Pacific Progressive

A Better Way to Fight Hunger in California - State Bill Aims to Streamline System and Improve Access to Programs

This material was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund

By Araceli Ruano, Rebecca Friendly 

California is typically at the forefront when it comes to progressive policies, but it now finds itself far behind the rest of the country in administering the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, known as CalFresh in California. SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, is often cited as the first line of defense against hunger by allowing needy households to purchase food at grocery retailers through Electronic Benefit Transfer cards.

Currently, California has an overly complicated application and quarterly reporting system for Calfresh recipients that is burdensome to all involved and likely the cause of the low participation rates in the state. Participation rates in the program are extremely low with only about 50 percent of eligible Californians enrolled. These rates make California second to last among states on measures of program participation. A 100 percent participation rate of eligible households as seen in other states could mean an additional $4.9 billion in federal nutrition benefits for needy Californians.

California is the only state in the nation that does not use a simplified or semiannual reporting system despite the fact that the Department of Agriculture supports and encourages it because it decreases burdens for clients, reduces administrative workload, and improves accuracy. Similarly, California is one of only three states and a few localities that require participating households to complete a fingerprint image when applying for CalFresh. Until a few weeks ago, there were four states requiring finger print images for SNAP applicants, but Texas decided to eliminate the practice altogether.

Sale of State Office Buildings Blocked Until January 23, 2011 - Is There a Mumbai Connection?

The sale of California state office buildings has been blocked by the 6th District Court of Appeal until January 23, 2011.  Last week, Gov. Schwarzenegger asked the California Supreme Court to force the sale, citing that the deal wouldn't get done unless it was completed before he left office on January 3, 2011. The California Supreme Court recused themselves en banc and the case went to a lower court for a hearing.  Read the brief here.   Download SupremeCourtFilingDec21

The sale has been controversial from the start.  The Legislative Analyst's Office wrote two reports (Evaluating the Sale-Leaseback Proposal: Should the State Sell Its Office Buildings? and Sale Leaseback of State Office Buildings) which concluded that the sale of the office buildings in daily use by State employees would cost the taxpayers money in the long term.  

In March 2010, Jerry Epstein and Rusty Doms (Los Angeles State Building Authority) and Stan Moy and Don Casper of the San Francisco State Building Authority were dismissed from the committee after opposing the sale of the office buildings. Epstein and Doms later filed suit to stop the sale alleging harm to taxpayers.

The winning bidder for the buildings, California First LLC, was controversial.  Partners are reported to include Richard Mayo (a appointee for former Gov. Pete Wilson whose job it was to sell off state property) and Mumbai real estate investor Chandra R. Patel.  The other partners in the real estate deal have not been identified. At one time, Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido claimed to be eligible to receive $500,000 if the deal closed.  Pulido has since backed off that claim.  

Gov Asks California Supreme Court to Allow Sale of State Office Buildings

Download SupremeCourtFilingDec21

These are copies of the papers filed with the California Supreme Court on behalf of Gov. Schwarzenegger to force the sale of the state office buildings to go thru before he leaves office.  

The big losers if this sale goes thru will be the taxpayers because they will sell buildings they already own and use every day and then rent them back. It's like selling your car to your neighbor because you need money for the weekend and then renting the car back everyday to go to work.

The Legislative Analyst's Office explains how the winners are the real estate companies and the losers are taxpayers. Download Sale_leaseback_110910

State Office Building Sale - Plaintiffs Lack Standing, Not Merit, in Case

On December 11, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Charlotte Woolard ruled that the plaintiffs in the case to stop the sale of state office buildings lacked standing to bring the suit and did not rule on the merits of the case.  Joseph Crotchett, the attorney bringing the suit on behalf the two men, will appeal the ruling.

The judge's ruling does not confirm that the Legislature and governor are correct and have legal standing to sell the office buildings. The ruling only means that the judge believes the wrong people showed up in court to bring the suit because they cannot show how they will be impacted by the sale of the office buildings.

The sale has been controversial.  Mayor Miguel Pulido of Santa Ana said in a deposition that he could receive $500,000 in success fees if the sales closed as planned but later retracted that statement.  Research is showing that successful bidders have ties to Gov, Schwarzenegger thru campaign contributions and one may be a UC Regent.  State Controller John Chiang and Treasure Bill Lockyer have come out against the sale saying the taxpayers will be the loser in the long run because of the relatively high interest rate (10%) being paid on the sale.  

The sale of the state office buildings was authorized by ABX4 22, the same bill which put the Orange County Fairgrounds up for sale.

Coverage of the sale office buildings:

Link to draft leases, economic analysis, offers, and proposals for sale of state office buildings

Dec 11, 2010 - LA Times - Judge Refuses to Halt Sale of Two Dozen State Government Buildings

Dec 10, 2010 - Voice of OC - Judge OKs Pulido-Involved Property Sale

Dec 9, 2010 - California's Capitol - More Information on Who is Buying 11 State Office Buildings

Dec 7, 2010 - LA Times - $500,000 'Success Fee' Revealed in Proposed Sale of State Buildings

Dec 3, 2010 - UCLA Faculty Association - Bad Deal for State Involves UC Regent

Dec 2, 1010 - California's Capitol - Is Capital Pacific Holding Helping to Buy 11 State Buildings?

