Michael Scarpello

Michael Scarpello
Posted: 05/16/2012 02:48:21 PM PDT

An effort to address the significant problem of provisional balloting resulted in the unintended consequence of many voters receiving their mail ballots several days before receiving their sample ballots.

Although very few voters cast their mail ballots before seeing the sample ballot, I understand why some candidates who placed candidate statements in the sample ballot are unhappy. I apologize for that, and I will correct this situation in time for the November election. However, please rest assured that this situation has not in any way compromised the election. All laws have been followed to the letter as the deadline to mail sample ballots is 10 days prior to the election, and these documents will have been delivered well before that time.

Any mail voter who has not yet received their sample ballot but wishes to consult it before voting the ballot can go to our website at www.sbcountyelections.com to view their sample ballot. Or, they can simply wait for their sample ballot to arrive in the mail.

My goal was to provide sample ballots as close to Election Day as possible to reduce the number misplaced by voters in the days leading up to the election. When voters misplace their sample ballots, they often end up not knowing where to vote. When voters show up at the wrong polling place, they must use a provisional ballot.

Provisional balloting is a significant problem in San Bernardino County.

To read entire column, click here.

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Created: 05/16/2012 06:35:01 PM PDT

San Bernardino County voters need to know where their designated polling locations are come primary election time on June 5 and also be aware their ballots will look a little different, county Registrar Michael Scarpello said Wednesday.

A state law approved in June 2010, the Top Two Open Primary Act, requires that all candidates for a voter-nominated office be listed on the same ballot.

Voter-nominated offices are state legislative offices, U.S. congressional offices, and state constitutional offices.

Essentially, it means that all candidates running for office, regardless of their party preference, will appear on a single combined ballot and voters can vote for any candidate they want.

It changes the way elections are conducted for all state offices and the offices of U.S. senator, U.S. representative, the state Senate and Assembly.

“Everybody votes for everybody,” Scarpello said Wednesday.

County supervisorial district boundary changes necessitated by 2010 Census figures has also forced precinct lines to change.

With those changes sometimes comes a change in polling location, so Scarpello is encouraging voters to check their sample ballots or the county Elections Office website, www.sbcountyelections.com, to see where their polling site is.

“It’s really key that people go to their assigned polling place. This is critical,” Scarpello said, adding that the county has seen a 10 percent reduction in its polling locations since 2008, from 413 in 2008 to 375 in 2012.

That’s due mainly to the county’s high number of provisional voters, which in 2008 comprised nearly a third of the county’s 600,000 registered voters at roughly 150,000, Scarpello said.

To read entire story, click here.

LAX/Ontario International Airport Terminal (Courtesy: The P-E)

By Liset Marquez
Created: 05/16/2012 03:23:20 PM PDT

DIAMOND BAR – A lively discussion about LA/Ontario International Airport, which was supposed to focus on the medium-hub facility’s importance to the region’s economy, quickly turned into a debate on the merits of local control.

For more than an hour Wednesday, a five-member panel discussed a bevy of issues and circumstances facing ONT at the Four Corners Coalition 2012 Economic Summit at the Diamond Bar Center.

The discussion pitted Gina Marie Lindsey, executive director of Los Angeles World Airports – which manages ONT – against proponents of local control, including Ontario Councilman Alan Wapner. Riverside Mayor Ron Loveridge, Michael Armstrong with Southern California Association of Governments, and Denny Schneider, whose group Alliance for a Regional Solution to Airport Congestion has long battled LAWA over Los Angeles International Airport’s growth, also participated.

“It is silly that we are fighting with each other over who owns the airport, we ought to be leaning in together and figuring a path forward on how to make this airport thrive in a very challenging economy,” Lindsey said in a stern voice.

But Lindsey went on to warn those pushing for Ontario to regain operations of the airports.

“Local control, in and out of itself, is not going to be a panacea,” she said.

For this year, month-over-month, ONT has lost between 4 and 7 percent in air traffic, Lindsey said. The economy, however, is not a reflection of that drop, rather it’s a shift in the way airlines do business, she said.

Addressing the continued decline in ONT passenger traffic figures, Lindsey said airlines are retreating from smaller hub facilities like ONT.

“So what is it that we should be doing different together? Let the local versus L.A. control of the airport, let that battle fight itself out, but, in the meantime, we ought to be working together to see what we can do to stem exodus,” she said.

Wapner, who met Lindsey for the first time at the spirited discussion, said he saw it differently. Calling LAWA an absentee landlord, Wapner argued Ontario’s motives in getting involved in the local control effort.

The interest that the city has isn’t about any financial gain, it’s in the region which could have seen a $20 million economic boost if passenger traffic was up, Wapner said.

“I want to commend Gina Marie because I think she is doing an excellent job as the executive director of Los Angeles World Airport,” he said, adding that she is doing her job, given to her by the policymakers in Los Angeles, which is to get the expansion completed of Tom Bradley Terminal International at LAX.

“Unfortunately, it’s been at the expense of Ontario.”

ONT has long been viewed by officials in Ontario as the region’s largest economic engine.

City officials said they are fighting to regain control not only to stop the hemorrhaging of passenger traffic but to control their economic destiny.

Michael Armstrong, who handles the transportation and aviation issues for Southern California Association of Governments, presented figures in Ontario’s favor.

Using factors developed by a regional economic impact study completed for SCAG in 2004, Armstrong said ONT was on pace to reach 31 million annual passengers by 2030. It’s also a figure the agency is continuing to forecast for the airport in its latest study.

“It would no doubt be a tremendous economic boom to the Inland Empire,” he said.

According to the forecast, had Ontario continued to grow, it would have generated a projected 134,000 of direct and indirect jobs and injected about $20 billion into the local economy, he said.

Calling ONT an important piece of the overall aviation puzzle for Southern California, Lindsey said it also remains a very important and long-term strategic asset for LAWA.

“I understand the sentiment and concern, and I think we are the easy target – we may have even done some things that made us an easy target. Our intent is absolutely to see this airport thrive,” Lindsey said.

Officials in Los Angeles are focusing on airlines, and trying to provide more seats and more routes but have not been successful, she said.

To read entire story, click here.

Head of ICR Staffing loans his campaign committee $150,000
May 16, 2012 9:09 AM
Beau Yarbrough, Staff Writer

So far, the best financial friend for the campaigns of San Bernardino County 1st District supervisor candidates have been the candidates themselves.

The largest single campaign contribution for four of the seven candidates have been loans from the candidates themselves to their own campaign committees. It’s likely a reflection of lean financial times for political contributions: Only one of the seven men seeking to replace Brad Mitzelfelt as the 1st District’s representative on the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors — businessman Robert Lovingood — has a campaign fund in the six figures.

Far and away, the biggest pile of campaign cash belongs to Lovingood. The president of ICR Staffing loaned the Lovingood for Board of Supervisors 2012 committee $150,000, bringing his campaign to a total of $150,099 as of March 26. Lovingood had yet to spend any of those funds by the end of the filing period.

