Growing up in San Francisco, my earliest trip to an aquarium was an elementary school field trip to the ‘old' California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park.  It was a window into another world.  I will never forget the jewel-like colorful tropical fish darting to and fro, the dramatic spiraling circular fish tank showcasing local California species and the creepy but fascinating great white shark carcass preserved in a temperature controlled glass box. One glimpse through the thick glass paneschanged the way I looked at the ocean forever.

Most scientists and conservationists can probably point to a defining childhood moment when they knew they wanted to study and protect the ocean.It's hard to care about something you haven't experienced. On the other hand, it's hard to ignore something as captivating as our coastal wildlife once you've come face to face with a sea otter or a bright orange garibaldi.

That is why California aquaria and ocean groups are coming together this Saturday, January 21, to celebrate the fourth annual Underwater Parks Day. It's a time for Californians to learn more about the marine protectedareas that dot our coast like a string of pearls, protecting natural gems like Point Reyes, Point Lobos and La Jolla and the wildlife within them.

Underwater Parks Day is a great time to introduce your kids to the wonders of the sea. Take the family to the local aquarium, or just to the pier or beach. It's a day to celebrate the work California has done to protect some of the best  areas of our coast through the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) and celebrate our great fortune at living in such a unique and beautiful place.

This weekend, many California aquaria will have special presentations, displays, videos and activities toteach visitors of all ages about marine protected areas and the plants and animals they are designed to protect. Click here to find an event near you.

If you prefer to get your hands dirty, consider joining a beach cleanup at Pillar Point in Half Moon Bay or Malibu's Point Dume.  In Monterey, Underwater Parks Day coincides with Whalefest, which will be celebrated at the Old Fisherman's Wharf.  Wherever you are on the coast that day, keep an eye out for gray whales passing in the distance, since this is peak migration season.

If you can't get to the coast this weekend to celebrate Underwater Parks Day, you can learn more about what famous ocean explorer Sylvia Earle calls "Hope Spots" in this short film from the comfort of your own home.

From Tijuana Estuary to Humboldt Bay, California will soon have a statewide system of underwater parks where you can tidepool, kayak, dive, snorkel, or bird and whale watch year round. I hope to see you out on the coast!

We applaud Governor Brown’s vision for California’s future and the leadership he is demonstrating in getting us there. The Governor understands well the vital link between the Golden State’s prosperity and bold, innovative transportation and water infrastructure projects.
Now more than ever we need to get real about the challenges facing California and support smart solutions that will create jobs, strengthen our economy and improve our quality of life. High-speed rail is one such solution. The Governor's focus on building high-speed rail better and faster will result in creating thousands of much needed jobs, reducing traffic congestion and air pollution, and providing vital connectivity throughout the state.
 
We cannot afford to let shortsightedness or politics dictate our future.  Forward-thinking projects like high-speed rail offer tremendous environmental, economic and transportation benefits that are well worth the investment, not only now but for future generations.  

The California Alliance for Jobs represents more than 2,000 heavy construction companies and 80,000 union construction workers from Kern County to the Oregon border. The Alliance advocates responsible investment in public infrastructure projects to help build a secure future for all Californians.

Nearly 60 percent of the contributions to a political committee that hopes to put two pension measures on November ballot come from three Silicon Valley venture capital firms, including one tied to Bain & Company, the controversial firm formerly headed by Mitt Romney whose practices of terminating workers and businesses has become a major issue in the Republican presidential campaign.

According to records filed with the California Secretary of State, "California Pension Reform" has collected $128,000, including $25,000 from Jesse Rogers. Mr. Rogers, who is the co-founder of Palo Alto-based Altamont Capital Partners, spent 16 years (1984-2000) at Bain & Company. According to the bio on the Altamont website, Mr. Rogers "founded, built, and served as the Global Head of Bain's Private Equity Group...He also served as the West Coast head of Bain's consumer products practice. He was a Director and was elected to the firm's Governance Committee." (Mr. Rogers was at the firm during the same time period that Mitt Romney was CEO of the company.)

Two other Silicon Valley venture capitalists contributed $25,000. They both are Managing Directors at the same firm, Sutter Hill Ventures, also based in Palo Alto.

"It's bad enough that these vulture capitalists have a track record of putting people out of work, but now they also want tostrip millions of Californians of a secure retirement," said Dave Low, Chairman of Californians for Retirement Security, a 1.6 million member coalition of teachers, firefighters, school employees, police officers, and retire public employees. "Their pension proposals will have the same effect of what Mitt Romney while did at Bain Capital: punish working people and create financial hardship for the middle class while rewarding CEOs with excessive salaries and perks."

In its review in late December, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst (LAO) reported that both of the ballot measures being funded by the venture capitalists would cost California taxpayers more than $1 billion per year for the next 30 years. The LAO also noted they were likely unconstitutional and would face legal challenges, and would not result in any short-term state budget savings.

The group sponsoring the measure, led by ex-Schwarzenegger aide Dan Pellissier, has 142 days to collect 807,615 signatures from registered voters to qualify one of the two measures they are proposing for the November ballot. According to independent analysts, it will cost approximately $2 million to qualify the measure.

"These sloppily-written measures are turkeys that will be bad for taxpayers and bad for the state's middle class," added Low. "Now that the LAO has concluded that they are costly and fraught with legal and constitutional problems, it would be silly for campaign contributors to put this on the ballot. The proper way to address abuses in the pension system is at the bargaining table and through the effort being made in the Legislature, not with flawed ballot box proposals."

The truth hurts.

That's the verdict on the two GOP pension proposals that have been reviewed by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office and Attorney General.

Just before the new year, the LAO noted that the proposals would cost governments more than $1 billion per year for up to 30 years. That alone should have put a stake in the heart of the ballot measures. On top of that, the LAO also noted that the measures probably wouldn't survive in court, along with a host of other problems.

Now we learn that proponents don't have anywhere near the financial backing they claimed. The Sacramento Bee is reporting that the "Sacramento-based California Pension Reform reported raising $128,600 late last month, mostly from Silicon Valley venture capitalists."

Apparently, potential financial backers see these measures for what they really are - bad for taxpayers and bad for California. According to the Bee: Three Silicon Valley venture capitalists contributed $25,000 each: Jesse Rogers, co-founder of Altamont Capital Partners, and Tench Coxe and G. Leonard Baker Jr., both managing partners of Sutter Hill Ventures.

Meanwhile yesterday, Attorney General Kamala Harris provided her straight-forward assessment of the measure. She noted that it would hurt teachers and other public employees hard, would have constitutional implications, and would repeating the LAO's assessment, said it would cost more money than it would save for decades.

Good for her to level with voters about what these sloppily-written measures really do.

Now you'd think that anyone with common sense would pronounce these measures DOA.

But the Republicans behind the measure -- former GOP Party Chair Duf Sundheim and former Schwarzenegger aide Dan Pellissier -- are more interested in making money on an initiative for their own personal gain than leveling with their funders about how damaging the LAO's assessment (and now the AG's title and summary is). You could tell by their screeching in their reaction statement today -- filled with inaccuracies -- that they will still try to convince some naive funders to plow money into a campaign that will go nowhere.

The pro-pension slashing forces have said they will poll their two measures once they get the Title and Summary to see which one does better, and then shop that to possible funders.

Nevermind how pathetic that sounds -- they're more interested in what polls better than what's the best public policy for the state.

But it is clear from the LAO's assessment and the AG's title and summary that these measures should be put in the scrapheap of failed ideas that California voters never see on their ballots.

I consider Jon Fleischman a friend and his Flash Report blog an important reminder to California's resident ivory-tower intelligentsia that right-wingers can read and write, too - sometimes quite thoughtfully.