Nov 23, 2010 - LA Times - Judge May Bar Sale of 24 California Buildings 

Nov 20, 2010 - Huffington Post - Could a California Budget Fix Threaten National Security?

Assembly Seating Assignments Announced - Where's Mansoor Seated?

New members of the California Legislature were sworn in today and received their seating assignments.

Allan Mansoor (AD 68) is now seated in front of Gil Cedillo (AD 45).

Mansoor is known for his strong anti-immigrant stance.  During his time as Mayo, Mansoor increased ICE enforcement in the local jail, wasted over $560K in a lawsuit over an immigrant rights activist not being allowed to speak at a City Council meeting, and declaring Costa Mesa a "rule of law city". 

Cedillo is a popular legislator from East LA.  He likes to say that it's his job to represent the Latinos in California.  Cedillo has championed drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants.  Cedillo has served as the chair of the Latino Caucus of the California Legislature.

Seating assignments are for the entire legislative term.

Will Californians Finally Reform Property Tax Loopholes for Corporations?

by: Rose Aguilar, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

 

On June 6, 1978, Proposition 13 passed in California with 65 percent of the vote. Proposition 13, the brainchild of the late anti-tax Republican Howard Jarvis, radically slashed property taxes by rolling them back to 1975 levels, limiting increases to no more than two percent a year and requiring reassessments only when a change in ownership occurs. When a change of ownership does occur, corporations are able to avoid property tax hikes because reassessments only apply if a single entity acquires more than 50 percent of the asset.

One of the most well-known examples involves E&J Gallo's purchase of the Louis M. Martini Winery in 2002. The second largest winery in the world, with annual sales of approximately $2 billion, E&J Gallo acquired over 1,300 acres of some of the most beautiful vineyards in Sonoma and Napa counties, worth an estimated $75 million. Because Gallo split the purchase among 12 families members - no one person obtained more than 50 percent of the Martini property - it wasn't reassessed for tax purposes.

Napa County tax assessor John Tuteur told The Bay Citizen that he "realized from the beginning how smart they were. They used [a] loophole in the law to manage to avoid reassessment," which would have been in the "tens of millions of dollars."

Gov. Schwarzenegger's May Budget Revise Choking Off Hope of Economic Recovery

Statement by Art Pulaski, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the California Labor Federation

"With today's revision of the state budget, Gov. Schwarzenegger has accelerated his slash-and-burn cuts to vital services into an all-out scorched earth campaign. At a time when joblessness and recession continue to batter California families, the devastating cuts the Governor proposes would choke off any hope of economic recovery.

"The Governor's devastating cuts to the programs that serve parents, seniors and the elderly will not only harm the state's most vulnerable populations, but will damage the broader economy. CalWORKS and the In-Home Supportive Services Program provide critical support to mothers looking for employment and to seniors and the disabled who need assistance to survive on their own.

"The Governor's proposed salary and benefit cuts to public employees would place additional hardship on workers already reeling from furloughs and layoffs, and would shutter businesses those workers support. Additionally, the Governor made good on his promise to deliver "terrible cuts" to other vital programs, like our state's welfare-to-work program, public education, children's health care, programs to support vulnerable immigrant families, and subsidized child care.

"California's working families demand a fair budget that isn't balanced on the backs of middle-class and low-income workers. This budget fails miserably by nearly every measure. The Governor yet again chooses to ignore the will of the people and instead panders to the narrow interests of his wealthy friends and benefactors. The Legislature must forcefully reject the Governor's proposals and pass a budget that will protect working families and help our economy return to solid footing."

Bringing Transparency to the State Budget Process

Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) wants to open up the budget process to as many Californians as possible so the final spending plan reflects the values of Californians. In order to give more people a voice in the budget process Speaker Pérez and other Assembly Democrats are hosting a series of interactive budget forums around the state that are being webcast live on the internet. A series of budget hearings at the state capitol will also be webcast live online. At a press conference in Fresno minutes before a townhall, Speaker Pérez talked about how he hopes the interactive live webcasts will bring transparency to the complex state budget process. Heres the Speaker in this Assembly Access video.

Major Gift to Real Estate Industry to be Made by State of California by Selling Office Buildings

California has decided to sell office buildings owned by the state to help close the budget gap.  The sale of these buildings is included in AB 4x 22, the bill that put the Orange County Fairgrounds up for sale.  The claim is these buildings are too valuable for the state to keep in their portfolio so the plan is to sell them and then lease them back from the new owners.

That's right - these are office buildings in use every single day by state employees. These are not empty buildings that have not been used for years. These are not buildings in poor condition that need to be torn down. These are quality office space that the state owns that would cost a small fortune to rent back.

Brown vs. Democracy

by George Lakoff, Truthout

This article was published by Truthout

Truthout / CC BY-NC 3.0

With the California Financial Crisis at stake, the impartiality of the California attorney general has come under scrutiny.

Proponents of the California Democracy Act, a ballot initiative that would restore a majority vote for revenue and budget in the legislature, are asking Jerry Brown, the attorney general, for a new title and summary. An exhaustive poll has shown that Brown's title and summary changed the meaning and intent of the proposed initiative by one of the largest margins ever seen in a poll.

The poll was conducted by David Binder Research, one of California's most respected polling firms. The poll showed that the actual initiative for majority on revenue and budget is supported by likely California voters by a 73 to 22 percent margin - a 51 percent lead. But Attorney General Brown personally wrote the title and summary with wording that shifts that favorable margin to a 38 to 56 percent unfavorable margin - a 69 percent shift!

The poll was conducted March 6-11, with a random sample of 800 likely voters with a margin of error of ±3.5 percent. The summary appears on www.CaliforniansforDemocracy.com.

Assm. Pedro Nava Builds Support for Oil Industry Fair Share Act

"Compared to other states, California oil companies are getting a free ride.  California is the only major oil producing state that does not charge an oil severance tax on oil extraction," said Assm. Nava.  An oil severance tax is estimated to provide about $1.5 billion which could be used for education and General Fund expenses.

Assembly Hearings on Retention of Parole Records

Parole records in California have become an issue in the recent death of Chelsea King.  The California Department of Corrections (CDCR) had been destroying parole records 180 days to one year after parole.  A new policy requires "indefinite" retention for sex offender records.  Assm. Hector De La Torre, Chair of the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review, chaired hearings on March 24, 2010 to review policy and fix problems.  The opening statement is here.

States Weigh Taxes to Help Fund Medicaid - And Raise Federal Contributions

by Andy Miller

This story was published by Kaiser Health News.

As the recession demolishes their budgets, states are increasingly turning to taxes on hospitals and other health care providers to help pay for their beleaguered Medicaid programs.

For state governments, the taxes offer an added benefit: By coming up with more money for Medicaid, they can get more funds from Washington for the joint federal-state health care program for the poor and disabled. In addition, some, but not all, hospitals will get more money in Medicaid payments than they'll pay in increased taxes.

Critics, including Robert Helms of the American Enterprise Institute, are wary of such financing approaches, calling them gimmicks to leverage unwarranted increases in Medicaid funding from the federal government.

Taxing hospitals and other medical providers is not new. Twenty-two states have "significant health provider or hospital taxes," according to the Web site of the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington that advocates for lower taxes. The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured says 44 states in all have some type of provider tax.

California Budget - Corporations Win, People Suffer

The California Budget Project has a briefing on the state budget, Searching for Balance: The Social and Economic Context of the Governor's Proposed 2010-11 Budget which looks at the changes the budget will make in the lives of daily Californians. So many times, budget discussions focus only on the numbers and forget about the people who will lose jobs or health care as a result of the cuts.  California's population is changing - becoming older, more diverse and with greater gaps in income.  The current budget shows the rolling back of services while corporations receive tax breaks.

Here are some fast facts from the briefing.

• Corporations have benefited significantly from cuts.  $8.3 billion more would have been collected if corporations paid the same share of taxes in 2007 as they did in 1981.  Since 1981, corporate income taxes have fallen by nearly half.
• The fastest growing group of Californians will be those 65 years old and over (75.4% change between 2000 and 2020.) The group aged 5-19 will have the smallest growth (13.5% change from 2000 and 2020.)
• The income for the top 1% of earners grew by 117% between 1995 and 2007.  The top 1% more than doubled their income during that time while the top 20% of earners saw only a 51% increase in income.
• K-12 education is the biggest piece of the General Fund budget - 42.8%.  Health and human services is 25%, higher education is 14.1%, and corrections is 9.5%.
• 52.5% of 2010-11 General Fund revenues come from personal income taxes.  28.9% comes from sales and use tax. Corporations contribute 11.3%.
• Total proposed state spending for 2010-1 will be 7.3% of personal income, the lowest since 1994-95.
• Over 1 million jobs have been lost in California since July 2007 - this rolls back employment levels to about October 1999.

The report contains more information about growth of use of public assistance programs, impact on children, and the nature of the Governor's proposed cuts.

Individual Health Insurance Plans Subject to New Rules Under Bill Introduced by De La Torre

Individual insurance policies are held my many self employed people who are unable to buy into a group plan. The premiums and deductibles for the policies are often expensive.  Insurance companies have been known to attempt to rescind coverage or claim pre-existing conditions severely limit coverage if a major medical condition occurs.

AB 2470 introduced by Assm. Hector De La Torree (D-50) will correct some of those problems.  The bill requires:

• Establishing  standard information and health history questions to be used by health care service plans and individual health insurers 
• Medical underwriting must be completed before issuing the policy or service plan contract
• Policies could not be cancelled or rescinded unless certain conditions are met regarding health information provided by the applicant
• Health insurers would have to annually report rescission and cancellation information
• Rescissions and cancellations would be subject to a review process

The bill is similar to other bills introduced by Assm. De La Torre regarding individual insurance policies. These bills have been passed by the Legislature but have been vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger.