It is Time To End the Two-Thirds Rule

In theory the requirement in California to obtain the consent of two-thirds of the legislature to vote for a budget sounds like an idea that would promote consensus building and bipartisanship. I wish I could say that was in the intent, but it was more mundane. The intent was to prevent tax increases from being enacted. For many years it has accomplished exactly that; however as time has gone on, it has exacted a higher and higher price. It has prevented the type of wholesale structural changes that we need for reform to take place.

It has led to gridlock, forcing budget after budget to be adopted late. It has led to unnecessary delay, wasted time, and worse yet, in a crisis outright paralysis.

An early February Public Policy Institute of California survey showed that for the first time, a majority of Californians supported altering the two-thirds vote requirement to require a 55% vote. That was before our latest drama with the budget.

For years Democrats have wanted to take it on. Now for the first time they are serious about doing so. The only question is how soon they do it and whether or not there is finally the political will for it to succeed.

At the core, were Republicans who seemingly were willing to plunge California into fiscal crisis rather than vote for a tax increase that their own leadership said they had no choice but to support because it was the only way to balance the budget. At which point, at least in the Senate, they got rid of their leadership and elected a more intractable leader.

It was a process that saw one Senator exact a high price in order to finally secure his, the 27th vote in the Senate, and secure the passage of the budget. The price is a constitutional amendment to have an open primary.

Without the two-thirds vote requirement it is clear that the open primary issue would have never come forward. Speaker Karen Bass at the post-budget vote press conference early Thursday morning expressed regret that it came forward in the manner that it did without the kind of public process she would have preferred.

“I will tell you that none of us felt very comfortable with putting a bill forward like the open primary because it was never heard by a committee, there was no public process, that's not the way we like to do business. But the fact of the matter is that just represents one of the many many many difficult choices that we made over these last few weeks.”

She continued:

“If we didn't have the two-thirds requirement to pass the budget tonight's open primary issue would not have even been a concern. We would have passed a budget a long time ago. But you very well know that we needed one more Republican vote in order to pass this budget. And the requirement for that vote was to pass this bill.”

Indeed both Speaker Bass as well as Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg seem ready to lead the effort to repeal the two-thirds vote requirement.

As Pro Tem Steinberg said:

“The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement. We are one of three states in the country that allows a small minority of members to hold up the progress.... It doesn't really work for California; it worked this time barely because of the magnitude of the crisis... We need to take the question this two-thirds supermajority to the ballot. I feel even stronger now than I did when I started on December 1.”

Speaker Karen Bass was also ready for the two-thirds requirement to go.

“One of the things I want to be voting on, if not in 09, then 2010, and that's the removal of the 2/3rds vote requirement so that California can be like 47 other states in the union. So the next time when we have a deficit like this we won't go months and months for negotiations.”

The big problem is that two-thirds vote requirement does not produce consensus building, but rather political blackmail, horse trading, quid pro quo, and it often requires the passage of pork in order to secure votes.

To the hold outs get the spoils. Senator Lou Correa is getting an extra $140 million in property tax revenue for Orange County over the next two years and $50 million after that. You see, Orange County happens to have the second lowest per capita property tax revenue in the state. You know who has the lowest? YOLO COUNTY.

However Yolo County is not getting that help, despite a $22 million deficit for 2009-10 in a budget of $66 million. Why is Yolo County not getting that help? Because Senator Lois Wolk and Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada did not blackmail the Democratic leadership and holdout for pork or other promises.

Senator Correa was not alone. Senator Ashburn, one of three Republican votes got a $10,000 tax credit to people who buy new homes.

And of course it is well known about all the things that Senator Maldonado got in exchange for his vote. There is nothing new about this though.

There is concern that the deal cut with Senator Maldonado to enable the budget to be passed sets a bad precedent. That was downplayed to a large degree. Speaker Bass argued that these types of things always happen, although it is more likely to be a specific project or even policy.

“Every year the budget is debated and frankly at the end of every session there's last minute horse trading. Until we get rid of the two-thirds vote requirement we will be doing the same thing.”

Senator Steinberg:

“I don't like it and it was an unpleasant part of the process, but I'll tell you what the answer is. The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement.”

That movement is already underfoot.

The Courage Campaign has already launched a campaign to end the two-thids vote.

"The rule requiring a 2/3rds vote of the legislature to pass a budget allowed a small cabal of extremist Republicans led by Senator Abel Maldonado to hold the state hostage to their demands, as they have done year after year. As Rachel Maddow explained on her show, this is part of a pattern of Republican obstruction across America."

They are not alone. Word is the Democrats in the legislature have already hired consultants to spearhead the initiative drive.

The League of California Cities recently put out a publication where the focus was on the two-thirds vote requirements. The side in favor of retaining the two-thirds requirement is represented by Assemblyman Roger Niello. At least give him credit, he was one of the three in the Assembly to vote for the bill.

John Laird, an Assemblymember and former League of California Cities board member writes for the opposing side.

One of the problems hanging over the process is the fact that Republicans who vote for these budgets put themselves in electoral jeopardy:

"After a 2001 budget in which four Assembly Republicans joined all Democrats in approving a budget, for various reasons not one of those Republican legislators returned after the next election. That experience hangs over every budget."

Indeed this time we saw a conservative blogger put Republicans heads on the pike, threats from Rush Limbaugh, and the very real possibility of recall for Assemblyman Anthony Adams.

The Redlands Daily Facts reports:

Sen. Robert Dutton on Friday asked state Assemblyman Anthony Adams to resign as chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Party after Adams voted in favor of nearly $13 million in temporary tax hikes.

...

"Anthony Adams has called Senate Republicans `recalcitrant' because they won't support a budget proposal that raises taxes on hard-working California families by more than $13 billion," Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, said in a prepared statement Friday. "It's clear that Assemblyman Adams doesn't represent the core values of the Republican Party and I am calling on him to immediately resign as chair of the San Bernardino Republican Party."

As the Sacramento Bee reported in the Capitol Alerts, he knows this is probably the end of his political career :

Republican Assemblyman Anthony Adams cast his "aye" budget vote at dawn today with full knowledge that, as he has said, "this will probably be the end of a political career for me."

...

"I think it's important that people know that my caucus is supportive -- that I'm not making any decision lightly," Adams said on his way into a GOP member's office Wednesday. "I'm also not making a decision outside the realm of our caucus. I'm not out there by myself or trying to engage in something that does not have the support of my caucus."

The Bee article continues:

A recall effort against him is already afoot.

The 38-year old lawmaker has been in anti-tax advocates' crosshairs ever since a Sacramento Bee story on Jan. 22 and an appearance later that day on the John and Ken radio show in Southern California. The shock jocks were blasting Republicans, including Adams, for telling The Bee that taxes were on the table in budget talks.

"I dare with the full knowledge that this will probably be the end of a political career for me," Adams told the radio duo. "But the fact of the matter is California is in a place where they need people who are willing to sacrifice their own personal agenda for what's right."

The radio hosts responded by posting an image of Adams' decapitated head on a stick on their Web site.

Truth be told, Anthony Adams is much closer to a hero in the budget battle than Abel Maldonado ever was. He never tried to hijack the process or hold the state for ransom. Instead, he did what he believed he needed to do to protect the state of California and exercise his constitutional duties as an elected official. For that he is probably looking at the end of his political career.

This weekend it is reported that at the Republican's state convention that the six Republican lawmakers will face the possibility of censure by their own political party.

Who would want to subject themselves to that? Who will do so in the future the next time a budget fight comes down and the legislators have to grapple with unpleasant choices? This is not done. There is a possibility that the May revise will be bring even worse news.

The movement is already afoot to repeal the two-thirds vote requirement. On February 18k, 2009, a ballot initiative was already circulating with the California Secretary of State's webpage to do exactly that.

In fact there are two of them.

The language of the first:

"STATE BUDGET. REPEAL OF TWO-THIRDS LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Lowers the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget, and spending bills related to the budget, from sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) to fifty five percent. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown changes in the content of the annual state budget. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. (08-0022.)"

The second one would retain the two-thirds vote requirement for raising property taxes but remove it for the budget.

STATE BUDGET. TAXES. REPEAL OF TWO-THIRDS LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Lowers the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget, spending bills related to the budget, and budget-related tax increases, from sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) to fifty-five percent. Retains sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) vote requirement for property tax increases. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown state fiscal impacts from lowering the legislative vote requirement for spending and tax increases related to the budget. In some cases, the content of the annual state budget could change and/or state tax revenues could increase. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. (08-0023.)

