't do more to spur Californians to claim this important resource -- especially since it doesn't drain a dime from our depleted state coffers.

California should look north to Washington State. In 1999, state leaders learned that 40 percent of eligible residents weren't applying for the EITC. They developed materials to raise awareness of the credit, conducted a media campaign and set up a hotline. Significant media time was donated and the toll-free number received 67,000 calls. The campaign cost $316,000 for its first year, and less each year thereafter. Five years later, an estimated 80 percent of eligible Washingtonians -- thousands more families -- were receiving the credit.

A California public-awareness campaign would, of course, cost more. But if every dollar the state invested brought almost $20 into the hands of California's working-poor families, as it did in Washington, it would be worth it.

When California is in better fiscal shape, it could create a state EITC, as 18 other states have. These state credits provide a modest match to the federal ones to encourage more people to apply. For example: Illinois and Indiana both give a five- and six-percent match, respectively.

Other states, like New York, provide a 30-percent match. San Francisco is the only California city to provide a local match, called the Working Families Credit. 9600 San Franciscans claimed the credit last year; the city paid out an average $220 to applicants. Other cities should consider this innovative policy.

We're always hearing how California doesn't get its fair share of federal funds for things like roads and highways. Here's an opportunity for state leaders to take steps to bring home dollars that will go directly to their constituents who need it the most. This should be a no-brainer.