Use Your Initiative

Last week I wrote about what I feel could go down as the dumbest piece of legislation in the nascent decade, State Senator Alan Lowenthal's bill to eliminate free parking in our cities and state. After the significant blowback in Long Beach media from citizens who agree that the idea is dumb, Lowenthal tried to back track saying the legislation was misrepresented in the media. Even though the media used his statements, evidently his statements were misleading. At this point the bill has passed through the Senate on a straight party line vote and is already on its way to possibly becoming law as it will head to the Democratic controlled Assembly.

Not to be outdone by her former co-council member on the Long Beach City Council, State Senator Jenny Oropeza has put forth her own bill that could qualify for the dumbest legislation award except her timing was bad. Oropeza's bill if passed will stop retailers from charging surcharges to customers who use debit cards to pay for their purchases. Naturally the veil she hides behind is "helping the poor" who are unfairly hurt by the fees retailers charge all debit card users, not knowing if the user is rich or poor.

Let's follow the bouncing ball and see where it lands. The Federal government spends hundreds of billions to infuse capital on banks balance sheets, also known as a bailout. The biggest banks have repaid their loans with interest and dividends. The feds also buy a car company or two with the same funds. Those funds have not been repaid. With the money being repaid by the banks the Administration shoves to other government entities as "stimulus" but is more akin to "subsidies."

Now the Administration and the majority in Congress want to charge fees to banks to repay the funds most have already repaid. They have worked up a ten year repayment schedule and expect the fees to come out of bank profits, but in reality will come from bank customers. Some of those customers are businesses, such as retail stores.

Retail stores, and other businesses, price their goods and services using a combination of costs and market supply and demand. Small stores may differentiate between customers who pay with cash and those who pay with debit cards, or even credit cards, which cost them more as a business due to bank fees.

The government raises fees for banks, they raise fees for customers, customers that are businesses raise costs on the goods and services they sell, consumers pay more as the costs are passed down the line.

If Oropeza's bill becomes law then retail stores will not be able to pass the fee associated with a specific type of transaction, a debit card purchase, to the person generating the fee. So instead of just the customers who generate the fee paying the costs prices will go up throughout the store and all customers will pay the fee. Somehow in the minds of Oropeza and others who support this bill see taxing every customer in the store for the actions of some of the customers is equitable. These are the same people who think not allowing businesses to pay for parking for their customers and employees somehow does not get passed down to them anyway through higher prices or lower compensation.

A classic model of how well the pay as you go, or pay as you pay, model is AM/PM. In our region the are almost always the lowest price gasoline I see driving around. When you buy gas at AM/PM however they have a forty-five cent surcharge if you are using a debit card to pay for your gas (they do not take credit cards). The gas for cash buyers is cheaper than non-cash buyers because AM/PM passes along their bank fee, and the convenience fee, to customers who choose to pay that way. At Mobil or Exxon everyone pays the fee whether paying with cash or card as their gas prices are higher. Under Oropeza's bill AM/PM would lose its niche market and its prices for all customers would rise.

Our State Legislature meddles in our daily lives consistently. Year after year thousands of bills are sent out of the Legislature to the Governor's desk. Thankfully our current Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has vetoed many--but not where near enough, including the final budgets each year of his tenure. Imagine a Democratic controlled Legislature with a Democratic Governor like Jerry Brown and the bills that will become law? Free parking? Debit cards? They would just be the beginning.

Our state has the initiative process whereby the Legislature can be by-passed and measures can be put directly to voters. Unfortunately this process has been abused by the Legislature putting measures on the ballot the last decade that have exploded the debt and spending requirements of the state as we pay for things like stem cell research and high speed rail; this year another couple of billion dollars in bonds is on the ballot for water. But sometimes the citizens put something on the ballot that can bring positive change to the state and lead to long term stability, Proposition 13 comes to mind which has saved millions of homes from having to be lost or sold due to raising property taxes.

Right now there are three initiatives that have been put forth by citizens of California that aim to bring some sense and reason to our state political environment.

The first initiative is from Citizens For California Reform. If passed this initiative would eliminate the full time Legislature in California and create a part-time legislature. California has by far the highest paid legislature, and the biggest budget deficits. Our current model is broken and is based on a corrupt circle of donations and contracts between our elected officials and public employees. Reduce the time the legislators spend in Sacramento and we reduce the amount of ridiculous bills and laws that burden our state and resources.

Next up is an initiative from The Citizen Power Campaign. This initiative is quiet simple and if on the ballot will face unprecedented opposition from every labor union in the state, which tells you how much it is needed. If it becomes law the initiative will ban public entities in California from collecting PAC dues for public employee unions through payroll deductions. Tremendous public dollars and resources are spent to collect, account for and distribute these funds which are then used for strictly political purposes. It is critical to the ability of the public employees unions to buy their elected representatives who then vote on their contracts, benefits and number of employees.

The third initiative that is trying to get on the ballot is the Vote Safe Now initiative. This initiative is very simple, it requires all voters to show identification at the polling place, ensure California residents serving in the military have their votes counted, and finally that election officials verify voters' signatures and identification on all absentee ballots. Our most precious right is the right to vote, but it is unprotected in California to ensure that each ballot is lawfully caste.

I ask that you visit each of the websites and sign petitions to put these initiatives on the ballot. Let the electorate decide the merits of these initiatives to rein in government, rein in special interest and rein in fraudulent ballots and elections.

Too often I receive emails or have conversations with people fed up with the politics in California, and too often they write or say something along the lines of, "oh well there is nothing we can do about it...." Bunk. There is something we can do about it, but it requires that we, you and I, actually do something about it! If you want to change California politics then sign the petitions for these initiatives so they can be on our ballots, pass the petitions around your neighborhood and place of business.

Do something. Change your political future.


DCS/020810

TARP Funds Coming Back

Big news this morning on the financial front is that Citi has finished negotiations with the Treasury and has a plan put together to repay $20 billion in funds received from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). As you may recall TARP was the initial government reaction to the current economic cycle. Put together in October 2008 by the Bush Administration, Treasury Department and Congress it allocated $700 billion to assist troubled financial institutions to prevent their collapse.

TARP was (and is) the centerpiece of discontent for many Americans who feel that the government should have just let troubled banks fail. One can imagine the size and depth of the ensuing recession had that occurred. More criticism was heaped on TARP when the Obama Administration used some of the TARP funds to prop up General Motors and Chrysler.

Through TARP the Federal government was able to add restrictions to recipients policies and procedures, mandate capital requirements and restrict lending practices. In several cases the Treasury, on behalf of the American people, became shareholders in banks receiving funds on a preferred stock basis. The largest of these stock holdings became Citi where the U.S. Government retained stock worth 31% ownership in the bank.

Last week, within hours after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner testified on TARP before a House Committee last week, Bank of America announced it has repaid $45 billion of TARP funds it received and has repurchased all preferred stock owned by the government. This morning's announcement that Citi has reached an agreement to repay its $20 billion in funds and repurchase government's holdings also stated that through the TARP period Citi paid $3.1 billion to the government in dividends and interest. By June Citi will have repurchased all preferred shares held by the Federal Government.

Of the big banks and firms that received TARP funds Wells Fargo is left with no announcement of a plan to repay the $25 billion received. Since Wells did not visit the TARP well twice it has been operating without many of the restrictions, including compensation limits, imposed on other institutions, as such it may not be in as big of a hurry to shove $25 billion in capital out the door.

When enacted TARP had a price tag of $700 billion. To date Secretary Geithner indicates $550 billion of the funds have been allocated and that by December 2010 $175 billion will have been repaid. Somehow through these numbers, $550 billion spent and $175 billion repaid, Geithner told Congress that the cost to the taxpayer has been recalculated from $341 billion to $140 billion. Where the gap of $135 billion gets made up ($550B spent $175B collected leaves $375B uncollected) I don't know.

The biggest question for me on this phase of TARP, repayment, is where will the repaid funds go? With Citi's announcement coming on the heels of Congress slamming through a $1.1 Trillion spending bill this weekend and Obama and Congressional Democrats talking about another $200-500 billion in "stimulus-but-don't-call-it-stimulus" funding and the on going multi-Trillion dollar debate on health care restructuring, I am a little skeptical the repaid TARP funds will be used to pay down debt or go back in the general fund.

While not perfect, thus far it appears the TARP investment in several of America's major financial institutions was a good bet. While GM and AIG are still out there to remind us that no investment is without risk, Bank of America, Citi, Wells Fargo and Chase have shown the infusion of funds kept them open and able to acquire weaker, troubled institutions, saving taxpayers, investors and depositors hundreds of billions, possibly trillions. They are not out of the woods yet however and face significant future risks and challenges, not the least of which will be whatever final legislation comes out of Congress on financial regulations and restrictions. This Congress and Administration has so far shown the ability to be over-reactive to issues and problems restricting markets and future growth, if this happens with banking credit will tighten further. Also on the horizon is the commerical paper on the banks' books, while the focus the past few years have been on residential foreclosures the other shoe is commerical loans that are coming due or facing major rate adjustments through their notes.

Hopefully the health of our lending institutions has recouped enough to withstand coming challenges and restore America's faith in the institutions that hold and protect their hard earned money.

Student Tuition Hikes Avoidable

Long Beach, Fresno, Los Angeles, Berkley, Pomona, were just a few of the cities where students walked out of classes and protested tuition hikes in the UC and Cal State systems. Students, professors and staff grabbed signs and chanted outside Chancellor's offices and Trustee meetings demanding more money for education in California. The students don't think it is right that in the State's budget there is less money for the UC/Cal State campuses and because Sacramento is providing less funding for operations students will have to pay higher fees for their classes and other activities. Professors and staff protested the tuition hikes and their furloughs which cut their pay. Everyone wants more money from Sacramento.

Yawn.

Hearing about, reading about and watching these protests I did not know whether to be bored or amused by the irony involved. The campuses of our fine universities and colleges in California are not sprinkled with they are laden with unions that blindly support the Democratic status quo in our Assembly and Legislature, classes are led by an overwhelming majority of professors who make Nancy Pelosi and State Senator Alan Lowenthal look like Sarah Palin and John McCain by political comparison. Eight years of trying to indoctrinate students against George Bush and Republicans has done its job in California. Generations of students have protested against conservative speakers on campus, Republican politicians and revelled in their Che Guevera and Mao t-shirts. They have worked for, voted for and enabled an Assembly and Senate in Sacramento that is overwhelmingly Democrat and overwhelmingly fiscally liberal.

They are protesting the consequences of their own political activity, support and ballots, and they are wasting their time and energy on these protests.

Why are they wasting time and energy? Not atypical of many lessons taught on campuses that cover theory but not reality, the protests are directed at the wrong portions of the education community. By rallying around the offices of Chancellors, Presidents, Trustees the protesters are chanting at those who have no choices in their budget decisions at this point. Their operating funds are tied up by Sacramento cutting their budgets. It is very de rigueur to protest the salaries of Administrators, but why not go after the tenured salaries of professors, many of whom expend considerably less effort for more many than many in the Administration buildings? But I'm off point. The energy is directed at on campus administrators and off campus Trustees after the funds have already been cut by Sacramento--what are they to do? Sure there could be better budgeting within the systems, but with the cuts from Sacramento their choices are very limited and most have minimal impact compared to fee hikes.

Instead of protesting on campus the students, who were supposed to have been brought into political action in our last election, should understand the power they have. No where is there a greater concentration of political power than on a university campus. Ten, fifteen, twenty thousand potential voters all with a common purpose? Those numbers win elections, but only if exercised.

There is no quick solution for the current generation of students on the campuses of California's community and state colleges and universities. They will face more cuts in classes and services and increases in fees and tuition for the next several years as California's budget continues to deteriorate. Already the state is twenty-one billion dollars in the whole for the coming year, and nothing is being done to correct it. Being the fiscal geniuses they are the Democrats in Sacramento are blaming the deficits on voters for rejecting the tax propositions 1A-E and refusing to accept their decade of increasing spending as the reason. With their mindset we are no closer to solving our budget crisis today than we were a year ago, or two years ago. So out of touch are our elected "representatives" that they celebrated a water usage bill that will ask the voters to vote for yet another bond of several billion dollars adding more interest expense to the budget.

The student protests bore me because I know that they have no effect and I know that they are essentially hollow protests made for show. A small group of students and professors with the assistance of on campus union leaders have coerced huge crowds to show up to demonstrate against people who have no impact on their issue. They are made to show the Democrats who control the budget process that they can impact votes so they better listen up and payback some of that support. Look for better contracts soon for the bargaining units on the campuses (see prison guards, SEIU, etc).

If the students, the ones impacted by the loss in classes and education opportunities, the ones forced to take out more and bigger loans to pay the inflated costs of their education, the ones shelling out more money for tuition and activities fees, if they are serious they can do something about the situation. With their votes in 2010 these students can alter the face of politics in California and create a long term path to correct our politicians spending and budgeting systems. As a voting block they can single handedly change California from a tax and spend state that steals money from education to payback state and public workers for their support in elections to a state that has long term budget plans, reduces the impact and influence of unions and brings control back to the voter.

First they need to vote against any incumbent on any ballot that has voted for any of the past four budgets in Sacramento--this will take some research but that is what students do.

Second they need to support the Citizens for California Reform initiative for a part-time Legislature.

If the students truly want to have an impact on their future and the education of future generations, they need to look beyond the targets laid easily in front of them for their protests and find the root cause of the problems they are facing. It all starts with a primary election and then a general election. If they are citizens of California they have the ability to shape and impact their future and the future of our State. But for it to be effective they need to use the analytical tools and critical thinking they are supposed to be learning on their campuses and not just blindly follow those who wish to lead them into supporting the status quo.

Or they can continue to carry their signs and make empty protests against those who have not created nor will perpetuate the budget problems that impact them. Unless they exercise their political power the students might as well get used to hikes in fees (taxes) and reductions in services from our State government.

Hikes in fees are avoidable but only if the students show they are as smart with their ballots and political acumen as they were on their SATs.

California Election Reforms: Almost Enough

California's election laws are being challenged at the polls in November 2010 with one major initiative having qualified for petition signatures and another measure being reworded and re-submitted to the Attorney General after the first draft was grossly misconstrued by the Attorney General Jerry Brown's office. The two measures would follow voters recent passing of a measure that will change how boundaries are drawn for State Assembly and Senate Districts, essentially an attempt to eliminate or minimize gerrymandering of districts by the political parties.

California has many problems that are the result of the political structure and laws governing elections and offices. Paramount among them is the gerrymandered districts following the 2000 census which resulted in the vast majority of districts in California being "safe" for one party or the other--most generally safe for any Democrat running for office--as the districts are drawn with significant majorities of one party or the other. The result is no competition at the polls, no compelling reason for any candidate to listen to or acknowledge any moderate ideas or citizens. All a candidate must do is prevail in the party primary and they will be elected to office. To win the primary the candidate needs more money than their opponent, to get that money they must pander to the "base" which tends to be entrenched on the either the left wing of the Democratic Party or the right wing of the Republican Party.

While the initiative to take the drawing of political districts away from the Legislature and putting the process into the hands of an "independent panel" appointed by both parties, it is just a start to the reform needed to cure California of the structural problems in its election and governance processes. So are "Vote Safe Now" and "Citizen Legislature Act" both are worthy initiatives but do not complete the necessary reform to overhaul our state government to bring sensibility, accountability and good governance to Sacramento.

"Vote Safe Now" is an initiative proposal from State Senator George Runner that is very simple in its proposals. The main aspect of the initiative is the requirement that all voters must show identification to cast their ballots. You show your identification to purchase a pack of underwear with a credit card at Sears, but you can exercise the most important right you have just by signing a name with no verification the signature is your own. We must show our identification to board an airplane but not to decide the President of the United States. If you purchase tickets to a Dodger game and go to Will Call to pick them up you must show your identification but to vote on whether same sex couples can marry you just walk into a polling place give a name and a signature and receive a ballot. Voter fraud is so easy to accomplish in California. Every campaign has available lists of registered voters and whether they have voted in the past several elections. Seeing a voting pattern of someone who does not vote it is quite simple for the campaign to send fake voters to the polls posing as the actual voters, no ID required, get the ballot and cast the votes. Easier than buying underwear.

Runner's initiative has two other provisions as well, one protects the ballots of California citizens serving in the military and the other requires absentee ballots be verified by election officials matching signatures and identification. With almost 50% of California ballots now being absentee the opportunity for fraud increases dramatically. Runner's initiative is meant to protect the votes of California citizens by eliminating illegal ballots that would cancel out those cast legally. The initiative was submitted to Attorney General Jerry Brown for title and summary for the ballot, the Brown's summary was blatant in its negative language to attract "no" votes so Runner pulled the initiative and will resubmit at a later date to qualify for the November 2010 ballot. He is also taking the Attorney General to court over the title and summary language issued.

"Citizen Legislature Act" is in the process of collecting signatures to make the November 2010 ballot and is being put forth by Citizens for California Reform, a group organized and run by Gabriella Holt. The initiative is quite simple, it will reduce the amount of time the Legislature meets and create a part-time governing body. Holt's premise is that with less time to meet the Legislature has less time to create and pass so many bills, over 2,000 per year at this point, that cater to special interests and intrude more and more into our lives. As was recently seen during the budget crisis in Sacramento, while the State was operating on IOUs members of the Assembly and Senate were writing and putting up for votes bills that had nothing to do with the budget. Instead of working to solve the fiscal crisis they had created they were spending time and resources on bills that were so insignificant to the situation as to be laughable.

A very big benefit to the CLA would be the cutting back on the staffing and benefits for the members of the Legislature, saving the tax payers millions and millions of dollars. With less time to meet the meetings must be more efficient to accomplish the major requirements of the state. On the Citizens for California Reform website has a great chart comparing California's full time legislature with the legislatures of the other forty-nine states, a very interesting chart I recommend everyone read. Also on the website is the petition for the Act which can be downloaded for signatures.

The Vote Safe Now and Citizens Legislature Act are measures worthy of the ballot, and in my opinion worthy of being enacted, combined with the redistricting power being taken away from the Legislature to reduce the prospects of gerrymandered "safe" districts the measures take big strides in voters regaining control of their government. However the three initiatives do not go far enough, we need one more initiative on the ballot: eliminate term-limits for the Assembly and the Senate.

The explosion in spending by our state government can be tied in a time-line to the introduction of term limits for our Legislators. With only two or three terms in office our politicians must be on the prowl for their next elected office, a new set of voters and a new campaign needing cash. Even though they are in safe districts a new primary for a new office means they no longer have "incumbent" under their name making the primary the difficult election. To win the primary they need to have support from their party base and its donors. To get this support they need to curry favor while in their current position. All the term limit laws have done is recycle our elected officials between Assembly and Senate and moved them further away from the average voter.

Term limits were enacted in large part to eliminate the power that had been accrued and wielded by then Speaker Willie Brown. Brown ran Sacramento his way and had so much power there was no way an election would oust him from office. Brown also controlled a Legislature that for the most part had balanced budgets, surplus budgets and was able to have some sort of vision for the future. But at least he was up for election every couple of years and there was the opportunity to mount campaigns against him. Slim yes, but a chance nonetheless. Further, the members of the Assembly, and the Senate, were also able to focus on their jobs, be somewhat responsible to the voters in their districts and temper the wild swing to the left our state has taken since the first class of term limit officials were elected.

If we are to have a part-time legislature then we need to eliminate the term limits as well. We must have elected officials who are vested in the future of the state and its citizens and not using the office to pad their campaign coffers for the next open seat primary they will be entering. Yes incumbents are elected disproportionally, but maybe many of them deserve to be re-elected. Not all of the politicians in Sacramento are thieves, carpetbaggers or egomaniacs. Many are honest Californians who try to help our citizens and state, but their ability to do so is limited by the term limits.

To entice the removal of term limits, should there be such an initiative I suggest including that no one may run for office with their elected title or the word "incumbent". While knowledgeable voters, and aren't those the ones we really want voting, would know who the incumbent is, other voters would be more apt to look at the person and their ideas.

Require voter identification at the polls, reduce our Legislature to part-time and eliminate term limits. Those are three ideas that would improve our state governance. Two are on their way to the ballot, one is an idea that has not yet generated any support--I hope it does.

.