As this process shows us quite clearly, we need to change the system for so many ways. First, in an emergency we get a watered down budget that often does not fix the problems.

Second, it leads to delay. Had we passed this back in September of last year, the tax measures could have gone on the November ballot rather than this year's May ballot, and the state could have saved the multimillion dollar cost of a special election. Moreover, the delay cost the state billions of dollars, it costs people jobs, it delayed infrastructure projects that will cost money as well.

Third, it leads to political blackmail. It encouraged holdouts to extort prices for their votes. It gave them perks and rewards for holdout and but the people in districts where the legislators did not hold out often need the help just as badly. The process is inherently unfair.

Fourth, it leads to death threats to politicians, usually Republicans, whose career are now threatened for doing the responsible thing.

And just for good measure, Assemblyman Laird mentions another drawback to the two-thirds process.

"As I write this, the budget is almost two months late. The Democratic legislative committees and the governor have long since proposed balanced budgets with some new taxes, none of which include borrowing.

If by the time you read this, there is borrowing in the budget, it is not what the governor or a majority of the Legislature wanted. It will be the two-thirds requirement that will have leveraged it in so the budget process can conclude. To add insult to injury, often the very interests that leverage borrowing into the budget won’t actually vote for the budget — leaving it to the rest of us to approve a budget that includes things we find distasteful.

It’s said the two-thirds requirement protects fiscal responsibility. I think the opposite is true. We got where we are now with the two-thirds requirement. This is no way to run the government of the eighth largest economy in the world. This needs to be changed. There’s a reason 47 other states do not do this — and that their budgets are adopted on time."

Laird is exactly correct. We do not have fiscal responsibility. We did not pass a responsible budget in September of 2008 and we did not pass one now. We have more borrowing, added pork, we have not fixed the state's structural problems, we have special measures on the ballot, etc. Nothing even resembling fiscal responsibility occurred due to this process.

There is always talk of ending the two-thirds requirement, this time, it appears that there just might be the political will to do it.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Congressman Mike Thompson for Secretary of Interior?

The Associated Press is reporting that two California Democratic Congressional leaders, George Miller and Anna Eshoo, sent a letter to President-elect Obama urging them to consider Congressman Mike Thompson for the Secretary of Interior.

Miller's chief of staff, Danny Weiss said:

"They believe that he would make an excellent secretary, has a broad base of support and knows the issues very well, both from the environmental side and the natural resources side, and they encouraged the transition team to consider him strongly."

According to the Associated Press:

"Nearly three dozen sportsmen's groups, including Ducks Unlimited and Wildlife Forever, also sent a letter to President-elect Barack Obama's transition team supporting Thompson.

Thompson backers are heartened by comments Obama made in an interview with Field & Stream magazine in September. He said his Interior secretary probably would be a sportsman or sportswoman.

"I think that having a head of the Department of Interior who doesn't understand hunting and fishing would be a problem," the magazine quoted Obama as saying."

It continues:

Thompson, 57, won re-election in November and will start his sixth term in January. He serves on the Ways and Means and Intelligence committees, and co-founded the Wine Caucus when he arrived in Congress in 1999.

He is an avid hunter and has pushed legislation and disaster relief on behalf of salmon fishermen in Northern California.

In a statement Thursday, Thompson said, "It's an honor to be recognized by the many groups I've worked with over the years, but no one associated with President-elect Obama has contacted me."

This has opened the speculation already on places such as Matt Rexroad's blog, as to who possible replacements would be in a district that includes seven counties stretch from Yolo in the Southeast each through Napa and Sonoma all the way to Humboldt and Del Norte counties up at the Oregon border.

Some possibilities include former State Senator Wes Chesbro, current State Senator Pat Wiggins, both of whom serve(d) the 2nd Senate District which covers the northern coastal portion of the 1st Congressional District.

Among locals names such as Senator-elect Lois Wolk, Supervisors Helen Thomson and Mike McGowan, Assemblywoman-elect Mariko Yamada, and West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon.

As Rexroad points out, Yolo County does have more people and more Democrats in the 1st Congressional District than any other county. On the other hand, it is in the southeastern extreme portion of the county and there are members of the legislature better situation. Both Yamada and Wolk were just now elected. I think this is Chesbro or Wiggins' to lose if they want it, but of course, Mike Thompson would have to be offered and accept the job.

Mike Thompson somewhat fits the profile, although usually you see a Western Senator or Governor get the offer. The Democrats find themselves with a number of pretty good candidates with some of the more populist western governorships they now hold. Of course, do they want to give up those positions? Already, we have seen Obama offer Arizona Governor Napolitano the Secretary of Homeland Security, a position she has reportedly accepted. Would he dip into that well for a Brian Schweitzer (Governor of Montana) or a Bill Ritter (Governor of Colorado)? Thompson has the advantage of being from a safe seat which is nearly three-quarters Democrat.

This pick does give a bit of local intrigue to the race for the second time this week, as UC Davis law professor emeritus and former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso was named as part of a search team.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Mike Machado Opens His Mouth and Inserts His Foot

It seems that Joe Biden is not the only Democrat with a propensity to shoot his mouth off and say the exact wrong thing.

A few weeks ago we castigated the Stockton Record for thinking so parochially in the State Senate Race. They argued that voters should support Republican Greg Aghazarian primarily because he is from Stockton and Stockton needs representation in Sacramento. Yolo and Solano Counties, be darned. Public policy issues and the fact that Aghazarian would be in the minority party and have considerably less power to enact legislation to help the district also did not seem to weigh into their minds.

However, it is one thing for a newspaper to say it. It is another thing for the outgoing state senator to say it.

But that is exactly what Senator Mike Machado said in the Stockton Record yesterday.

It appears that Lois Wolk is in pretty good shape to win the State Senate Seat. But fellow Democrat Alyson Huber who is battling for an open Assembly Seat in a district that oddly includes Amador County, Sacramento County, and San Joaquin County, certainly did not need that kind of help.

Here is what the Record writes:

"The race to fill the seat of Linden Democrat Michael Machado, who leaves the California Senate this year because of term limits, is pivotal. Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, and Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian, R-Stockton, are vying to replace him.

Lodi Republican Alan Nakanishi is another victim of term limits. A race for his 10th District Assembly seat between Democrat Alyson Huber of El Dorado Hills and Lodi Republican Jack Sieglock is hotly contested.

If the Democrats take these two seats, local residents will end up with no representatives in Sacramento who live in the county."

However, then Mike Machado had to open his mouth.

Machado said that outcome would leave the county at a disadvantage.

"It's going to be a challenge for this area to have a voice," he said. "There are a lot of issues unique to the area that aren't necessarily in sync with the rest of the districts."

This is just a baffling statement considering that Senator Machado has endorsed both Wolk and Huber in their respective races.

As I said, Wolk is probably safe in the now Democratic-tilting Fifth Senate District. But Huber is locked in a tough battle. She was born and raised in San Joaquin County, in Lodi. Still has family in Lodi. She is not exactly going to sell out the interests of Stockton while in Sacramento. Neither for that matter is Lois Wolk.

As Democrats, in the majority in their respective branches of the legislature, they will actually be more likely to be able to enact legislation to help all parts of the district, not just the Stockton fiefdom that seems so vital to those in the Southern half of their respective districts.

Senator Mike Machado owes both of these women an apology.

Thanks to fellow activist and blogger Randy Bayne for the tip on this story, he covered it in his own blog.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

State to Ask Davis Schools to Return $4.5 Million?

The Davis Enterprise reported yesterday that the Davis school district could be asked to return the $4.5 million it received just last year from the state in matching funds for the construction of Montgomery Elementary.

"That's apparently the gist of a new legal opinion from the state Attorney General's Office, directed to members of the State Allocation Board. The school district's appeal will be heard at a SAB meeting next Wednesday in Sacramento.

If the Davis district is asked to return the money, it will effectively reverse the SAB's decision in August 2007 to award the $4.5 million to the Davis district, following a lengthy appeal of an earlier decision by the Office of Public School Construction to deny the funds."

Last year, the school district received the $4.5 million plus matching funds from the state after a lengthy appeals process that we have highlighted. This stems from the district back in 2001 and 2002, missing critical state deadlines and therefore becoming ineligible.

However, after a long process, the district finally received the money last year.

Bruce Colby, the current Chief Budget Officer for the District expressed his surprise to the district, noting that the state formally approved the funds and the district received the money. After that, the district considered the matter close.

Colby told the Enterprise:

"It's unprecedented for the SAB to ask for money back after they've approved the money and sent the money."

Assemblywoman Lois Wolk who was also involved in the process of recouping the matching funds was similarly baffled.

"I was very surprised by the action of the Office of Public School Construction staff to try to reverse the decision of the State Allocation Board. In 2007, the SAB decided on a 7-3 vote to support the Davis school district's appeal for funding. Since then, the district has received the funds owed to them.

I see no reason to reopen this issue again. I will be working with the members of the State Allocation Board to ensure that the district's funding is secure."

Commentary:

This is a baffling decision by the state. The district has long since acknowledged the errors that led to the original loss of eligibility for the matching fund. They have implemented new fiscal policies, hired a new CBO (Mr. Colby), even hired a new Superintendent in James Hammond. They have done the due diligence to correct whatever fiscal problems existed under the previous CBO and the previous Superintendent.

What is gained now by revisiting this issue? The State Allocation Board already met and made their determination. The school district has already received the money from the state, and undoubtedly has already spent it to pay off the bonds that were used to finance the building project in lieu of matching funds.

At this point, any attempt by the state to take back that money would have to be considered punitive. What possible purpose would it serve at this point in time?

The State Allocation Board will meet next Wednesday.

Before people jump to conclusions, understand that this money is for facilities only. It cannot be used for the general fund. Therefore, this has absolutely no impact on the parcel tax. If there is a deficit as a result of this, the parcel tax money cannot be used for it. The parcel tax is explicitly allocated already. However, general fund money cannot be used for facilities and vice-versa.

"Under state law, the matching funds can only be used to fund facilities projects - such as modernization of existing school buildings, or construction of new school buildings. (The money can't be used to pay teacher salaries.)

The Davis school district ran short on facilities funds in 2007, and borrowed money to complete construction of the new building for Martin Luther King High School, which was dedicated in November 2007. 'Part of (the state matching funds) is to pay back the King loan,' Colby said Tuesday."

Also, the school district cannot pass another parcel tax in order to pay off this $4.5 million.

This needs to be very clear--the general fund and the facilities fund are completely separate and money cannot flow between the two.

The immediate concern will obviously be on the district's part to retain the money at the hearing next week.

This is another very concerning development. There appears to be no rhyme or reason for such as decision by the state to re-open this case.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Republicans Wave the White Flag of Surrender in the 5th Senate District

This was supposed to be one of the few contested Senate Races in the State of California. It pitted two sitting Assemblymembers--Lois Wolk from Davis versus Greg Aghazarian the Republican from Stockton.

Four years ago, this race went down to the wire. It was a hotly contested and bitter affair. Incumbent Mike Machado ended up prevailing and holding onto his seat by a somewhat deceptively wide margin.

However, things have changed in four years. The landscape is vastly different as is the district. Democrats now hold a 15-point advantage in this seat. And unlike 2004 which ended up being a narrowly Republican year, this year may be unlike any we've seen since 1974 or 1964. By the end of this year, even 2006 which saw the Democrats retake both houses of Congress may look tame by comparison.

It was under those terms that Greg Aghazarian ran trying to be the independent or maverick Republican. The only problem is that Greg Aghazarian is neither of those and people are tired of listening to Republicans tell them how different they are as they vote for more of the same.

According to internal polls, with less than a week to go, Lois Wolk is up by around 20 points. Given the relatively low profile of this race, the partisan breakdown of this district, and the overall political landscape, this one is over.

The California Majority Report yesterday reported that the Republicans have pulled their money out of this district and pulled the plug on future ads for Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian.

Democrats are now focusing on shoring up other districts and have put huge amounts of money into two key races. One is the 19th Senate District where former Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson is locked in a baton-death march against conservative Tony Strickland who is trying to convince voters in Santa Barbara that he is green by featuring ads with PG&E killer Erin Brockowich.

Interestingly enough the California Majority Report also mentioned that Democrats are pumping money into the 30th Assembly District where Shafter Mayor Fran Florez faces Republican Danny Gilmore. That is a race of interest because not only is it Democratic pariah Nicole Parra's seat, not only is Parra supporting the Republican, but the Democrat is the son of Senator Dean Florez, a highly ranking member of the Senate and a candidate for Lt. Governor in 2010.

Politicker however reports that spokepeople for both the Aghazarian campaign and the Wolk campaign are still doing battle. Tom Haggins of the Wolk campaign suggests he expects the Aghazarian campaign which still have significant money and resources in their own right will go negative in the last two weeks. Meanwhile the spokesperson for the Aghazarian campaign said they have more money and their ads will continue to run.

What do you expect from the campaigns--they can't take anything for granted. Yesterday, the Davis Enterprise reported that Assembly candidate Mariko Yamada, who is running for the safe 8th AD is saying the same thing.

"I'm taking the general election as seriously as I did the primary... I don't want to take anything for granted."

Rhetoric aside, the 8th AD is a safe Democratic seat and the 5th SD is not far behind it. The battlegrounds have shifted. Look no further than on the national scene. Democrats are doing battle with Republicans in red states for the Presidency and Senate seats.

In California, the hottest contested races are places like the 4th Congressional District, one of the most heavily Republican districts in the state which just may go Democrat and some polls even show that Bill Durston is in the game against Dan Lungren for the 3rd Congressional District.

The only question at this point is how good a year will it be for the Democrats.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Endorsement Watch: 5th Senate and Measure W

'Tis the season to watch Sunday newspaper endorsements. For those who have been reading this blog for awhile, you know that for some reason I love to read and critique newspaper endorsements. For me, it gives us an insight into what the media think and to a lesser degree what issues they think are important and how we can evaluate the news overall.

Newspapers will argue that there is a separation of the the news and editorial function, but in my former profession as a social scientist, there has been some interesting empirical studies that argue otherwise.

Besides, at the end of the day, this blog was largely developed to respond to what the mainstream news was reporting and in general to criticize it.

We begin then with two newspaper endorsements that came down yesterday--one involving the 5th Senate District and the other involving Measure W.

STOCKTON RECORD ENDORSES AGHAZARIAN

There is one main reason why the Stockton Record endorses Aghazarian. It is not partisan. In fact, they have endorsed Barack Obama for President and Jerry McNerney for Congress--both of them Democrats. Granted the endorsement of Barack Obama was a very big deal. It was the first time since 1936 that the Stockton Record Endorsed a Democrat.

The reason the Stockon Record endorsed Aghazarian is that he's from Stockton.

"And that brings us to one of the most important reasons Aghazarian should be sent to the Senate: He lives here. He understands the district and its needs. He will be here.

Because of the loony way legislative districts have been carved out - with the express purpose of making them safe for incumbents - it is possible San Joaquin County could end up with no representatives in Sacramento who live in the county. That's unacceptable no matter the sincerity of an out-of-area politician's vow to be in the county often."

Are you kidding me? First of all, the current State Senator is from Linden which is essentially Stockton, so it is not as though there was a long history of Stockton being shutout of the Senate Seat. Second, it's a big district. It goes from San Joaquin County to Yolo and Solano Counties. Why does Stockton deserve a representative more than Yolo County or Solano County?

I am sorry but that is just selfish. There are many cities in this district, Stockton is the largest one but it's also on one end of the district, the majority of the district would be left high dry by such a move--if we are merely looking at geography.

Can we draw districts more compactly? Certainly, but I am not going to selected my representative based on geography.

A couple of other points that they argue.

"Aghazarian, who used to brag about his ascension through the Republican Party ranks, has reinvented himself for this campaign. His advertisements paint him as the candidate of "independent leadership," never mentioning his party affiliation."

The Record is for some reason buying into Aghazarian's non-partisan rhetoric. The reason he is arguing this is that he is running for election in a Democratic year in a district that has a 15 percent Democratic registration. He has not changed his tune or if he has, make him prove it in the legislature not as part of his campaign rhetoric. In short, his record as an Assemblyman shows nothing to lead one to believe he independent. Nothing.

Finally, I take issue with this:

"Wolk claims she is more effective than Aghazarian at working across the aisle, claiming she has had more bills signed by the Republican governor than any other legislator. In truth, however, most of the bills have been relatively insignificant."

In truth probably most legislation in the California Legislature, is insignificant. However, she did sponsor several key pieces of legislation dealing with flood control, delta protection, and elder protection. Somehow I doubt that Aghazarian has such a legislative record. They certainly do not cite it in the endorsement article.

However, this is really the most illogical of the Record's arguments. Democrats will control roughly 60% of the seats in the State Senate regardless of who wins this seat. Who is going to be the most effective legislator the majority party member or the minority party member? The answer is the majority party member who will pass a much higher percentage of legislation. It is not even close. The Stockton Record does even think about this contradiction with their argument. Aghazarian is not going to as effective as a minority party member as Wolk will as a majority party member, so if that is you rationale for voting, it makes no sense to vote for Aghazarian over Wolk.

In short, the Stockton Record probably has many good reasons to support Aghazarian, but they really do a poor job of selecting three that make no sense. I am sure they really do want Stockton to be Represented, but it's not like Stockton has not been Represented the past eight years. The rest of the District is just as deserving of representation as the City of Stockton.

In my opinion people should vote based on who they most agree with on the issues and who they think will be a better legislator. I cannot answer that question for my readers, but I can say that the Stockton Record falls woefully short in its endorsement criteria, at least the ones it states.

DAVIS ENTERPRISE ENDORSES MEASURE W

This is really not a surprise at all. Let us face it, the Davis Enterprise since 2005 has endorsed the wrong way from my perspective on every single issue except Measures P, Q, and W--the Parcel Taxes. They endorsed Covell Village. They endorsed Target. They endorsed Jeff Reisig for District Attorney. They endorsed Ruth Asmundson and Mike Levy in 2006 for Davis City Council. They endorsed Souza, Saylor and Sydney Vergis this year.

In other words, given that record, it is hard for me to use their endorsement of Measure W for much of anything other than to say that a broken clock is right twice a day--if it is an old fashioned, analog clock. And the Davis Enterprise is certainly that.

And frankly, I think the Stockton Record makes a stronger argument for Aghazarian than the Davis Enterprise does for Measure W.

The argument is this:

"Without the $2.4 million in extra funding per year, we face the same severe cuts and massive teacher layoffs that were threatened last spring. That's when the community came together - led by the Davis Schools Foundation - to raise $1.77 million. That one-time effort, along with more than $1 million in district budget cuts, plugged the hole for this school year only."

What happens if it fails:

"IF MEASURE W FAILS, the community faces another massive fundraising drive to save teachers and programs. Or worse, we face their loss due to budget cuts."

This is a point that has be driven home to voters. The $1.77 million raised by the schools foundation was one-time money the result of a hard drive in the community with the issue firmly in the minds of voters.

However, some need to recognize that that money is one-time money and it is not sustainable.

"But community philanthropy can't always be the answer, said Alan Anderson, the new president of the Davis Schools Foundation. 'Ongoing support is the best way to solve chronic under-funding from the state and to restore confidence in the future of our public schools for families, teachers and, of course, our students.'"

We had Alan Anderson on our radio show last spring, he is exactly right here as he was back then. The support by the Davis Schools Foundation was amazing and it saved programs and teachers but it was a one-time bridge loan, not a means by which to provide ongoing support. The voters need to decide if the programs funded by the $2.4 million and the teachers funded by that money are necessary for the Davis Schools to remain at the top of the state scale.

There are so many more factors that needed to be addressed in this editorial. We have mentioned them in this space time and again, so for now we are just thankful that at the very least the Davis Enterprise has the commitment to provide schools with the necessary funding to continue to function at a high level.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Lois Wolk closes Gap on Spending in 5th Senate District; Campaigns have spent nearly $2 million combined

Prior to the last reporting period, Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian had a large advantage in money raised over his opponent, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk. However, the last reporting period ending on October 6, 2008 has shown that gap has shrunk considerably.

Los Wolk who represents Yolo and Solano Counties amassed $683,734 in contributions this period compared to Greg Aghazarian's $213,838. Overall Aghazarian has still outraised the heavy favorite Wolk by raising $1.36 million to Wolk's $888,736. However, Wolk now ends the period with $205,000 cash on hand to Aghazarian's $174,000.

A huge amount of Aghazarian's expenditures for this period was a $480,000 TV and Cabale ad buy.



Aghazarian's biggest campaign donors remain the Republican party, however, as you can see from the complete donor list, at least 530 individuals and groups have donated $1000 or more to the Assemblyman's campaign.

• Click here for full list
  

Lois Wolk has also spent over $400,000 on campaign ads in the past month with three different TV or Cable ad buys.



Lois Wolk's, like her opponent, biggest campaign donors are from the Democratic party. She has had around 340 individuals and groups donate $1000 or more to her campaign.

• Click here for the full list
  

Where does that leave this campaign? From what we have seen up in Davis, the campaign is starting to heat up in terms of the number of ads that are running. However, despite the nearly $2 million combined expenditures between the two sides, it appears still a fairly low profile race. It is not the constant air war barrage that we saw four years ago when Incumbent Mike Machado and Former Stockton Mayor Gary Podesto waged a no-holds barred affair.

By contrast this race is tame. We will see if the two parties continue to pump money into this race. It is our guess that internal polls probably show Wolk with a sizable lead and as a result the spending in this race may decline. We will have to monitor to see what is happening.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

5th Senate District Race: War of Words

We have spent a lot of time in the last few days on the national race, something that is rarely done on the Vanguard, a blog that focuses almost exclusively on local issues. In fact, I have probably covered more national issues in the last few weeks than in the previous two years combined.

I have still not heard a coherent, fact based defense for Sarah Palin.

The other race that we are following closely is the race for the 5th Senate District that goes from Stockton to Yolo and Solano Counties. This is a tough race to evaluate. Greg Aghazarian at last reporting had a strong money advantage. However, it is a strongly Democratic year and a district with a 15-point partisan advantage for the Democrats in registration.

So Assemblyman Aghazarian who has a fairly conservative voting record is trying to run as a non-partisan.

He just released his second ad that features his calling for a non-partisan legislature. Again, as we argued earlier in the week, this is simply disengenuous.

The ad features Aghazarian's three sons playing a game called "Legislature."

One son says:

"It's all about me! It's all about me!"

The other puts his fingers in his ears and says:

"I can't hear you..."

"Talk to the hand."

This game, according to Aghazarian who appears on the ad, represents how the legislature operates. He calls for legislators to be elected on a non-partisan basis.

"Our current system of electing legislators by party has created gridlock, with party bosses more interested in preserving their power than solving problems."

Lois Wolk was on the UC Davis campus on Thursday at a College Democrats rally. She attacked her opponent for not acknowledging that he is a Republican.

"I am running in the Senate, as you've heard, against someone who won't even mention the fact that he's a Republican. He won't mention his party. He's not proud he's a Republican. He never mentions it and I understand why. In the Assembly, the Republicans and my opponent have opposed some very interesting bills.

They have opposed the successful effort to ban lead from children's candy. Think about that for a minute. The Governor, a Republican, signed that bill.

They have opposed cleaning up the polluted air in the valley. One in four children takes an inhaler to school. Think about that.

They have opposed most recently the effort to clean up the shoddy mortgage broker practices that have been occurring in this state. Think about that in a Senate district that is probably number one in terms of foreclosures.

They and my opponent have opposed flood protection for homeowners in the Central Valley--an area that floods all too commonly.

And they voted against protecting seniors from those whose caregivers would steal their money.

That's why Republicans are running away from being Republicans."

The Wolk campaign for their part has focused a negative ad on the issue of collecting per diem payments for travel as a legislator despite only living 40 miles from Sacramento. Frankly, though the ad focuses on one of Aghazarian's goals of fiscal responsibility it is not clear why they would choose this above other issues. Indeed, her speech on Thursday would seem to be a far better mode of attack.

Politicker reported on Thursday that the Assemblywoman is paying more for her television commercials in order to avoid a requirement that commercials must feature the face of the candidate who pays for them.

The Politicker explains that campaign commercials are normally charged a lesser rate than other types of ads--as much as 20 to 50 percent lower depending on the policies of the TV station. However, in order to qualify for that lower rate, the candidate's face must appear in the commercial at some point.

The Aghazarian campaign is seizing on this issue. Kevin Spillane, a spokesman for Aghazarian's campaign, said:

"Obviously, her campaign doesn't want to associate her with negative attack, cookie-cutter ads... She's obviously embarrassed about the ads."

He estimates that the Wolk campaign is spending thousands of dollars more for the ad in order to avoid the requirement, a notion that he suggests is "unheard of to me."

The ad in question was featured on Tuesday on page A3 of the Sacramento Bee as part of its "Ad Watch" segment.

The Bee's analysis does point out that only one senator (Sacramento-based Darrell Steinberg) and three Assemblymembers, all of them Sacramento-area members, do not take the payments, including Wolk herself.

The ad is an attempt by Wolk to portray Aghazarian as a hypocrite for taking travel money when he commutes to work.

While per diem may have been designed for legislators who travel long distances, all are entitled to augment their $116,208 annual salary with about $35,000 a year for living expenses while on legislative business in Sacramento. That includes weekends, as long the Legislature is not in recess for more than three consecutive days.

The overwhelming majority of state lawmakers claim the tax-free money. Only one senator, Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, does not accept per diem year round. In the Assembly, Wolk is among three Sacramento-area members who do not take the payments. She commutes from her home in Davis.

The 5th District seat is one of the few competitive legislative races. Sen. Mike Machado, D-Linden, won with less than 53 percent of the vote in both of his elections. Holding the seat would further the Democrats' goal of a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate and allow them to pass a budget without Republican votes.

The question that is unanswered is whether this is really an ad that is going to hold sway over voters during a time of a perilous economy, huge cuts to education, fees raised for college students, and a whole host of other issues facing the state legislature. Why focus on this issue? Again, I think her speech got much more to the heart of the matter.

This week, Lois Wolk came out as a supporter of Proposition 11, the proposition that calls for redistricting reform. Campaign spokespeople did not respond to an email from the Vanguard asking for comment.

So where does this race stand? This is a question that many people throughout the district are asking. With no known polls out it is difficult to assess. Some in San Joaquin County have suggested that her profile there is not very high. Certainly the ad wars have not sufficiently heated up as of yet. There seems to be a level of nervousness being aired privately in some circles, but the fact remains that in a district with a 15 percent partisan advantage favoring the Democrats, in a Democratic year, it seems difficult to conceive of a scenario short of some huge revelation where Wolk would not easily win this race.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Lt. Gov. Garamendi Headlines Democratic Rally at UC Davis

On Thursday afternoon, four leaders in Democratic politics in this region and this state came to the UC Davis campus in Freeborn Plaza for a campaign rally. There were approximately 150 students who ended listening to the speeches from these four leaders.

The event was organized by the Davis College Democrats--Don Gibson, the President,;Brandon Craig, the Vice President; and Jack Zwald were some of the many key organizers and also introduced several of the main speakers.

The headliner was Lt. Governor John Garamendi, who is going to be one of the Democratic candidate in 2010 for the Governor. Also there were two legislative candidates in Davis and Yolo County--Mariko Yamada who is running as the Democratic nominee for the 8th Assembly District and Lois Wolk who is running as the Democratic nominee for the 5th Senate District in a heated battled against Republican Greg Aghazarian. Finally, Bill Camp, head of the Sacramento Central Labor Council.

John Garamendi gave an impassioned and fiery speech attacking John McCain, Sarah Palin, the Republicans, talking about education and the state budget.

The Lt. Governor began generally:

"We are one month away from one of the most important elections that we have had in a generation, your generation. This is about you Davis students, this is about your future. It is about how this nation is going to represent itself across the world. Whether we are going to continue with the war in Iraq, whether we are actually going to finally deal with the terrorists that attacked this country, or whether we are going to be diverted on a false war brought to us on false premises, by a false president."

Garamendi then talked about Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin:

"There is a debate tonight. Oh come now. It is important who the Vice President is. You look back on the recent history of this nation and it is common that the Vice President becomes the President. This is about the Presidency. This is about who could become President and tonight we are going to see a defining moment in this election... When a person makes a choice about who they choose to be their successor, which is what happens when you choose the Vice Presidential candidate, you're making a statement about your values as President. You're making a statement about how you perceive this nation's future. There's difference here, Barack Obama made a choice, and he reached back to a very successful, well experienced individual who understands foreign policy, who understands the nature of public policy in the United States, whether it's the economy, social, economic issues, environmental issues, international issues... And he chose Joe Biden. A man with experience in the issues of this nation. A man with experience in the issues of the world. Solid. Knowledgeable. Capable of being President. It tells you about the way in which the next President thinks."

"Now at the Republican Convention, McCain came up with a surprise. You draw your own conclusions here. I drew mine. Experience--limited. Knowledge--watch TV. Go to youtube. It's there to be seen. Ability to debate--we'll find out tonight. Ability to be President... oh no we're not talking about Palin, we're talking about McCain making one of the most fundamental decisions that a President must make. That is to choose somebody who could become President at any moment. This is not an academic exercise, this is not about learning. This is about John McCain and how he thinks. Ultimately it's about governing."

Garamendi then talked about the bailout Bill:

"Wall Street walked away with tens of billions of dollars and left mom and pop in Davis and Stockton with mortgages that they couldn't possibly pay, this is time for a change. This afternoon, Congress will vote on a bailout bill. Fortunately the Democrats stood up to the President, to Secretary of the Treasury Paulson, and said wait a minute, enough already for the high and the mighty. We want this bill to at least have something for the homeowners, for main street, for the men and women out there that are losing their jobs, losing their homes, they did the best they could. It's a much improved bill. It's not the one I would like to see. But it's the one we need... But do not forget the policy that the Republican administration and the Republican congress brought before the American people. They brought a policy that once again took care of their friends at the top.

"Some people want to say this is economic class warfare, and the answer is that's exactly what they have done to the American public is to create an economic class war because they have made the wealthy, wealthier and the poor and the working men and women, poorer. And it is time for a change and we're going to do that."

Garamendi then talked about the California Budget deal.

"Here in California, this is the worst budget in all of my years dating back to 1974. The worst budget ever was signed by the Governor. And in the process of signing it, he made even worse. He took out his veto pen and he took $500 million away from the poor, from the elderly, from the disabled, and from those who depend upon the public sector for their basic health care and indeed their livelihood and lives. It was mean spirited and it was wrong.

"That budget also had another problem, and it's right here on this campus, just to keep pace, with the number of students that come to the campuses of the University of California and inflation, we needed $300 million more. Not to add, not to enhance, not to provide the classes so that you can graduate in four years rather than five or six, but to simply keep pace. The budget is $200 million short of that and of that $100 million that was added, you the students throughout the university campuses, you paid $130 million of that amount of money. It is wrong and I'm telling you we have got to stop it. We must stop it now.

"The great California society and education was built on a free public education at every level, K through 12, the community colleges, the University of California, the State University System, and it is rapidly disappearing because of some wrongheaded policies and total lack of history of California. A free public education no longer exists in California. The taxes that were increased in this budget were minuscule except for one... The single biggest tax increase was a tax on students. It is called a fee indirectly because it is nothing but a very direct tax on students."

"Some of you are studying government, some of you are studying economics, I want you to study a particularly stupid tax. When you tax students you have done something incredibly stupid. President Yudoff, you've listened to me and I want you to listen right now, NO MORE STUDENT FEE INCREASES. Not in this budget. Not in the next budget. And not in the budgets ahead. Because you will deny access to the students who will build the California economy in the future, who will be the teachers, who will be the engineers, who will be the researchers. Stop it! Stop it now! No more tax on students."

"Study the history of California. Study how this state became the 7th wealthiest economy in the world. It was done with the best education system in the world. We are not there today... You cannot do it on the cheap. Starve the education system and you will starve the future of California. And we are well on the way to slow starvation diet today. In 1990, the state, the economy of California, the people of California supported the University of California students to a tune of $15,000 per student. Last year, the people of California, the economy, the seventh largest economy in the world, supported the students at the University of California at a rate of $10,000 per student. A full one-third decrease in the support that the people of California provided to the students who will be the future economy. That is stupid economy policy. That is bad tax policy. And I want every student, on every campus, to rise up and say, enough already. We will not have this anymore, we understand the history of this great state. We know that when the wealth of this great state is spent on the future generations, that economic wealth occurs along with social justice."

Bill Camp was the first speaker. He urged people to put elect Mariko Yamada to the State Assembly and Lois Wolk to the State Senate. He said he was a strong supporter of Mariko Yamada, candidate for the State Assembly, but Lois Wolk is the one now who faces the tough challenge.

"Lois Wolk will be a fighter because she's from Davis. You put her in the State Senate and she'll make sure that everyone that comes in to be a regent respects you and respects your educational opportunity. You want to do something about the misuse of power by Arnold Schwartzenegger and the UC Regents, you get Lois Wolk elected. She's the one who will be your voice and fighter."

Bill Camp told the students that he talks to people in Honduras and all around the world, and everyone is watching this election. He told the students, "It is you who can turn the world around." He emphasized how important this election was to this country and this world. "I beg you to be a part of this Democratic process, to be the champion to lead this nation."

Assembly Candidate Mariko Yamada was introduced by former Davis School Board Candidate and Vice Chair of the Yolo County Democratic Central Committee Bob Schelen as an underdog who won the nomination and a fighter for the values of the underdogs.

Yamada told the crowd:

"It was a very very tough and grueling primary that we came through. Yes, we were the underdogs. But we went direct to the people with our message. It goes to show you that all the money and all the hype in the world, does not replace good old fashioned hard work, effort, and connecting directly with the voters. And that's what this theme is today. Just what brother Bill Camp just said, the whole world is watching us..."

Finally Senate Candidate Lois Wolk addressed the crowd. She attacked her opponent, Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian and Assembly Republicans.

"I am running in the Senate, as you've heard, against someone who won't even mention the fact that he's a Republican. He won't mention his party. He's not proud he's a Republican. He never mentions it and I understand why. In the Assembly, the Republicans and my opponent have opposed some very interesting bills.

They have opposed the successful effort to ban lead from children's candy. Think about that for a minute. The Governor, a Republican, signed that bill.

They have opposed cleaning up the polluted air in the valley. One in four children takes an inhaler to school. Think about that.

They have opposed most recently the effort to clean up the shoddy mortgage broker practices that have been occurring in this state. Think about that in a Senate district that is probably number one in terms of foreclosures.

They and my opponent have opposed flood protection for homeowners in the Central Valley--an area that floods all too commonly.

And they voted against protecting seniors from those whose caregivers would steal their money.

That's why Republicans are running away from being Republicans."

Wolk faces a tough challenge for the Senate seat left open by termed out Senator Mike Machado. It is a district that has a 15 point Democratic advantage, but it is one of just two open and targeted seats by the Republicans who are pumping in millions in support of Assemblyman Aghazarian. Mariko Yamada faces an easier challenge in the heavily Democratic 8th Assembly District that encompasses Yolo and East Solano County.

Lt. Governor John Garamendi announced this summer he will run for the Governorship. He ran back in 1994 but lost to then State Controller Kathleen Brown. Some of the possible opposition are San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, Los Angeles Mayor and Former Speaker of the Assembly Antonio Villaraigosa, Attorney General and Former Governor Jerry Brown, and possibly State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell. That would be in 2010.

In the meantime, the Presidential race and the legislative races are focal points in this area. Democrats are relying heavily on strong student turnout for Barack Obama and a host of other issues.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

“Atria Bills” Signed That will Stop Price-Gouging of Seniors and Increase Emergency Preparedness

Last winter, residents of Atria Covell ended up with duel complaints. First, for the second time in as many years, the seniors, most of whom are on fixed incomes, were hit with large rent increases. To make matters worse, a serious winter storm knocked out power and showed the Atria facility to have an appalling lack of emergency preparedness.

In a rally and protests it became very clear that Atria was extremely fortune that no one was seriously hurt.

In a rally last January, 30 residents of the Atria Covell Gardens community protested both the rental increase and the living conditions.

The most appalling story was a woman who lived in the facility with her husband who was on oxygen. After losing electricity, no one in administration contacted them to find out what their needs were. She in the end had to call the pulmonary company that supplied them with the oxygen and at 10:30 at night he brought out canisters that supplied the oxygen for purposes of travel or other issues of mobility for a two hour period.

According to her, two of the administrators,

"instructed me on how to use the portable tanks. But they also... said that they would never be able to help me again. Because they are not allowed to... The AL's cannot help you with oxygen."

This week hundreds of bills have finally made their way from the legislature to the desk of the governor. For many of these bills, it is their untimely demise as the Governor has unilaterally decided not to sign them.

However, the good news for elderly residents of California’s assisted living facilities celebrated Sunday as Governor Schwarzenegger signed two new consumer protection bills.

Barbara Turner is a resident of Atria Valley View in Walnut Creek, a facility similar to the one in Davis. Like Davis they also suffered through a power outage, theirs lasted three days.

“Last year, I received an 8½% rent increase, and other residents suffered through a 3-day power outage. We’re pleased that the legislature and the Governor have taken an interest in our issues, and we hope they will continue to protect seniors in the future.”

According to a release from the Campaign to Improve Assisted Living:

Both pieces of legislation address resident complaints about Atria Senior Living’s practices. Seniors residing in multiple Atria facilities have complained of rent increases that far exceed the cost of living, while some in Davis and Carmichael suffered blackouts this winter. Atria residents normally receive notices about rent increases by the beginning of November, and increases are effective at the beginning of January. Advocates say they will be watching to see how Atria responds to the new laws.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass sponsored the legislation.

“It’s like the wild west with many assisted living operators. They can charge whatever they want, and there’s very little accountability for the quality of care. Both of these new laws are an important first step to holding them accountable.”

Speaker Bass’s AB 2370 will give assisted living residents information on past rent increases before they move into a facility.

Meanwhile our own Assemblywoman Lois Wolk put together her own bill, AB 749, that will require Atria and other assisted living facilities to identify a backup source of power in the event of a blackout, and improve other emergency preparedness requirements.

Assemblywoman Wolk:

“Residential care facilities provide a vital service to California’s seniors. Yet, this is a largely unregulated industry. Within the past year, a winter storm left a facility in my district without power for over two days. They didn’t have heat, lights, elevators, or medical devices dependent on electricity. My bill will provide additional protection for residents of these facilities.”

The bill requires facilities like Atria to have a comprehensive emergency plan that will ensure that the facility can remain self-reliant for at least 72 hours. That plan must be made available to both residents and local emergency responders.

Davis' Assemblywoman Lois Wolk said:

"I worked with the senior residents, the senior home advocates, and the Governor's administration to come up with a solution that provides the security and peace of mind the residents deserve, without placing an unreasonable bureaucratic burden on the facility."

Gary Passmore of the Congress of California Seniors:

“These bills are an important step in protecting vulnerable seniors in assisted living facilities. Atria residents spoke up about these problems, and the legislature responded.”

While it is easy to be cynical of government, here is a situation where there were key and glaring problems facing our seniors who were vulnerable to price gouging by private care facilities and vulnerable to lack of state regulations requiring things like emergency preparedness and back up power generation. Here is one case at least where the leadership in this state stepped up and came up with a solution to these problems. For the resident of places like Atria Covell Gardens it means piece of mind both in terms of their financial situation but also in terms of basic public safety.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Aghazarian wants to make legislative races non-partisan?

Earlier this week, we discussed Assemblywoman Lois Wolk's first campaign ad where she accused her opponent, Greg Aghazarian of misusing his per diem, a fund that is supposed to go to help those legislators who live outside of Sacramento, commute to and from their district. Aghazarian lives and commutes from Stockton to Sacramento, a forty-five minute drive.

Why this is important is that Assemblyman Aghazarian is running on the issue of "investigating the misuse of taxpayer funds."

Meanwhile Aghazarian has been running his own campaign ad. In it, he suggests that we make legislative races non-partisan.

The current system is broken, the Assemblyman says in his ad:

"So let's fix it, by making legislative races nonpartisan, just as we do for city councils, mayors and supervisors, where people vote their districts, not the party line. It's time to rock the system."

Sounds good right? But let's look a little deeper here.

Back in 2004, Gary Podesto challenged long-time and now-termed-out Senator Mike Machado. At that time, it was a heavily challenged, expensive race, and Senator Machado was able to pull away late to win the race fairly comfortably. However, trends have changed since that time and the district is now much more heavily Democrat.

This year the Democrats have a 15% registration advantage over Republicans. Now some of those Democrats are more moderate Valley Democrats in the Stockton area. The same changes that allowed McNerney to unseat Richard Pombo in 2006 for the Congressional Seat.

In order for Aghazarian to win he has to do two basic things. First he needs to appeal to more moderate Democrats and Independents. This is clearly his goal in this campaign ad. He appeals to the reformist mindset of the electorate who are fed up with the budget stalemate at the capital.

The other thing you are probably going to see is that he is going to run against perceptions that Lois Wolk is a product of liberal Davis. The toad tunnel and other eccentricities will be brought out.

This is a bit more challenging because Lois Wolk is more of a developer Democrat and has been in Davis and Yolo County's politics.

As we discussed earlier, both politicians are more on the moderate side of their parties, however, both are clearly in the mainstream of their parties as well. Neither has a voting record that is remotely moderate. Lois Wolk has an over 90% liberal voting, while Aghazarian votes with his party over 80% of the time.

Aghazarian in order to win must show that he is not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican and Lois Wolk must show he is business as usual. Hence she fired the first shot showing the per diem issue.

Given the amount of money that has been amassed by Aghazarian I am somewhat surprised we have not seen the barrage of ads coming from his campaign yet. Perhaps that is occurring in the Stockton media market. But I suspect not. We will see if this race develops into the dirty, contentious, toe-to-toe battle that some have expected.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Wolk Campaign Takes On Aghazarian on Per Diem Issue

It's been quiet, maybe too quiet considering the amount of money that we know Republican Assemblyman and nominee Greg Aghazarian has amassed for his run at the State Senate. Last week it was reported that the Democratic State Central Committee of California had given $250,000 to Assemblywoman Lois Wolk. Until that point, she had been outraised by a hefty margin by her Republican opponent despite the fact that she is a heavy favorite at this point to win the Democratic leaning Senate district.

It turns out the first strike was fired by the Wolk campaign. Those who have watched TV in the last week may have seen it. It is an attack based on Aghazarian's collection of per diem money as an assemblyman.

The ad charges that Assemblyman Aghazarian has collected daily per diem payments of $170 that are designed to pay for lodging expenses for state legislators who live far from Sacramento. However, Aghazarian lives in Stockton, just a forty-five minute drive from Sacramento.

"As an assemblyman, Greg Aghazarian took $180,000 he didn't deserve."

Politckerca.com spoke with Tom Higgins, campaign manager for the Wolk campaign.

"Tom Higgins, the campaign manager for Assembly member Wolk (D-Davis), said the ad is meant to point out a hole in Aghazarian's stance as a fiscal conservative.

"It doesn't square quite right when you say one thing and do another," Higgins said, adding that Aghazarian collects the per diem on top of his regular salary as an assemblyman of $116,000 annually. "That per diem is really intended for folks who have to maintain a second residence."

Higgins said that Wolk, who like Aghazarian was first elected to the state Assembly in 2002, has consistently declined her per diem money for lodging because she, like Aghazarian, lives within driving distance of the state Capitol."

This is the first salvo in what figures to be a highly contested race. With the Wolk campaign taking an early shot, there is little doubt that we will see a response from Aghazarian.



---Doug Paul Davis reporting

A Budget That Nobody Wants--And We're Probably Stuck With

Despite a veto from the Governor, this is likely going to be the budget. The legislature expects to override the Governor's Veto this is coming on Friday. If that happens, California will finally have a budget. The Governor will shown to be a powerless figure who occupies the statehouse of the nation's largest state.

As the Bee Editorial says:

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will reclaim the high ground on the issue that propelled him into the Governor's Office five years ago but has bedeviled him ever since: the state's badly broken finances."

Of course it's hard to feel for this governor after some of the antics he has pulled including threatening the livelihood of tens of thousands of state employees, laying off thousands of temporary state employees, and now threatening to have a temper-tantrum and veto every bill that comes before his desk.

Polling shows that Governor Schwarzenegger is at an all-time low in his approval, but most of the public does not have the stomach for recall. Heck, recall did not work last time and it will not work this time.

No one is really happy about the budget.

Jim Sanders of the Sacramento Bee on Monday reported:

"A key element of the deal would increase by 10 percent the amount of income taxes withheld from workers, and from taxpayers who earn income from investments.

Much of the $15.2 billion budget shortfall would be bridged by advancing revenues to be collected in future years, shifting or borrowing money from other state funds and employing accounting maneuvers. The plan would generate immediate revenue but leave gaping holes in future budgets."

Dan Walters, who I rarely agree with, blasted the budget deal:

"Nobody could have dreamed up a less responsible, more gimmicky, sure-to-backfire state budget than the one California's political leaders cobbled together and were jamming through the Legislature on Monday night to end a months-long stalemate...

"They violated every principle of fiscal responsibility by conjuring up billions of dollars in sham revenues - basically money borrowed from corporate and personal taxpayers that would have to be paid back later - to cover a huge deficit so they could blow town."

Assemblywoman Lois Wolk's comments were surprisingly and refreshingly honest.

"The best you can say about this budget is that it's done. We have managed to keep our schools funded without raiding funds from local government and transportation. That's good.

"The disappointing part is that we have only, as the Governor says, kicked the can further down the road. We failed to address the structural deficit and next year's budget will be even more difficult to solve than this one. Yes, this is a compromise, but it's not one that anyone should be especially proud of. I'm not.

"On the plus side, in addition to avoiding teacher layoffs, I am satisfied that we were able to keep our local law enforcement and rural sheriffs fully funded and prevented some of the most onerous cuts in health services for children and seniors.

"This experience has reinforced my belief that we need to reform the budget process as soon as possible. Allowing a minority of legislators to hold the Governor and the entire state hostage is unacceptable. I am currently working with an independent bipartisan reform effort going on right now called California Forward. This is the most serious reform effort in decades and I am looking forward to supporting their recommendations."

On the other hand, what has the Assemblywoman done to change the outcome? She voted for the compromise.

Basically what the legislature is doing is kicking the can down the road to the next legislative session. They have not done anything to solve the problems that underlie the budget. Schools will face budget cuts again next year. Worker's will face uncertainty about their job security and their benefits. Millions still have no health insurance.

One thing this whole mess has convinced me to do is take another look at the redistricting reform bill. Personally, I think term limits have been a disaster. As this process unfolded, it was clear that there was no big five who could get together and hammer out the details of the budget and then get their members to support it. It was also clear that Governor has absolutely no influence in his party. Some might say that's a good thing, but the problem with it is that he cannot get the membership of his party to agree to his proposals. That leaves the Republican party with the power only to hijack and to negotiate and bargain.

Why might the redistricting plan help? For starters we can hold politicians accountable. Right now, 90 percent of the legislators live in safe districts. It is difficult to hold politicians accountable when they do that, except in the rare condition when one of their own party members can take them out like what happened with Mark Leno defeating Carole Migden.

If you look at the groups supporting Prop 11 there are some pretty good reformist groups on the list--League of Women Voters, AARP, Common Cause, ACLU, advocates from blacks, Hispanics, children, and seniors, among others from the other side which includes Chamber of Commerce, Police Chiefs Association, Taxpayers' Association, Business Roundtable, the list goes on.

I have not decided to support the measure, but I am looking again. Some have suggested that the two-thirds vote is a problem--it is but it is not going to go away. The only way this gets solved rather than postured is if both sides go into negotiations and recognize that they have to do things that they do not want. For Republicans that means some taxes have to go up, perhaps they can decide which ones. For Democrats that means there has to be cuts. If you do not want education cut--and they should not--then you have to find some cuts.

If I were they, I would appoint a six member bipartisan group of legislators at the beginning of the session to come up with a way to reform the system and avoid this trouble from the start. Go through the budget and figure out what can be cut and then agree on revenue enhancements. When both sides hate it, then you know that there has been a good job done. Until that happens, we are going to keep repeating this year's scenario.

The worst part is that the people who get caught in this are not the legislators. Last night on the news they showed all of these state funded senior housing care centers where people have had to borrow from their own savings in order to keep them afloat. If these centers go under, thousands of senior could be put on the street. That would look good right before an election.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Apparently 5th Senate District Race Features A Couple of Relative Moderates

If you have listened to the rhetoric of both Democrat Lois Wolk and Republican Greg Aghazarian, you have heard horror stories about their Senate opponents. Lois Wolk is of course a Davis Liberal associated with the Toad Tunnel and other eccentricities. Greg Aghazarian is right wing Republican who wants to make abortions illegal.

The truth turns out to be something very different. This week the Capital Weekly came out with its legislative scorecard. Unlike the rhetoric, Greg Aghazarian and Lois Wolk turn out to be a bunch of moderates. Or do they?

• Click here to see the full scorecard

In the Assembly there is just one Republican with a more liberal voting record than Greg Aghazarian. However in absolute terms, the Assemblyman from San Joaquin County only scores a 19 out of 100, well to the right of a true centrist. He may be more liberal than his colleagues, but clearly he's not centrist.

Assemblywoman Lois Wolk is actually even more liberal than Aghazarian is conservative scoring 91 out of 100. That puts her as the 9th most conservative member of the Democratic caucus in the Assembly. Then again she is hardly Cathleen Galginni who scored a 51 or the now infamous Nicole Parra who scored a 52 and was removed from the Capitol for crossing party lines on the budget. There are four Democrats scores between 51 and 64, making the Democrats far more moderate than their counterparts.