In distant second place is firefighter union president Bret Henry. The Committee to Elect Bret Henry for Supervisor 2012 had $31,000 in its war chest as of March 21, with $30,000 of it coming from the San Bernardino County Professional Firefighters organization. During the same period, Henry’s campaign spent $36,200, including $10,250 to campaign consulting firm Steve Presson & Associates of Gold River

In the first three months of 2012, Hesperia Mayor Russ Blewett raised $17,450 for his campaign commit- tee, Russ Blewett for Supervisor 2012. His largest donations included $5,000 checks from Desert Valley Medical Group and dentist Ronald Cunning of Montclair and $2,500 donations from Lewis Investment Group of Upland and Robertson’s Ready Mix Concrete of Riverside. He spent a little more than half of his funds during that period, spending $9,670 by March 17, almost all of it ($7,712) on administrative fees paid to the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters.

As of March 26, Bob Smith, a community liaison for Mitzelfelt, had raised $14,300 for his Bob Smith for Supervisor 2012 campaign committee. However, like several of his competitors, he’s his own best contributor, having loaned his campaign $13,700 of his own money. So far, he’s spent $12,037 of that, including $3,500 to campaign consultants Tab Communications of Fair Oaks.

Apple Valley town councilman Rick Roelle had $14,058 in the Committee to Elect Rick Roelle 1st District Supervisor 2012 war chest, including $12,058 through a loan from himself. As of March 22, he’d spent $11,661 of it, including $7,727 to the registrar of voters and $3,370 for signage.

The Michael Orme for Supervisor 2012 committee had raised $8,300, with $6,700 of that coming from a single political action committee: Children for a Safer Community. Orme, a field representative for Congressman Buck McKeon, spent $9,464 as of March 28.

As of April 6, Adelanto school board member Jermaine Wright had neither collected nor spent any campaign funds.

State law requires any candidate who has raised or spent more than $1,000 to file California Form 460, the Recipient Committee Campaign Statement. The most recent set of forms filed by candidates cover the period between Jan. 1 and March 17 of this year and had to be filed by March 22. The next set of forms, covering March 18 through May 19, must be turned into the registrar of voters by May 24 in advance of the June 5 primary

Beau Yarbrough may be reached at (760) 956-7108 or at beau@HesperiaStar.com. Follow us on Facebook at Facebook.com/Hesperia.Star.

Get complete stories every day with the “exactly as printed” Daily Press E-edition, only $5 per month! Click here to try it free for 7 days. To subscribe to the Daily Press in print or online, call (760) 241-7755, 1-800-553-2006 or click here.

.

“Judas” and “Benedict Arnold” are some of the terms used by Liberty Quarry opponents to describe Riverside County Supervisor John Tavalgione following his vote Tuesday to certify the quarry’s environmental impact report.

BY JEFF HORSEMAN AND NELSY RODRIGUEZ
STAFF WRITERS
jhorseman@pe.com | nrodriguez@pe.com

Published: 16 May 2012 06:41 PM

Liberty Quarry opponents said Wednesday, May 16, that their dismay over county supervisors’ Tuesday decision to accept a report on the environmental affects of the quarry had turned to anger at the supervisor who cast the swing vote.

Also, legal experts said that by accepting the report, supervisors are leaving the door open for Granite Construction to reapply to build the open-pit mine south of Temecula.

They expressed conflicting views over why the Riverside County Board of Supervisors would formally deny a project based on environmental concerns yet accept the environmental report on which the denial was based.

On Tuesday, May 15, supervisors Bob Buster, Jeff Stone and Tavaglione voted to formally deny the controversial quarry. Tavaglione then voted alongside supervisors John Benoit and Marion Ashley to approve the environmental document. Approval of that document means that the county accepts Granite’s position that the quarry would improve the local environment by producing aggregate closer to where it would be shipped in San Diego County.

In February, the board voted 3-2, with Ashley and Benoit in favor, and Tavaglione casting the tie-breaking vote.

Tavaglione said in an email Wednesday that he was seeking a compromise between quarry supporters and foes.

To read entire story, click here.

By Ed Mendel
Thursday, May 17, 2012

The CalPERS board yesterday raised the annual state payment for state worker pensions $213 million to a total of $3.7 billion, rejecting Gov. Brown’s request for a bigger increase to avoid a “loan” costing “$145.9 million over the next 20 years.”

Unions asked the board to spread out higher pension costs mainly caused by a lower investment earnings forecast. Paying part of the new rate over two decades, instead of the full amount now, makes an extra $149 million available for worker pay and other programs next fiscal year.

Although the amount of money may be relatively small, compared to the $16 billion state budget deficit revealed this week, the issue is the big one facing public pensions.

Like former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who also unsuccessfully urged CalPERS to adopt higher state rates, Brown is asking the Legislature to enact cost-cutting pension reforms.

Painful increases in annual employer pension costs might increase public pressure for pension reform. But paying more now to avoid higher costs later also reflects the view that pensions are seriously underfunded.

Most pension funds expect to get about two-thirds of their revenue from investment earnings, not annual employer or employee contributions, and critics say the earnings forecasts are too optimistic.

Alarm grew when a deep economic recession, and a stock market crash in 2008, punched a big hole in pension investment funds. The CalPERS investment portfolio, still well below its peak of $260 million in 2007, was valued at $229.4 billion Tuesday.

CalPERS state worker plans were on average 70 percent funded last June 30 with an “unfunded liability” of $38.5 billion. That’s the shortfall in projected assets needed to pay for pensions over the next 30 years.

The state has a much larger debt for retiree health care promised current state workers over the next 30 years — $62 billion according to an actuarial report done for state Controller John Chiang.

There is no dispute about whether strong investment returns will help close the retiree health care funding gap. Legislation by former Assemblyman Dave Elder, D-Long Beach, created a retiree health care fund two decades ago.

But lawmakers chose not to put money in the fund. Now state worker retiree health care is a pay-as-you-go plan, up more than 60 percent in the last five years and costing the state general fund about $1.5 billion in the current fiscal year ending June 30.

Pension and other retirement costs are still a relatively small part of the current state budget, which is expected to spend $87 billion from the general fund and $34 billion from special funds for health, transportation and other programs.

The state is paying CalPERS $3.5 billion ($1.9 billion general fund), retiree health care $1.5 billion, California State Teachers Retirement System $1.3 billion, Social Security $500 million and Medicare $240 million.

In contrast, cities spend most of their budget on personnel, not on a range of programs like the state, and some cities are already overwhelmed. San Jose spends 20 percent of its general fund on retirement, an argument for a pension reform on its June ballot.

The state could have a much bigger pension problem if CalSTRS was properly funded, not to mention retiree health. Officials estimate that CalSTRS needs an additional $3.25 billion a year to be fully funded in 30 years.

Unlike the California Public Employees Retirement System and most public pensions, CalSTRS lacks the power to set annual contribution rates that must be paid by employers, needing legislation instead.

CalSTRS, about 69 percent funded, has been seeking a rate increase for five years. It’s offered legislators a half dozen scenarios that begin to phase in a rate increase in 2016, only one of which is projected to get CalSTRS to 100 percent funding.

The power of CalPERS to give the governor and the Legislature an annual bill that must be paid can be a friction point. In the dispute over paying off part of the new rate increase over 20 years, board members said they were giving lawmakers an option.

To read entire column, click here.

Capitol Alert
The latest on California politics and government
May 16, 2012

A political committee that Service Employees International Union California created to support moderate Republican candidates for the Legislature reported its first expenditure of the 2012 election Wednesday, dropping more than $15,000 on mail pieces opposing Republican Assemblyman Tim Donnelly’s bid for re-election.

Donnelly, a conservative first-term assemblyman known for his vocal opposition to illegal immigration, is facing Republican Bill Jahn, the mayor of Big Bear, and Democrat John Coffey on the June 5 ballot in the 33rd Assembly District.

To read entire story, click here.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 – 10:30 a.m.

The National Association of Realtors is approaching the $750,000 mark in its independent expenditure campaign supporting Congressman Gary Miller (R-Diamond Bar) according to current filings with the Federal Election Commission.

Both of the Association’s Super-PAC committees, the National Association of Realtors Congressional Fund and National Association of Realtors Political Action Committee, have collectively deployed the money.

Sources say the Realtors association will spend upwards of $1 million for Miller.

Congressman Joe Baca left. State Senator Gloria Negrete-McLeod right.

BY BEN GOAD
WASHINGTON BUREAU
bgoad@pe.com

Published: 15 May 2012 06:03 PM

Neither U.S. Rep. Joe Baca nor state Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod has had trouble getting elected in San Bernardino County, where the Democratic stalwarts have held public office for a combined 50 years.

Now Baca, D-Rialto, and Negrete McLeod, D-Chino, are set to do battle in territory both have represented before: California’s newly drawn 35th Congressional District.

The Green Party’s Anthony Vieyra of Pomona also is running for the seat, which covers Ontario, Chino and Pomona, as well as parts of Fontana and Rialto.

With greater name recognition and significant war chests, Baca and Negrete McLeod are considered front-runners in the race. And both could wind up in November’s general election, thanks to California’s new primary system, under which the top two vote-getters advance — even if they belong to the same party.

Baca’s Rialto home was drawn into the adjacent and less Democratic 31st Congressional District when the state’s redistricting panel created new political lines last summer. But there are no rules prohibiting him from running in a district where he doesn’t live and, since no other member of Congress resides in the 35th, Baca chose to run there instead.

Baca, whose current district includes about 60 percent of the 35th, touts his tenure in Washington in telling voters what separates him among candidates.

“As the incumbent running in the 35th Congressional District, I have the seniority and experience necessary to achieve important victories for families in the Inland Empire,” Baca wrote in his responses to a questionnaire The Press-Enterprise asked candidates to complete.

Baca said that, as a member of the fiscally moderate “Blue Dog” congressional caucus, he is able to forge agreements with GOP lawmakers in Congress. He noted occasions when he worked with Republican members of the Inland area’s congressional delegation on transportation, public safety and water projects.

Negrete McLeod also pointed to what she describes as a record of bipartisanship during her 12 years in the Legislature. She noted that, unlike Baca, she lives in the 35th.

To read entire story, click here.

Some demand refunds for $11K paid for candidate statements
May 15, 2012 9:10 AM
Natasha Lindstrom, Staff Writer

SAN BERNARDINO • Candidates in the June 5 election are irate that vote-by-mail ballots arrived at the doors of High Desert residents before the guides that include candidate statements — the carefully crafted remarks that cost candidates nearly $11,000 to file.

San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Michael Scarpello said by phone Monday the delay seems to stem from a delivery problem at the post office. He hadn’t heard complaints about the voter’s guides not arriving outside of the High Desert.

“We’re investigating, but at this point I don’t see any large-scale issues,” said Scarpello, confident that all voters should receive the guides within the next few days. “We’re just working with the post office to find out what the issue is.”

The county voter information guides, which include the sample ballots and candidate statements, should have gone out to voters Wednesday, Thursday and Friday to arrive by Saturday. Those guides are separate from the presidential primary guides that went out several weeks ago. Vote-by-mail ballots went out Friday and Saturday, according to Scarpello.

But as of Monday, residents from Apple Valley, Hesperia and Victorville reportedly had received only the vote -by-mail ballots. There was a printing error that postponed the delivery of some guides until Monday, Scarpello said, but that only accounted for about 1,000 out of 800,000 guides countywide.

“In talking with several of the other candidates that are in the race, both at the congressional level and the Board of Supervisors level, it is my belief that the registrar of voters just completely messed up,” Ryan McEachron, Victorville mayor and 8th Congressional District candidate, said. “No one seems to know what’s going on down there, not even the registrar of voters himself.”

The big fear among candidates is that absentee voters will cast and return their ballots without ever seeing the candidate statements. For many, those statements were a crucial part of campaign strategy.

“My biggest concern is equality for the candidates because this could obviously favor somebody with deep pockets,” said Rita Vogler, a former Hesperia councilwoman who’s not running in the election but has been helping run two anti-candidate campaigns. “This can be very, very damaging to the ones that have the least amount of resources.”

To read entire story, click here.

Capitol Alert
The latest on California politics and government
May 15, 2012

As Standard & Poors urged lawmakers Tuesday to pursue “credible” budget solutions to bridge the state’s $16 billion deficit, the ratings agency did not approve of Senate leader Darrell Steinberg’s idea to forego a reserve this year.

In the report, S&P suggested it could lower the state’s ratings outlook or even impose a downgrade if lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown don’t pursue real solutions that bolster the state’s cash situation this summer. The state still has a “positive” outlook but an A- credit rating, which rates lowest in the nation.

Brown built a $1.05 billion reserve into his $91.4 billion general fund budget for 2012-13. Steinberg said yesterday that one idea was to use that money instead on public programs.

To read entire story, click here.

By Jon Ortiz
jortiz@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, May. 16, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Wednesday, May. 16, 2012 – 6:26 am

One day after Gov. Jerry Brown proposed sweeping changes to state government work schedules, many employees were still deciphering what it means for them.

Brown wants to move most of California’s 214,000 workers to four-day workweeks and 9.5-hour shifts starting July 1. The change would reduce state workers’ hours and pay by 5 percent each month and cut state payroll by about $839 million, $401 million of it from the deficit-ridden general fund. Many departments would be closed on Fridays, some on Mondays.

Here are some of the most frequently asked questions from reader emails and comments on sacbee.com:

>So now what?

Marty Morgenstern, the Brown administration’s Labor and Economic Development Agency secretary, said the state will meet with departments and labor union officials to hammer out the particulars.

Look for those talks to heat up immediately, because Brown wants the new arrangements in place in time for the July 1 start of the 2012-13 fiscal year.

>Are the unions going for it?

It’s difficult to make a blanket characterization: A dozen unions represent 181,000 state workers divided into 21 bargaining units who perform thousands of different jobs.

But it’s clear that labor had a hand in shaping the proposal. For example, Brown’s budget also calls for cutting back on outside contracts for services such as janitorial and security work and computer technology consultants.

SEIU Local 1000, the largest state worker union, has argued for years that California pays too much for those kinds of vendor service contracts. Of course, ending that outsourcing would mean more jobs for state employees who are covered by the union.

By giving SEIU what it wants, it raises the likelihood that the 95,000-member union will go along with Brown’s furlough plan and make it harder for the other smaller unions to resist.

>State workers are all under contract right now. Doesn’t this violate those agreements?

Brown says he wants to honor the bargaining process, but that doesn’t mean that the contracts would need to be reopened. The changes could be enacted through short side-letter agreements that focus on the scheduling changes and nothing else.

>How long would the state run on the four-day schedule and cut employees’ pay?

Finance Department spokesman H.D. Palmer said the arrangement “could extend beyond the 2012-13 year.” That’s a detail that the administration needs to hammer out with the unions.

>What leverage does Brown have?

The governor could lay off employees, but that seems a stretch, given that the state already has shed 15,000 positions in 2012-13 and Brown anticipates cutting another 11,000 in the coming fiscal year. The layoff process is cumbersome, too, and Brown needs savings quickly to plug a $15.7 billion deficit.

Brown’s hand could be strengthened if Democratic legislators signal they’re willing to use their authority to circumvent labor contracts and impose pay cuts or furloughs if the unions don’t cooperate.

>Would Democrats really do that to their friends in organized labor?

Under severe budget pressure in 2009, the Legislature erased two paid state holidays and changed overtime rules without the unions’ consent. Nearly two years ago, the threat of legislative action on pension reform prodded labor leaders to compromise with then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

>Would union members vote on the schedule changes? What’s the Legislature’s role?

To read entire story, click here.

Dan Walters

By Dan Walters
Published: Wednesday, May. 16, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

Poker players often use the phrase “betting on the come” to describe a willingness, if instincts and odds indicate, to wager big on the hope that they will draw winning cards.

That’s a perfectly valid tactic when one is playing with one’s own money and therefore bearing the risk.

But is it appropriate for California politicians to bet on the come by approving many billions of dollars in spending on very shaky assumptions that the money will be there when it’s needed to pay the bills?

Risk was the underlying theme of two hearings in the Capitol on Tuesday.

One dealt with Gov. Jerry Brown’s newly revised budget, which assumes that voters will approve new taxes, and the other with the Brown-sponsored bullet train project, which assumes that the federal government will finance completion once it’s started.

Brown and his minions respond to doubts about those assumptions with assurances that if the taxes are not approved or the feds don’t provide bullet train money, they’ll have coping mechanisms that mitigate the risk.

He proposes “triggers” that would automatically cut spending if taxes are rejected, and to simply halt construction if the bullet train lacks financing. But those are fail-safe mechanisms only on paper, not in realpolitik terms.

Under Brown’s budget, the schools would suffer nearly all of the spending cuts were taxes to be rejected. He’s clearly doing that to push voters toward his tax plan, since schools are the single most popular category of state spending, but it’s very unclear that the very powerful education lobby and Democratic legislators would be willing to make that gamble.

To read entire story, click here.

By Judy Lin, Associated Press Writer
Posted: 05/15/2012 09:21:09 PM PDT
Updated: 05/15/2012 09:22:38 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO – Gov. Jerry Brown is pleading with Californians to raise their taxes as part of his solution for solving the state’s budget deficit, but it’s uncertain whether voters will be in an accepting mood come November.

Polls show voters want more money for schools but don’t want to tax themselves to pay for it. They continue to be pessimistic about the economy in a state with one of the highest jobless rates in the nation. And they distrust the Legislature, which oversees the budget.

Brown is facing a tough environment after announcing over the weekend that the state’s deficit had risen to $15.7 billion, much larger than he said a few months ago, said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in Pomona.

“When the governor says devastating things are going to happen, people will say, `Look, you said the shortfall was going to be a lot smaller than it was. You were wrong then; why should we believe you now?”‘ Pitney said. “The governor is facing a trust deficit as well as a fiscal deficit.”

On Tuesday, the Democratic governor defended his plan to raise the statewide sales tax and seek higher income taxes on the wealthy, warning of deep cuts that include a school year shortened by as much as three weeks if voters reject his taxes.

He said it was not a scare tactic but rather the stark reality of a state that is not taking in enough tax revenue to cover its expenses. His administration projected that California’s economy will continue to recover at a modest pace but housing and unemployment continue to be a drag.

To read entire story, click here.

Molly Munger talks about her tax proposal earlier this year. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

By Steve Lopez
May 16, 2012

In March, when I wrote that the tax increase proposals by Gov. Jerry Brown and civil rights attorney Molly Munger were unimaginative if not doomed, I got an email from Munger.

She did not agree, at least with regard to her initiative.

“Unimaginative?” she wrote, inviting me to meet with her.

This week, I decided to take her up on her offer after watching Brown admit that the financial mess he told us about in January was nothing compared to the mess we’re in now. Frankly, I don’t know how the January estimates were so far off the mark, with a $9-billion hole turning into a $16-billion hole in less time than it takes to grow tomatoes. Why should we trust the next set of numbers Brown throws at us?

The governor’s latest proposal is for $11 billion in cuts, and they would come with a warning that if we don’t pass his temporary sales and income tax hike in November — which would raise as much as $6 billion — the suffering will intensify and public schools will be hit even harder.

Look, I know this mess isn’t Brown’s fault, but I’m getting tired of his threats and his shortsighted “fixes.” It’s like having the foundation of your house flooded by a broken water main, and the plumber suggests you spend $75 to fix the leaky bathtub faucet.

And as Munger points out, even if the public backs Brown’s plan, schools are still going to be in big, big trouble.

“We’re bleeding, and it’s a tiny Band-Aid,” she said when we met Monday afternoon at Buster’s in South Pasadena, not far from where she lives.

Her plan would raise $10 billion a year by increasing income taxes on a sliding scale, all of it to retire school bonds and support education.

Brown on the other hand would temporarily raise income taxes on the wealthy and sales taxes on everyone, but only some of it would go to schools and the rest to various other services.

Does either have a chance?

I’m not terribly optimistic, but for all the parrots out there who do nothing but chirp about how California has a spending rather than a revenue problem, the fact is that Brown’s proposed $91-billion general fund budget would be roughly 10% smaller than the budget just five years ago. And as my colleague George Skelton has pointed out, general fund spending per $100 of income is lower today than it was in Ronald Reagan’s last year as governor.

So it’s at least possible that Californians would be willing to bite the bullet and raise taxes on themselves if they thought schools would benefit. But which bullet? It’s hard to believe that having two proposals on the ballot won’t lower the odds of either one passing.

Munger told me she and Brown have chatted, and the governor “talked about how campaigns can get very tough.”

Whoa! Was the governor threatening her to back off and clear the way for him or he’d wage a nasty campaign against her?

Munger keeps her cards close. She wouldn’t answer me directly, but said rather than one of them backing off, or waging a kickboxing competition, she’d rather see a scenario in which she supports the governor’s proposal and he supports hers. Even though if his got more votes, hers would be null and void.

And?

To read entire story, click here.

By Marc Lifsher
May 15, 2012, 9:05 p.m.

SACRAMENTO — The state government’s contribution to employee pensions is expected to jump to $3.7 billion from $3.5 billion in the fiscal year that starts July 1.

On Tuesday, a committee of the board of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System recommended the increase as well as a $29-million drop to $1.2 billion for non-teaching school and community college district workers.

Even with the increase, the state’s contribution is lower than the $3.9 billion paid in fiscal 2010-2011, CalPERS said.

The biggest factor in next spending year’s rise was a board decision in March to lower the fund’s expected average annual rate of return on investments to 7.5% from 7.75%, CalPERS said.

To read entire brief, click here.

Watching the sad spectacle of Governor Gandalf yet again expounding on California’s budget horrors Monday was like going to see one of those dreadful, anemic sequels to a long-ago tapped-out blockbuster franchise.

“Jaws 5: Devouring the Poor,” maybe, or “Die Hard Drowning in Red Ink” or even, “Groundhog Day 2: Punxsutawney Phil’s May Revise.”

The only thing worse was reading the inane Back East commentary, written by the usual assortment of Romney-sniffing blowhards, ill-informed thumbsuckers and right-wing mantra-chanters whose knowledge and understanding of California politics seems proscribed by the collected rantings of Flashreport freelancers and the world’s shortest book, viz. The Wit and Wisdom of Jon Coupal.

By far the day’s dumbest offering was submitted by the Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn, who must have spent at least 10 or 15 minutes after lunch coughing up his hairball analysis comparing Jerry Brown to Chris “Two Man” Christie without mentioning what you might call some of your Key Differences between California and New Jersey like, oh say Prop. 13, Prop. 98 or the two-thirds vote. But we digress.

The funniest comment came from the governor his own self, who put a new entry into Krusty’s Collected Coinages by characterizing the maze of interlocking and convoluted political and financial entanglements that define the chronic budget mess as “a pretzel palace of incredible complexity.”

Spurred by that fine phrase, utterly exhausted by watching the wheezy old Lakers vainly try to run with the OKC Thunder and certain that, as past is prologue, everything worth saying about the budget plague has long ago been said, we burrowed deeply into our incomparable Dustbin of History Archive, returning to the surface with three Calbuzz Classics that frame the issue for all time:

Why California is still broke(n). Once upon a time, before anyone had heard of Tanning Mom, Instagram or Dubstep, we proved with geometric logic that the state’s fiscal woes, far more than a simple matter of budgetary arithmetic, in fact result from a confluence of mind-numbing political calculus.

Since then, some incremental progress has been made in addressing the utterly dysfunctional structure of state government, most notably the terrific job done by the Citizen’s Redistricting Commission and the electorate’s willingness to throw down a bet on the new top-two primary system as a way to send at least a few more pragmatic pols and a few less ideological hacks to the swampland of Sacramento. Sadly, the bottom line remains the same:

As state and local officials struggle to weather a fiscal crisis that threatens to drive California into insolvency, they wield power with the damaged machinery of a patchwork government system that lacks accountability, encourages stalemate and drifts but cannot be steered.

Friends make the worst enemies. Of all the budgetary idiocy that’s unfolded since Gandalf took office, not least of it the Department of Finance’s blue-sky, rosy scenario revenue projections last summer, the single lamest move may be the legislative leadership’s delay of previously agreed-to cuts that made the current awful problem worse, a shining example of a political dynamic we described with a major assist from Calbuzz Poet Laureate William Butler Yeats.

But for a governor of California in recent years – at least since the days of Pete Wilson and Willie Brown, when leaders had power and deals could be made and enforced — finding that one’s most difficult challenge is the opposition party is actually an anomaly. For Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger — and this year Jerry Brown — the most debilitating opposition force in Sacramento is the extreme wing of his own party…

Jerry Brown is a centrist. Like Wilson, Davis, Schwarzenegger, he is trying to hold the center while those filled with passionate intensity flap and swirl around him. It is no service to the civic good for those on his left to set loose mere anarchy…

To read entire story, click here.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012 – 04:50 p.m.

Here is some news reverberating across the transom this week.

Brown wants portion of Harris foreclosure settlement

You gotta love it.

California Governor Jerry Brown, in an effort to cobble together more money to blow, wants to steal hundreds of millions of dollars meant to help distressed homeowners. The dough, a part of a national foreclosure settlement obtained by Attorney General Kamala Harris, is meant for distressed homeowners.

Harris has objected to Brown’s position.

And Brown appears as if he could care less.

One can only image what Harris is saying behind closed doors.

Issa endorses Cook

Stop the presses!

Congressman Darrel Issa (R-Vista) has endorsed Assemblyman Paul Cook in his quest to represent the 8th Congressional District.

Now this nod is definitely a scale tipper.

Laugh out loud.

CD 8 -  The Marine factor?

The battle of the Marines.

Yes, in the full out war in the 8th Congressional District, Assemblyman Paul Cook, a retired Marine colonel, and San Bernardino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, a former Marine Non-Commissioned Officer, are pressing those credentials hard.

The latest mailers has Cook displaying his medals, while Mitzelfelt is in full dress uniform.

It was Cook’s ballot title of Retired Marine Colonel that swept him into the 65th Assembly District six years ago.

A title now unavailable to him this go around.

U.S. Postal Service slow with campaign mail deluge

The U.S. Postal Service is struggling to deliver campaign mail this go around.

The combination of heavily contested races along with San Bernardino County’s new rocket scientist registrar of voters has buried mail carriers.

Registrar Michael Scarpello decided to hold off on the early mailing of sample ballots this year.

Scarpello decided voters were irresponsible in keeping the pamphlet available.

This year the sample ballots were mailed at virtually the same time as actual absentee ballots.

The only addressee’s receiving political mail in a timely manner?

Voters using P.O. Boxes!

Tuesday, May 15, 2012 – 08:30 a.m.

Was it the plan all along or just plain incompetence?

Governor Jerry Brown’s screwing over of the California budget that is.

Did Brown feel he needed a forest fire to brainwash voters into passing his November tax increase?

We may never know. But it sure looks like he’s capitalizing on the state’s budget buffoonery, when it comes to budgeting.

For the past five months, all we have been hearing from Brown is how we need more taxes so he and state democrat lawmakers can keep spending at current outrageous levels.

But, Brown has never really addressed shrinking the size of the bloated state government in any meaningful way.

The number of state workers on active payroll really hasn’t fallen.

After all, that would upset his labor union support.

Now Brown wants to play the furlough game.

Yes, Brown wants to have state workers switch to four, nine and one-half hour, days per week.

And that temporary sales tax an income tax increase? Try seven years.

Can you say permanent?

At this point, with three measures on the ballot, it’s questionable whether voters will approve any tax hike.

Brown should worry.

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Posted: 05/14/2012 07:54:53 PM PDT

A new way of distributing ballots to San Bernardino County’s registered voters has some candidates for office concerned about the delays.

With only 22 days to go before the June 5 primary, some voters still have not received their sample ballots and voter guides, but some have received their absentee ballots, officials said.

“I can never remember a time, even voting by mail, where I did not get my sample ballot at least a week or two before getting the actual ballot,” Victorville Mayor Ryan McEachron, who is vying for the 8th Congressional District seat, said Monday. “This is the first time this has ever happened.”

He said candidates pay $12,000 to have their ballot statements published in the voter guides. Voters may never even see those statements if they receive their actual ballots first, fill them out and mail them off, said McEachron.

“It’s unfortunate because it’s going to create all kinds of questions as to the validity of this election, and not just the Congressional race but the Board of Supervisors race as well,” McEachron said.

San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Michael Scarpello said that under law, sample ballots can be sent out as early as 40 days prior to an election or as late as 10 days prior to an election.

He said this year’s delay is due to a new approach his office is taking to assure that the county’s high number of provisional voters hold onto their sample ballots as the election draws near and know where their nearest polling locations are. To do that, sample and absentee ballots are being mailed out around the same time.

“In order to address that problem, we’ve decided this year to hold the sample ballots closer to the election so that people aren’t as likely to lose them,” Scarpello said. “It’s important that people look at their sample ballots and find out where their polling place is.”

More than 50,000 provisional voters in San Bernardino County voted in the 2008 presidential election.

To read entire story, click here.

Posted: 05/14/2012 06:14:43 PM PDT

SBD Airport Services’ attempt to convince a federal judge to restore the company’s access to San Bernardinno International Airport’s fueling facilities has been postponed to June 18.

The company was previously scheduled to make its argumen tbefore Judge Deborah J. Saltzman on Monday at U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Riverside. The fuel issue is part of the company’s ongoing bankruptcy case.

SBD Airport Services declared bankruptcy in March, about one month after interim SBIA chief A.J. Wilson terminated the company’s fuel contract. Wilson moved against the company after the firm did not have enough fuel on hand to propvide the full amount of fuel requested by a 727 pilot.

To read entire story, click here.

California Governor Jerry Brown

By Kevin Yamamura
kyamamura@sacbee.com
Published: Tuesday, May. 15, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Tuesday, May. 15, 2012 – 6:17 am

Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that the state budget deficit had grown by a remarkable 70 percent since January, but fiscal experts said the economy had little to do with it.

They instead blamed a bad marriage of volatile capital gains and political intransigence that led state leaders last year to count on a huge upswing in revenues that never materialized. At the same time, corporate tax changes from 2009 appear to have cost California more than state officials ever realized.

The Democratic governor says the general fund deficit has mushroomed from $9.2 billion to $15.7 billion. Most of the widening gap comes from acknowledging that his previous forecast was too optimistic, a concern that economists voiced last summer.

“I think the sense we were all getting last year was that we were getting to the end of our rope in solutions,” observed Brad Williams, a fiscal forecaster who previously worked for the Legislative Analyst’s Office. “This was what was left – an aggressive forecast.”

The recession has had a lasting impact on a general fund budget that dropped from $103 billion in 2007-08 to $86 billion this year.

But nothing significant has changed in the California economy this spring to warrant such a dramatic growth in the deficit.

While housing and government jobs have yet to experience much recovery, taxes from paycheck withholding and sales are slowly growing. Export and high-tech sectors are robust.

“There’s nothing wrong with the economy,” said Chris Thornberg of Beacon Economics. “The problem here is the process. Simple as that.”

The deficit also grew because federal judges and administrators rejected cuts to Medi-Cal and in-home care programs. The state owes more to schools in 2012-13 because of how funding formulas work, another symptom of the faulty revenue projection.

A year ago, Brown issued a different May budget on an upbeat note after state coffers overflowed in April 2011.

That tax boost put the state on a higher glide path, but Democratic lawmakers and Brown doubled down when May and June also saw more revenues and they could not persuade Republicans to support a tax measure.

They turned to more optimistic projections after the governor vetoed Democrats’ first budget, which contained a sale of state buildings, use of First 5 early childhood money that has since been blocked by a judge and a questionable maneuver to pass a quarter-cent sales tax by majority vote.

Their eventual budget deal had the state counting on another $4 billion more in 2011-12. Brown’s Department of Finance now predicts the state won’t collect the $4 billion and will fall an additional $1.2 billion short.

Capital gains have become an increasingly significant part of California revenues over the past two decades, and with it comes instability in state revenues and forecasting.

The upcoming sale of Facebook stock is expected to net $1.5 billion for the state through June 2013, and possibly an additional $400 million if voters pass the governor’s tax hike on wealthy earners.

Brown said Monday he thought last year’s actions were “reasonable when we did it.” He blamed the missed projection on the volatile nature of the state’s tax system and called the state budget “a pretzel palace of incredible complexity.”

Twice, he referenced JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, whose firm recently revealed a $2 billion trading loss, calling that “a big miss.”

“The capitalist system is not coincident with your expectations of exactitude,” Brown said. “It doesn’t play out like we may want it to.”

To balance this year’s budget, Brown has proposed a mix of spending cuts, fund shifts and his $8.5 billion tax hike on sales and wealthy earners. Some of the deepest reductions hit poor Californians, such as stricter requirements in welfare-to-work, lower payments to Medi-Cal providers and a reduction in Cal Grants. He also has proposed trimming the 40-hour workweek by two hours for state workers.

To read entire story, click here.

UPDATED: 2:45 p.m.

Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday implored voters to approve his tax proposal as he presented a revised budget plan to address a deficit that has ballooned to $16 billion.

“We have a more difficult problem. We’re going to have to cut deeper,” Brown said. “But cutting alone really doesn’t do it. That’s why I’m linking these serious budget reductions — real increase to austerity — with a plea to the voters: Please increase taxes temporarily on the most affluent and everyone else.”

The governor’s revised plan calls for an additional $4.1 billion in cuts on top $4.2 billion in reductions already proposed in January, but Brown’s message was squarely focused on the state’s need for more revenue. Brown recently submitted signatures to qualify his seven-year tax hike for the November ballot. It calls for increasing the sales tax by a quarter percent while also raising personal income taxes for individuals making $250,000 or more per year.

If the taxes aren’t approved in November, Brown’s budget plan calls for an automatic $6.1 billion “trigger cut” in addition to the $8.3 billion in other cuts. The majority of the trigger cut would be to schools, which has Republicans grousing that the governor is intentionally targeting education to gain voter support.

“If the taxes don’t pass, (schools) get 97 percent of the cuts,” said Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar, whose district includes part of Orange County. “…That’s a little bit disingenuous, because you know people want to fund education. But if that’s the lever that they can pull to get people to support the so-called temporary taxes that are now seven years, then that’s the lever they’re going to pull.”

In January, when Brown initially presented his 2012-13 budget proposal, his office pegged the deficit at $9.2 billion. Brown said it has since grown to $16 billion because of the economy and because the federal government and courts have blocked some reductions. But on Monday Brown had to acknowledge he played a role in the increase as well when he and the Legislature approved last year a budget based on the rosy assumption of a $4 billion increase in tax receipts. That money never materialized.

“Here’s the deal: We have an uncertain economy. We had very good revenues in June (of last year). It looked like we had the money. And therefore we put the budget together the way we did,” Brown said. “…It’s very easy to play gotcha.”

To address the bigger gap, Brown proposes additional cuts to Medi-Cal, the court system, child care services and in-home supportive services, among others. Brown is also proposing a 5 percent reduction in employee pay, to be achieved through negotiations with public employee labor unions. Brown’s plan to cut pay involves moving some state employees to a four-day work schedule and reducing their weekly hours from 40 to 38.

Under that proposal, some state offices would change their hours from 8 to 5 Monday through Friday to a 7 to 7 Monday through Thursday. For all practical purposes, the idea is very similar to the “Furlough Fridays” enacted under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, but the Brown administration and Democrats in the Legislature both said this plan won’t face the same opposition from public employees.

To read entire story, click here.

L.A. NOW
Southern California — this just in
May 14, 2012 | 1:29 pm

State judicial leaders warned Monday that the proposed cuts for the California courts may jeopardize public access to the justice system.

During the last three years, the state’s huge court system has been cut by $650 million. The new proposed budget would shrink the system by another $544 million, freezing construction to replace dilapidated courthouses.

The new cuts come after Gov. Jerry Brown released a revised $91-billion budget in response to the state deficit that has ballooned to $16 billion, nearly twice what the governor projected when he released his initial budget proposal in January. In addition to the court cuts, Brown is proposing sharp cuts to health and welfare spending, and a 5% reduction in state payrolls.

California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye called for an emergency meeting Monday of judicial leaders to determine how the courts should respond.

“The proposed cuts to the judicial branch are both devastating and disheartening,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “They will seriously compromise the public’s access to their courts and our ability to provide equal access to justice throughout the state.”

To read entire story, click here.

Dan Walters

By Dan Walters
Published: Tuesday, May. 15, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

Just a few months ago, Gov. Jerry Brown chastised “declinists” and “dystopian journalists” for their pessimism about California, particularly about emerging from a deep recession.

“Contrary to those critics who fantasize that California is a failed state, I see unspent potential and incredible opportunity,” Brown told the Legislature in January, citing supposed signs of economic recovery.

On Monday, however, Brown blamed a sluggish economy for revenues falling billions of dollars short of the rosy estimates in the budget he signed last June.

“You can never get it quite right,” Brown told reporters as he released a revised budget aimed at closing a deficit he pegged at $15.7 billion, $6.5 billion more than his previous estimate.

“We have an uncertain economy,” he added, describing revenue and deficit numbers as a “guesstimate.”

Whatever the deficit may truly be, Brown’s revised 2012-13 budget is as much a political document as a fiscal one, clearly aimed at persuading voters to approve new sales and income taxes next November.

One of the charts he displayed uses $16.7 billion as a goal ($15.7 billion deficit plus a $1 billion reserve) and claims that his budget relies on $8.3 billion in cuts for half, while counting on just $5.9 billion in new revenues, plus $2.5 billion in other moves, mostly one-time shifts.

His goal, quite obviously, is to prove to voters that he isn’t just asking them to pay more taxes, but is also slashing health and welfare services, courts, state employees’ pay and other spending categories.

“California has been living beyond its means,” he said. “There has to be a balance and a day of reckoning. This is a … day of reckoning.”

To read entire story, click here.

The Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation petitioned the 3rd District Court of Appeals today to remove from the November ballot a proposal to abolish the death penalty in California, arguing it violates the state’s “single-subject rule” for initiatives.

The foundation said abolishing the death penalty while also authorizing the distribution of $100 million to local law enforcement agencies to help solve murder and rape cases violates a requirement that ballot measures address only one subject.

“This kind of manipulation, forcing the people to vote on two different measures as an all-or-nothing choice, is exactly what the single-subject rule was put in the Constitution to prevent,” the foundation’s Kent Scheidegger said in a prepared statement.

To read entire story, click here.

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (Anne Cusack/LA Times)

Neil Nisperos, Staff Writer
Posted: 05/13/2012 01:52:32 PM PDT

A flap over a gun has provided fodder for Assemblyman Tim Donnelly’s opponents in a battle for the hearts and minds of voters in the 33rd Assembly District.

For his opponents in the June 5 primary election, Donnelly’s arrest for carrying a loaded gun into an airport was a vital lapse in judgment.

For Donnelly, R-Hesperia, it’s an overblown incident that clouds the real issues he says he stands for – smaller and more efficient government, with an unwavering anti-illegal-immigration stand.

At stake in the election is the right to represent voters in an area that includes Victorville, Apple Valley, Hesperia, parts of San Bernardino and Redlands, Barstow, Baker, Crestline, Lake Arrowhead, Highland and Newberry Springs.

If no one wins a majority of votes in the primary, the top two finishers, no matter what party, will face each other in the November election.

Donnelly’s opponents are quick to bring up two areas they see as vulnerable – what they say is a lack of legislative productivity and the now-infamous incident in which he was caught with a loaded handgun in his bag at L.A./Ontario International Airport in January.

Fellow Republican Bill Jahn, the mayor of Big Bear Lake, and Democrat John Coffey, an educator for special-needs students in Barstow Unified School District, pulled no punches against Donnelly, a tea party conservative and anti-illegal immigration activist.

“Everything he touches is dead on arrival because he’s pretty much well alienated both sides of the aisle,” said Jahn, a construction developer who has served on a number of local agency boards. “During my trips up to Sacramento, talking to different folks, I pretty much confirm that to be the case.”

Jahn’s campaign website provides several articles about Donnelly’s run-in with the law. Jahn said he believes the assemblyman received special treatment because, unusually, he was let go easily without arrest.

“I don’t care who you are,” Jahn said in a recent interview. “We’re not above the law, and we should all be playing by the same rules. …

“I’m a responsible gun owner, but you can bet your boots I know where my gun is. I know if it’s loaded. I know if I’m going carry it around I’d better have a concealed weapons permit, and I expect my assemblyman to do the same thing.”

Coffey, a lifelong Democrat and a former board member for the Newberry Springs Community Services District, said voters are tired of what he called the lack of legislative success from Donnelly, but he also called into question Donnelly’s judgment over the gun flap.

“I think it shows an appalling lack of judgment, and it’s indicative of irresponsibility,” Coffey said. “The man has children at home and he doesn’t know where loaded guns are at all times. I believe it gives the general public and voters cause for concern.”

In recent months, Donnelly pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor charges related to the gun incident and led a signature-gathering effort to repeal the Dream Act, which provides public funds to help illegal immigrants go to college.

Donnelly, who has been apologetic over the gun incident, isn’t shy about bringing it up. He says most people who have spoken to him about the gun incident have been supportive.

“The thing at the airport got blown up into a massive story way out of proportion to anything that made any sense,” Donnelly said. “The media knew they could sell papers, and my political opponents were pushing for it.”

On the matter of legislative success, Donnelly said it would be better if lawmakers passed fewer laws, and called attention to what he called his effectiveness as a voice on immigration and budget issues on the popular “John and Ken” radio show and “The Daily Show.”

“If you ask if I have been effective and if you measure it by whether or not I’ve taken the message that I went there to take and have done everything I could to leverage it with the media and talk about real issues, then I would say, yes absolutely,” said Donnelly, who is for shrinking state government. “I’ve been most effective in the state of California at trying to use the bully pulpit in our direction.”

Jahn painted himself as a lawmaker who is able to work across political parties in order to “get budgets in line” and reverse unemployment.

“I’ll be the first guy to tell you I’m a conservative, and I’m not going to vote to raise taxes, and there are other conservative principles that I’m not going to bend on,” Jahn said, “but there’s a whole lot of other stuff that can get done by both sides without either side compromising their principles.”

While Jahn aims to protect Proposition 13, the 1978 voter- approved measure limiting property taxes, Coffey said he would introduce legislation to curtail or eliminate commercial property from the measure’s protection.

“My best guess is this would generate $5 billion or $6 billion to exclude commercial property not occupied by the owner,” Coffey said.

Voter registration in the 33rd Assembly District is 33 percent Democratic and 41 percent Republican.

Reach Neil via email, call him at 909-483-9356, or find him on Twitter @InlandGov.

Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/ci_20615476/educator-mayor-challenge-donnelly-33rd-assembly-district-race#ixzz1urWaBuNN

Norma Torres

Neil Nisperos, Staff Writer
Created: 05/13/2012 01:54:51 PM PDT

Assemblywoman Norma Torres, D-Chino, faces three opponents in the June 5 primary race for the 52nd Assembly District seat, including a former Republican who has now registered as a Democrat.

Torres, a former Pomona mayor, is being challenged by Chino resident and restaurant owner Ray Moors, a Democrat; Pomona Planning Commissioner Kenny Coble, a Republican; and Ontario-Montclair School District board member Paul Vincent Avila, a Democrat.

If no one wins a majority of the votes cast in the primary, the top two finishers, no matter the party, will face each other in the November election.

The 61st Assembly District – Torres’ current district – is nearly identical to the new 52nd Assembly District, which includes Pomona, Claremont, La Verne, Ontario, Montclair and parts of Fontana.

Torres has introduced legislation to keep 9-1-1 dispatch calls private, to strengthen DUI laws, and to require the arrest of those caught with loaded firearms at airports.

She’s voted to support lessons about gay history in public schools and to eliminate redevelopment agencies.

Campaign donation reports show Torres has consistent support from labor organizations, with a balance of $172,858 in her campaign chest for 2012.

“I think what I’m most proud of is the outreach to my community,” Torres said. “We’ve conducted a lot of workshops and hosted coffee shop meetings for our community to come in and meet with me one-on-one. It’s a much better way to engage with my constituency.”

As a Republican running against Torres in the November 2010 election, Moors received 29,000 votes to Torres’ 44,000 votes.

For the primary, he’s running as a “conservative, pro-business” Democrat, with a platform to introduce self-insured health and workers’ compensation plans for state workers in order to create jobs and shore up the budget deficit.

Moors said the new state agency would pay for each claim instead of a premium to an insurance company.

To read entire story, click here.

In the first broad test of California’s new “top-two” election system, many candidates in heated races for Congress and the state Legislature have been campaigning earlier, spending more money and downplaying their party affiliation as they try to widen their appeal.

Gone are the party primaries, except in the presidential race. Now all state candidates appear on a single ballot. Only those who come in first or second on June 5 will move on to the November general election, in which no write-in or other added candidates will be allowed.

The new rules, approved by California voters in 2010, further empower voters who don’t belong to a political party — already the fastest-growing category in California, accounting for more than 21% of the state’s registration.

For the first time, some ballots for 53 congressional, 20 state Senate and 80 Assembly seats include unaffiliated candidates. Among the 36 who list themselves with “no party preference” are two congressional candidates who recently ditched their party ties: Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks and former Assemblyman Anthony Adams of Hesperia, both previously Republicans.

Along with the new voting districts drawn last year by a citizens commission rather than by lawmakers protecting their own seats, the fresh election rules have prompted many campaigns to rewrite their playbooks.

“What the open primary has done is reshuffle the strategic deck,” said Democratic strategist Richie Ross. “The timing and the manner in which you communicate have got to be adjusted.”

Going negative on opponents during the primary could come back to haunt a candidate if it alienates voters needed to win the November runoff, Ross said. Candidates are no longer assured of getting to November by courting only voters in their own party. And races in some districts that used to be all but over in the primary will probably remain competitive through the fall.

“It’s very complicated, very new, and everybody’s going to learn a lot about how this is going to work,” said Richard Temple, a GOP consultant. His clients this year include Nathan Mintz, one of two Republicans and a Democrat running for a “swing” Assembly seat in the South Bay’s 66th District that could be won by either major party in the fall.

The other Republican in the race is businessman Craig Huey, who already has sent out at least one mail advertisement introducing himself to voters and knocking the Democrat, Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance school board member and deputy state attorney general. Given the nearly even registration of the two parties in the district, local politics watchers view Muratsuchi as the probable winner of one runoff spot. Mintz and Huey have to compete for GOP voters while also wooing independents and third-party voters.

Those voters can be unpredictable. Moreover, unless there is a contested presidential race or a controversial ballot measure or two to stir their interest, most unaffiliated voters typically do not turn out in big numbers for primary elections. Temple and others think that will change dramatically once independents understand their new power, but it could take at least one or two election cycles to sink in.

Democratic consultant Mike Shimpock, who is overseeing Muratsuchi’s bid and that of several others, said the new rules present a new challenge in deciding when and where to spend campaign money. That is especially true in districts that are strongly Democratic — like many in the Los Angeles area — or heavily Republican.

Previously, a candidate who matched a district’s lopsided registration had only to worry about winning the party primary and would campaign hardest, and spend the most, for that purpose before coasting to victory in the runoff. Now, with the possibility that two members of the dominant party could square off in November, those strategic choices are trickier, Shimpock said.

To read entire story, click here.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s announcement that the state’s deficit has swelled to $16 billion (from a $9.2-billion estimate in January) means that a new array of budget cuts are likely.

But where to cut?

Talk back LAAs The Times’ Anthony York and Christopher Megerian reported Sunday, Brown’s announcement doubled as a sales pitch for tax hikes that he hopes voters approve at the ballot box in November. He said budget cuts, primarily to public education, would be even worse without increasing the sales tax a quarter-cent for four years and raising levies on incomes of $250,000 or more by 1 to 3 percentage points for seven years.

“We can’t fill a hole of this magnitude with cuts alone without doing severe damage to our schools,” Brown says. “That’s why I’m bypassing the gridlock and asking you, the people of California, to approve a plan that avoids cuts to schools and public safety.”

Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) said severe spending reductions in previous years have left few places for lawmakers to make more cuts, meaning higher taxes are needed to close the larger-than-expected deficit.

To read entire story, click here.