But his piece today (LINK: http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2012/01/06/state-senate-district-referendum-almost-sure-to-qualify/) on the ill-advised attempt by Republican politicians to overturn by referendum the will of California's voters and the hard work of the bipartisan, Citizens Redistricting Commission was unique in its brazen disregard of, you know, obvious, widely-accepted facts.

1)      Let's start with its central premise - that their Republicans' sour-grapes referendum is "almost certain to qualify."  Well, as any election-law attorney or reputable political observer will tell you, that's impossible to predict and, even more, based on all available information and indicators, it is highly likely the measure WON'T qualify.  Consider this: the current overall validity rate is 72.51%, a relatively low number - so low in fact that it failed to qualify by random-sample process.  Now, in a full count, it will need a validity rate of 71.19%, which seems achievable, right?  Except, when you do a historical statistical analysis of measures that fail the random-sample process and are forced to do a full count, those full-count averages typically fall 3% below random-sample validity rates - since the full-count process exposes all of the run-of-the-mill duplicate and otherwise invalid signatures.  Which, extrapolating forward, assuming historical statistical trends prevail, the measure is likely to fail. And Jon's "prediction" that the measure is "almost certain" to pass is about as credible as Michele Bachmann's "shock the world" guarantee in Iowa.

2)      Jon also states as fact that the Court will "adopt its own lines" for the 2012 election, despite all evidence to the contrary.  In fact, the Courts have repeatedly denied the Republican's desperate entreaties to stay the Commission's lines.  And one can infer that the California Supreme Court is equally dubious about the referendum's odds of qualification, since, while they are proceeding to hear arguments on the matter, the Court has explicitly denied any request to appoint a Special Master to draw interim lines.

3)      The most bizarre part of the claim-victory-in-throes-of-defeat Fleischman masterwork is its insistent spin that "triggering a full count" is a sign of strength - when every objective observer knows that a full count is a portent of failure.  Essentially it means the Secretary of State isn't sure that the measure will qualify.  In a random-sample process, if you are projected to get more than 110% of the signatures needed, you are deemed qualified.  If you are projected to get less than 95%, you are automatically declared stone-cold dead.  At their current validity rate, the GOP referendum is hovering south of 101%.

4)      The worst feature of all this unsavory "we-made-the-full-count" back-slapping is that Republicans are essentially doing an end-zone celebration over wasting more taxpayer dollars.  In cash-strapped Los Angeles County alone, it's estimated that the random-sample process cost taxpayers $6,551 and the full-count process will cost a whopping $218,366.  Sacramento County will have to spend another $46,500 to complete its full count.  Once again demonstrating that my Flash Report friends are only fiscal hawks selectively -- as long as it's not their OWN boondoggle being questioned.

5)      All of this is a beside-the-point clown-car sideshow since, in the end, no rational political observer thinks this referendum has a snowball's chance to pass, even if it somehow does qualify.  And I doubt the Republican politicians who sponsored it intend to spend any real money to pass it.  Obviously, the real, cynical motive of the Republican establishment's machine is to use the very existence of the referendum to convince the courts to intervene and redraw its own districts for the 2012 election - essentially, to get a one-election mulligan on the independently and legally-drawn districts these same Republican officials once supported.  To their credit, the courts have seen through this transparent ploy and not taken the bait.  I guess they don't read Flash Report.

Since Jon's a friend, I don't want to be TOO harsh.  He did get one thing right.  State Senator Mimi Walters DOES deserve much of the credit for convincing the financially-impoverished California Republican Party and their overly-burdened donors to gamble at least $2 million of their scarce resources on this long-shot, high-burn-rate political parlor trick.  We Democrats are thrilled the CRP won't have any of that money to spend on behalf of Bill Berryhill.

Jerry Brown, you're no Rick Perry.

While the Texas Governor proved during the GOP debates just how unfamilar with policy and government he is, the accidental early release of the Governor's budget allowed Governor Jerry Brown to show off his smarts about California's finances and state government.

There were no "oops" moments from this Governor.

Without missing a beat, Brown and his Finance staff delivered a flawless presentation of an ugly budget. Brown didn't need any Cliffsnotes or a well-reheasered presentation; he whipsawed thru the complexities of the budget, clearly knowledgeable of all of the details and well prepared to handle tough press questions and the fallout.

While I can only imagine what has going thru Finance Director Ana Matosantos head when she discovered that the budget was posted online days earlier than expected, you can bet she was thankful that she was now working for Jerry Brown instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Imagine, if you will, if Matosantos had to tell Schwarzenegger that he had an hour before he had to take the stage in Room 1190 days ahead of time without sound bites or a practice session. He wouldn't have known where to begin.

But Brown seemingly took it all in stride, almost if it was planned that way (it wasn't).

The Governor certainly has his critics for focusing almost exclusively on the budget and letting other issues fall to the wayside. But he proved yesterday that his command of the state finance's will be a powerful weapon during the next few months of tug-of-war with the Legislature and in making the pitch to the state's voters for revenue increases in the months ahead.

With the Attorney General expected to release its Title and Summary for the pair of GOP pension-gutting measures any day now, we can only hope she comes to the same conclusion the Legislative Analyst did when it put its lump of coal into the stockings of the millionaires behind the proposals: The revelation that their sloppily-drawn "reform" plans in fact will cost state and local governments billions MORE in pension costs.
 
The LAO pegs the taxpayer cost of the pair pension-stealing ballot measures at no less than $1 billion dollars every single year for the next three decades. The Orange County Register warns that taxpayers aren't likely to see any savings until they are "grizzled and gray." And although the LAO sees "potential" savings in the distant future, “pension reform could actually cost governments, and the taxpayers who fund them, more,” says the Register. The Sacramento Bee notes "two public pension reform plans aimed for the November 2012 ballot wouldn't make much of a dent in government costs for decades, and the savings to employers' retirement expenses would be 'offset to some extent by increases in other employee compensation costs', according to the LAO."

Reports CalPensions.com: “The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office review of two versions of an initiative proposed by California Pension Reform, led by Dan Pellissier, said putting new state and local government hires in cheaper retirement plans could trigger major costs. The analyst said an initiative giving new hires 401(k)-style investment plans could increase employer costs for two or three decades by “up to several billion dollars more per year (in current dollars) to cover pension costs of current and past employees. Over a similar period, the analyst said an initiative giving new hires a “hybrid” retirement plan combining a smaller pension with a 401(k)-style plan could cost employers “$1 billion more per year (in current dollars).”
 
And let's not forget that public employees already are getting whacked with pay cuts, furloughs and layoffs. Today's Sacramento Bee reports that public school teachers are taking hefty cuts in their salaries as well as class sizes continue to swell and classroom budgets are cut.

Even the planners don't seem too interested in the facts emerging about the costs and risks of the pair of measures they are shopping around to wealthy potential funders. Pellissier told Calpensions that his group will decide which of two measures to put to voters once they find out which one polls better.
 
Pension "reform"? Hardly. These two measures will make matters even worse for public employees -- and taxpayers.

Jim Earp, Executive Director, California Alliance for Jobs, issued the following statement in response to a High Speed Rail Peer Review Panel Report issued yesterday.

"Constructive, unbiased analysis of the High Speed Rail project from knowledgeable peers is not only important, but essential to ultimately delivering a state-of-the-art rail system to Californians," said Earp. “The Peer Review Panel report is generous in itemizing what it views as shortcomings in the High Speed Rail Authority’s newly revised business plan. By contrast, it is miserly in offering viable recommendations to address those shortcomings.

“If we accept the panel’s recommendations that the Legislature should take a ‘time out’ before appropriating any more money to the project and that ultimately the money should go first to the urban areas, then we must accept the reality that California will lose billions in federal funding for the project," he noted.

The California Alliance for Jobs continues to believe high speed rail is the most cost-effective, environmentally responsible way to address our state’s future mobility needs. This is the time to critically examine every aspect of the project in order to make it better.”

The California Alliance for Jobs represents more than 2,000 heavy construction companies and 80,000 union construction workers from Kern County to the Oregon border. The Alliance advocates responsible investment in public infrastructure projects to help build a secure future for all Californians.

Meanwhile, Art Pulaski of the California Federation of Labor, also attacked the report.

“The Peer Review Panel report on the California high-speed rail project misses the mark. With California facing a jobs crisis and an urgency to upgrade our failing transportation infrastructure, further delay in breaking ground on high-speed rail is neither prudent nor responsible.

“Any project that’s the size and scope of high-speed rail is bound to encounter difficulties along the way. But rather than working to implement the vision of high-speed rail, the panel suggests derailing the project at a critical stage, which would put billions in federal funding at risk. That’s not a viable solution for California.

“Under new leadership, the California High-Speed Rail Authority is headed in the right direction. The Authority’s business plan addresses the myriad issues facing high-speed rail in a thoughtful and thorough way. The plan offers a roadmap to realizing what is the most important and visionary public works project in decades.

“In the short term, the project will create thousands of desperately needed jobs to help lift our state out of economic morass. In the long term, high-speed rail will deliver a world-class, environmentally friendly transportation system that will transform our state. Now is not the time to back away from the high-speed rail vision. An investment in high-speed rail is an investment in our state’s future. The Legislature must grant voter-approved bonds so that work can begin on the project this year.” 

The Legislative Analyst's Office has found that ballot measures being sponsored by leading state Republicans would bring "large uncertainty" to the state's pension systems, cost governments $1 billion more per year for the next 30 years, and likely would force state and local governments to pay more to compensate teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public employees. And that's just for starters.

The LAO hit the nail on the head about these sloppily-drafted and extreme ballot measures being advanced by right-wing Republicans.These unworkable initiatives will be an economic disaster for our state, be tied up in the courts for years, result in no significant savings for decades, and squeeze California's middle class even more.

The LAO, which had generally good things to say about Gov. Jerry Brown's pension proposals, found dozens of other flaws with the GOP proposals. 

Needless to say, opponents will have no time pointing to the LAO's report to show why these measures would be doomed at the ballot box; the LAO's report figures heavily in ballot arguments and 30-second attack ads.

 That's why these measures are doomed if they reach the ballot (a big "if") and why the Legislature should do what the LAO suggested last month: take the time to craft a proposal that will be legal, stop abuses, and result in real savings without decimating the retirement security of millions of hardworking Californians.

The LAO reviewed two ballot measures: A.G. Initiative Files 11-0063 and 0064. Both were filed by Dan Pellissier, president of California Pension Reform. . Pellissier is a former Schwarzenegger and Republican legislative aide.

The following are excerpts from the analyses, which are available on the LAO's website at http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/ballot_source/BalDetails.aspx?id=941 and http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/ballot_source/BalDetails.aspx?id=940:

"There is large uncertainty about this measure's possible fiscal effects ... There is also large uncertainty about how this measure-applying broadly to nearly every type of government worker-would apply to the variety of public employees in California, which include teachers, public safety workers, office workers, professors, and many others."

"This measure ... would almost certainly be subject to a wide array of serious legal challenges pertaining to its changes to benefit plans that enroll current and retired public employees, including, but not limited to, suits alleging that the measure would impair public contract obligations under the U.S. and/or California Constitutions. Moreover, the provisions of this measure would be subject to potentially varying interpretations by public employers and pension systems. In some cases, provisions of the federal Internal Revenue Code-which governs the tax status of public pension plans-may limit the flexibility of pension systems to implement certain provisions of this measure."