Compared to those Democrats, Assemblywoman Wolk is a flaming liberal with her 91. Then again there are 16 Democrats with perfect 100 scores. Seven Republicans scored a perfect 0.



In actuality, it was not that Assemblywoman Wolk crossed party lines on her votes, she was simply marked down because she failed to vote on three of the 20 votes that Capitol Weekly did their scoring on. She did not vote on AB 2058--Plastic Bag Recyling, AB 2083--Tuition for Undocumented Residents, and AB 2716 Sick Leave. The Wolk campaign did not respond to the Vanguard email requests for comments.

Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian on the other hand did cross party lines on four votes. He voted yes on SB 606--School Accountability, Yes on SB 304--Media Access to Prisoners, Yes on AB 1781 the 2008-09, and Yes on AB 1945 Recission. Of those of course, the yes vote on the Budget will innoculate him on potentially the most explosive issue given the crisis in Sacramento. He also did not vote on AB 118--Low-Carbon fuels.

How good are these measures?

The Capitol Weekly discussed the weaknesses of their scorecard in the article that unveiled the rankings published on Thursday, August 21, 2008.

"Every political scorecard has its problems, and this one is no exception. The selection of bills is subjective, chosen after conversations with Capitol staff and experts, and our own observations of big debates over the last two years under the dome.

The bills we chose were not necessarily the most publicized, or even the most hotly contested in all cases. But we sought to pick a variety of bills dealing with diverse topics that lawmakers have been asked to tackle over the last legislative session.

Part of the problem with this particular scorecard is the fact that both legislative houses, and all legislative committees, are controlled by Democrats. As such, the controversial bills that do find their way to the floor are disproportionately Democrat-sponsored bills."

However they go on to say:

"Also, our scorecard reflects what most Capitol observers know to be true: That Democrats from the Central Valley tend to be more moderate than their caucus colleagues, while Republicans in contested districts like Abel Maldonado and Greg Aghazarian earn more centrist marks than those lawmakers in more solid, partisan districts."

It is also worth noting that as Ben van der Meer of PolitickerCA.com does , that the 5th District as a whole tends to be centrist.

"State Sen. Mike Machado (D-Linden) had the second-lowest score of any Democrat, and he is termed out of the 5th Senate District seat, another target of both parties this fall.

The two candidates for that seat, Aghazarian and termed-out Assemblywoman Lois Wolk (D-Davis), are both ranked as relative moderates."

Senator Machado scored a 67, only Lou Correa scored lower in the Senate as a Democrat with a 47. That means that Assemblywoman Wolk is quite a bit more liberal representing Yolo and Solano Counties while Assemblyman Aghazarian is quite a bit more conservative.

Our previous analysis showed that Democrats in this district now have a much stronger advantage than they did in 2004 when Machado held off a strong challenge from former Stockton Mayor Gary Podesto.

However it also indicates that despite the relative moderation of both candidates, the strategy by both will be to paint each other as extremists. How well that works, time will tell.

One thing we know, this will be a heavily funded battle. By August 4, 2008, the Aghazarian campaign reported a 7-to-1 fundrasing advantage.

A press release at the time said:

"Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian continues to turn in strong fundraising numbers, including raising over $565,000 in the latest period ending June 30th. Aghazarian's fundraising topped that of his opponent, Lois Wolk, by a nearly seven-to-one margin. Wolk raised just over $76,000 for the period. Current cash-on-hand for Aghazarian is $1,040,000 - over fives time more than Wolk's $185,000."

Aghazarian Spokesman Tim Clark said:

"Greg Aghazarian has built a strong reputation in the Valley as a balanced ‘can-do' legislator who is willing to do what is right, even if it means going against the ‘party' line... Voters want to see him continue representing them in the State Senate, and that's one reason why the outpouring of support has been so strong. Greg's broad base of support is a sharp contrast to that of Lois Wolk, who continues to struggle in her fundraising."

However, with just two targeted Senate races, it is unlikely that money will be an issue for Assemblywoman Wolk either, Senate Democrats will likely open up their coffers as well.

The Vanguard will continue to cover this race and much more as election day approaches.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

November Update: Republicans Fuel Aghazarian's Senate Campaign Against Wolk

Republican Party Gives Big Money to Aghazarian

The Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert reported yesterday that the California Republican Party poured roughly $345,000 into Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian's state Senate campaign last week. Aghazarian is running for the seat of termed-out Sen. Mike Machado and is opposed by Assemblywoman Lois Wolk who represents Yolo and Solano Counties.

That means that the Republican party has already dumped over one million dollars into this race. However as the Capitol Alert points out, that may have more to do with the lack of competitive State Senate Races than anything else.

The same article reported the party donated $595,000 to former Assemblyman Tony Strickland. Strickland is running against former Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson down in the Santa Barbara-Ventura area in a campaign to succeed termed-out Sen. Tom McClintock (who is now running for Congress against Charlie Brown).

"The races are the only two of the 20 Senate seats up for election in November where competition is expected."

The Capitol Alert goes on to argue this is an uphill battle for Republicans. The most recent voter registration statistics show that Democrats hold a 47 to 31.5 advantage. Four years ago, Gary Podesta, a former Stockton Mayor, challenged Machado. He spent nearly $10 million to unseat him.

However, that was almost a different district. In October of 2004, Democrats held a 10-point registration advantage over Republicans, now they hold a 15.5 point advantage.

"Allan Hoffenblum, the publisher of the California Target Book, which analyzes political races in the state, said the Aghazarian donation was to send a message to GOP donors.

"It is a statement by the GOP leadership that they are going to take that race seriously," Hoffenblum said.

In the early money race, Aghazarian has a significant financial advantage, with more than quadruple the cash-on-hand of Wolk.

As of mid-May, Aghazarian had $530,000 in the bank, with $44,000 in debts. Since then, he has received another $105,000 from three local GOP county committees as well as the big recent check from the state party. That brings his rough total to $936,000.

Wolk had $176,000 in her treasury as of mid-May, with $20,000 in debts.

The Democratic Party, however, is expected to have plenty to spend to contest both seats in the fall. The California Democratic Party reported more than $7.9 million in the bank as of May, a $3.8 million advantage over the Republican Party, which reported $4.18 million."

Hoffenblum went on to say that no Democrat in California will lose for lack of money.

SIEU May Back Redistricting Measure on November's Ballot

Meanwhile, the lack of competitive races will further fuel a push for redistricting.

The big news on that front might be that SEIU, one of the largest unions in the state, may buck the Democratic Party and back Proposition 11, the redistricting measure on the November Ballot.

Anthony York at Capitol Weekly reports SEIU is considering backing Proposition 11, the redistricting measure on the November ballot:

"The fact that SEIU finds itself divided, and possibly at odds with Democratic Party leadership over redistricting is the latest illustration of an internal belief that the union, which represents nearly 2 million people nationwide, is powerful enough to take its own stand, regardless of what other political or labor leaders may think."

"We're large enough to take risks," says [Courtni] Pugh. "We're going to do what's best for working people, and for our membership."

York writes:

"If SEIU does wind up backing Proposition 11, it would be in the face of opposition from Democratic Party leadership in Washington and Sacramento, and from some other state labor groups...

But under the direction of President Andy Stern, SEIU has sought to assert itself as a national political force, orchestrating a divorce from the country’s largest labor organization, the AFL-CIO, and affirming its political independence."

York also points out that during the last election cycle, the union won 11 of the 12 Democratic legislative primaries it participated in.

That includes here in the 8th Assembly District, where union-backed Mariko Yamada was able to pull off what was widely considered a monumental upset primarily due to an influx of independent expenditure money from unions and union support on the ground.

From a political perspective however, this potential move by SEIU makes little sense--threatening to alienate allies and weaken their overall political clout.

It would seem like electing Barack Obama should be the biggest focus from the union--and that is clearly the case.

"Pugh says SEIU members from California will be farmed out across the Western states, developing ground campaigns and focused on boosting Latino turnout nationwide to help boost Obama’s prospects."

Nevertheless, if SEIU carries through on this threat on Proposition 11, it will carry with it some interesting ramifications. In our opinion, that would be a huge strategic blunder for a union that has been mired with internal turmoil and has shwon itself to be an effective organizer on the political front.

In mid-June, the Vanguard wrote more extensively on the redistricting issue. The core belief is that it likely will not have the positive impact that its backers believe.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting