Ed Mendel's widely-respected Calpensions.com takes a look at the new pension legislation today, noting that the new law will allow cities to bypass bargaining and "gives many cities new cost-cutting power that some have been unable to win from public employee unions at the bargaining table." 

That's exactly why Californians for Retirement Security opposed the bill. But, unfortunately, given the bloodlust for more attacks on public employees, most editorial writers in the state have dismissed this unilateral gutting of collective bargaining as "pension reform light" while others are calling for ballot initiatives that will enact "real" pension reform.

But as Mendel points out, the package enacted by the Governor and Legislature will undermine retirement security for public employees at both the state and local levels.

"For most cities the legislation extends retirement ages, caps pensions and gives new hires a lower pension by imposing a single formula (rolling back increases after SB 400) instead of allowing bargaining on a menu of different formulas," he writes. "The legislation calls for a 50-50 split of "normal" pension costs between employers and employees. As current contracts expire, if unions do not agree to equal cost sharing in bargaining by 2018, cities can impose an employee contribution increase."

Mendel also cites a survey of city managers earlier this year by the League of California Cities. It found that 47 percent of the responding cities had bargained lower pensions for new hires and 64 percent had bargained increased employee pension contributions.

"While not perfect, the League views this legislation as a substantial step forward in implementing pension reform largely in keeping with the League's own comprehensive pension reform principles," the League directors said in a statement last week.

Read Ed Mendel's entire piece here: http://www.calpensions.com/

(Disclosure: I'm the spokesperson for Californians for Retirement Security)

Apparently it's not enough for pension bashers that a Democratic governor and a Democratic legislature are sticking it to public employers with a pension package they'll vote on today. The pension package has been billed by newspaper editorial writers as "pension reform light" and a "good first step." Never mind that $30 BILLION of pension benefits are being extracted from public workers without negotiation. Never mind that pension benefits are being rolled back to pre-Reagan levels. That's not enough.

The calls for even more reductions in retirement security for public workers is framed around the argument that public pension funds will never be able to get the returns they forecast.

But this story from San Diego County shows undermines that argument. In that county, the San Diego Retirement Association has had a 8.3 percent annualized rate of return over the past decade on its $8.6 billion pension plan.That includes the stock market crash and most of the recession.

On its investments ending June 30, the rate of return was 6.42 percent. That's down from 21.62 percent a year earlier.

“This means we exceeded our assumed rate of return of 8% for the two years combined,” Dan Flores, the fund's spokesperson, told a local newspaper.

So the next time public pension bashers say that fund managers are setting rates of return they'll never achieve, tell 'em to look in their own backyard, right here in San Diego, California.

The Yes on Proposition 37 California Right to Know Campaign is launcheing a $150,000 early media blitz today directly challenging the record of deceit of the big corporations that are now working to deny Californians the right to know what’s in their food.

The 30-second ad – which will run in select online news venues and on broadcast and cable television stations in major California media markets for 10 days – presents the history of notoriously inaccurate corporate health claims, including falsehoods from some of the very same corporations now funding the No on 37 campaign.

“The same corporations that brought us DDT and Agent Orange are now bringing us the No on 37 campaign,” said California Right to Know Media Director Stacy Malkan.

“In addition to their history of false health claims about DDT, Agent Orange and tobacco, the same corporations and political operatives are making false claims about the safety of genetically engineered food -- even though numerous studies link these foods to allergies and other health risks, as well as to significant environmental problems,” Malkan said.

“Californians have a right to know whether or not their baby formula, corn chips or soy milk contains genetically engineered ingredients that have not been proven safe,” Malkan said.

See the ad here: https://carighttoknow-labelgmos.nationbuilder.com/donate_truth

Seeking to protect their majority in the State Assembly, Democrats are targeting four seats for victory in November. They are: Assembly District 8 (Sacramento County); District 32 (Kern/Kings); District 61 (Riverside/Moreno Valley); and District 66 (LA's South Bay).

Beginning this week, the California Democratic Party will launch aggressive campaigns in each of the districts, most of which were reshaped by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. Democrats will move $150,000 into each of these four competitive races, begin field operations, and kick off paid media efforts.

“This election offers a clear choice of values, and Assembly Democrats are poised to protect our majority in the Legislature because the people of California understand that the values of the Democratic Party and Democratic Candidates are the values of the people of California,” Said Speaker John A. Pérez. “In each of these districts, we have strong candidates who will fight hard to remind the men and women of our state that we are the party of solutions, and I am confident that each of these candidates will prevail on election day because they are well positioned to offer a powerful message of restoring opportunity for the people of California.”

Under Speaker Pérez's leadership, California's Assembly was the only legislative body in the United States where Democrats gained seats in 2010 (nationally, Democrats lost 680 seats in that election, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures). In addition to defending four tough districts, Democrats elected Dr. Richard Pan to a suburban Sacramento seat that had been held by Republicans for more than three decades.

But the Citizens Redistricting Commission essentially collapsed two safe Democrat seats being vacated by term-limited Democrats (the San Jose seat held by Assemblymember Jim Beall, who is running for State Senate and the district of retiring Assemblyman Warren Furutani).

District 8

The Citizens Redistricting Commission rejiggered two suburban Sacramento districts held by Democrats to create this new district. Those seats were held by retiring Assemblywoman Alyson Huber, who was elected in 2008, and Dr. Richard Pan, who upset Republican Andy Pugno in 2010 (Pugno is now running in another seat against fellow Republican Assemblywoman Beth Gaines, and Dr. Pan is in another Sacramento district).

Unlike the previous two districts where Republicans had a registration edge (+2.4 in Pan's former district and +0.4 in Huber's district), this new seat has a Democratic registration advantage of 1.1 percent.

Democrat Ken Cooley, the founding member of the Rancho Cordova City Council who has helped bring more than 10,000 new jobs and more than one million feet in new commercial buildings in the last decade, is the Democrat in the race. He'll face Peter Tateishi, former Chief of Staff to Republican Congressman Dan Lungren. Tateishi narrowly defeated another Republican to advance to the general election.

Cooley leads Tateishi in cash on hand, despite Republicans recently moving $100,000 to bolster Tateishi's treasury. Tateishi's campaign also has been plagued by a recent voter fraud controversy in which a signature gathering firm owned by a convicted felon is being investigated by the Secretary of State after complaints from the Sacramento Registrar of Voters.

District 32

This long-time competitive seat in the Central Valley now tilts Democratic. The Citizens Redistricting Commission removed Republican portions of Fresno and Tulare and added a larger portion of Democratic-leaning neighborhoods in Bakersfield.

Democrats now enjoy a major registration advantage and the seat is trending away from Republicans. In May registration tallies, GOP registration had slipped 1.6 percent since January, and is now only 30.9 percent.

In the June election, Democrats united behind Rudy Salas, the first Latino elected to the Bakersfield City Council in its 138 year history.

Meanwhile, Republicans had an ugly three-way primary. Although GOP leadership put money and ground troops behind Kern Supervisor Jon McQuiston, he was defeated by former Delano councilmember Pedro Rios. Rios apparently still hasn't won over the GOP leadership. He didn't receive any GOP leadership money after his win. He has less than $5,000 cash on hand and more than $40,000 in debt. Democrat Salas has $255,000 cash on hand and almost no debt.

District 61

Latino registration has soared in the Inland Empire, and the Citizens Redistricting Commission united Latino-dominated areas into this new district. It is centered around the cities of Moreno Valley, Perris, and the majority of the City of Riverside. This once solid "red" district now has a 44-34.3% Democratic registration advantage. Democrats also have polled above those numbers by significant margins in recent elections: Obama carried the district with 62.4% in 2008 and Governor Brown had a solid 57.9% in 2010.

This will be a battle between Democrat Jose Medina, a teacher in the Riverside Unified School District and former board member of the Riverside Community College District. He will face Republican Bill Batey, a Moreno Valley City Councilmember.

Batey is already cash-strapped. He came out of the June election with more debt than cash on hand. Only a late $100,000 contribution from the San Luis Obispo Republican Party has kept him out of the red. Those funds were the source of embarrassment for Batey. He originally reported the contribution on July 2nd, but then changed the date, claiming he received the donation on June 30th, the last day of the reporting period.

District 66

The Citizens Redistricting Commission made this south bay of Los Angeles seat tougher for Democrats, removing the liberal enclave of Venice and adding the wealthy, conservative Rancho Palos Verde area.

While Democrats still enjoy a 2.7 percent registration advantage here (38-35.3%), the district has one of the largest number of swing voters in the state. It also is one of the most Asian districts in the state, with one in five voters being Asian.

Democrat Al Marutsuchi, a Deputy Attorney General and member of the Torrance Unified School District, the largest city in the district, is well suited to appeal to this new constituency. That's in stark contrast to Republican Craig Huey, a right-wing extremist who limped to a second-place finish in a heated campaign against another Republican Nathan Mintz.

Huey's campaign has been embroiled in controversy, with opponents pointing to an ad in his previous Congressional special election campaign where a picture was superimposed on his then opponent, Congresswoman Janice Hahn, over the body of a woman dancing on a striper poll as two African-American rappers held guns and repeated "Give me your cash, b_tch," while grabbing money out of her shorts. The ad, now a YouTube classic, has raised eyebrows even among fellow Republicans in the district.

Marutsuchi has a significant advantage in his campaign war chest, with more than $250,000 cash on hand compared to Huey's $39,000. Huey received a $100,000 contribution from the GOP right before the deadline, which saved him from being in the red entering the final stretch of of this race.

It’s refreshing to know at least four non-Democrats (three Republicans and independent Nathan Fletcher) in the Capitol can resist what remains of the "hunter" lobby on occasion. Senators Bill Emmerson and Tony Strickland and Assemblymembers Cameron Smyth and Fletcher joined 20 Senate Democrats and 44 Assembly Democrats in supporting Ted Lieu’s Senate Bill 1221, to prohibit the “hounding” of bears and bobcats by packs of dogs in California.

If you've been in the vicinity of the Capitol this year has been able to tell SB 1221 hearing days by the pickup trucks equipped with dog cages filling the Capitol parking garage and hallways packed with plaid-shirted folks sporting orange “Revenge is Not the Answer” buttons (referring to the bill’s introduction on the heels of the dumping of cougar-shooting Dan Richards as president of the California Fish and Game Commisison).

For me, and for many (like 83% of Californians polled last year), this issue is not even remotely difficult to decide. This is not about "wildlife management." It's not about hunting. It's about reckless recreation that should have been outlawed a long time ago.

Apparently those who engage in this "sport" are happy to show you just what does down on a bear hunt. A search of “hunting bears with hounds” on YouTube finds dozens of gruesome examples, posted by boastful houndsmen. Here’s just one I had the misfortune of watching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvyfmBfEgzo (Hint: Watch the first 15 seconds, then skip through the 3 minutes of the panting bear hanging out in the tree until you get to the part at 3:18 where he comes down and is mauled again.) It's not pretty.

SB 1221 passed the Senate in May and the Assembly moved it through the other day. Assemblyman Jared Huffman insisted on a few amendments during the bill’s trip through Water, Parks and Wildlife, so SB 1221 is back for concurrence in the Senate. Opponents – desperate to stop the bill from going to the Governor despite strong support from Senator Steinberg and Speaker Perez -- are pulling out all the stops including seizing on the word “fee” in one of the amendments and misrepresenting it to Republicans and mods, counting on them not to actually read the bill to see that the only fee language is limiting.

Let's hope they don't fall for it. Here's my advice to the Senate’s 22 ‘aye’ voters -- don’t take the bait and flip-flop. Do the right thing. Stick with your gut and your previous vote.

TechNet, the bipartisan policy and political network of technology CEOs that promotes the growth of the innovation economy, today applauded the California legislature for passage of Senate Bill 1161 authored by Senator Alex Padilla (D-Los Angeles), legislation that will prevent regulation of Voice Over Internet Protocol and other Internet protocol voice services by any state agency until January 1, 2020. The bill passed the Assembly 63-12 yesterday and passed the Senate on concurrence today.
 
"The Legislature's action today will preserve California’s leadership in consumer protection and privacy, while providing the certainty needed to sustain investment, job growth and California’s economic leadership in this important sector," said TechNet Senior Vice President, Jim Hawley. "This legislation will bolster an already flourishing sector in the Golden State's economy that is delivering compelling new services, choices, and benefits for consumers."
 
Vastly more affordable and efficient than the traditional phone network because of their reliance on the open architecture of the Internet, VoIP offers lower prices or free services like video calls, enabling consumers to connect affordably with family and friends in other states or countries.  VoIP and other IP-based technologies are dramatically reducing capital investment requirements and lowering barriers to market entry in the communications sector. This has helped spur the creation of dozens of VoIP companies and thousands of new jobs.
 
"Entrepreneurs who innovate and challenge the conventional way of doing things always face a big challenge," said Eve Bukowski, TechNet’s California Executive Director. "This legislation will help overcome a regulatory climate that would have involved long, drawn-out PUC proceedings whose outcome is highly uncertain."
 
"We are thankful for Senator Padilla’s efforts in working with all stakeholders to move this bill forward," said Hawley.

For the first time in its history, the National Speakers Conference will be led by the Speaker of the California Assembly.

Speaker John A. Pérez today assumed the role of President of the National Speakers Conference (NSC) in recognition of his leadership of the California State Assembly. Elected on Sunday, Pérez will serve the customary one-year term as President of the NSC.

"I am deeply honored at having been elected President of the National Speakers Conference, and am very much looking forward to working with my colleagues across the country in this new position," Pérez said. "As Speakers, each of us is privileged to serve the people of our states, and each of us has the opportunity to work with the members of our respective Legislatures to put forward policies addressing the crucial challenges facing our country, especially on job creation and renewing opportunities for middle class families, and it's an honor to be able to serve in a position that will allow me to work with other Speakers on those critical issues."

The National Speakers Conference was established in 1992 to represent the interests of all Speakers of the House and their chiefs of staff. The NSC annual meeting, the flagship event of the National Speakers Conference, customarily attracts over two-thirds of all sitting Speakers of the House, making it the single largest gathering of presiding officers in the nation.

Speaker Pérez will host the 2013 National Speakers Conference Annual Meeting in Los Angeles.

While Sacramento was suffering through its seventh consecutive day of 100 degree temperatures and air quality was unhealthy yesterday, Democratic State Senator Rod Wright held a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on California Job Creation and Retention. It was quite a show -- and Exhibit A for why the media has turned its attention to some Senate Select Committees that waste taxpayer dollars and produce little in the way of work http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/14/4722921/more-waste-of-select-committees.html.

Instead of a fair evaluation of the the cap and trade program, Mr. Wright, who represents part of Los Angeles, used the hearing as a platform to vent against environmental regulation dating back to the 1960s. To try to make his case, he stacked  panels for the "hearing" with representatives of polluting industries who would be most affected by environmental regulations. In fact, the hearing set-up was so lopsided in favor of industry that the handful of  pro-AB 32 speakers that were set to speak ultimately decided not to participate in the charade.

But that didn't stop Wright from spending the better part of an hour pummeling the representative of CARB about everything ranging from why GTOs were no longer produced in his district, why the price of gas has risen in the last few days, and to why truckers gas up outside the California border. Of course, none of these things had anything to do with the subject at hand. But that didn't stop Wright from wasting taxpayer dollars on a hearing so he could vent his views and deny that climate change is underway -- despite the overwhelming science to the contrary. To Mr. Wright, facts are stubborn things.

When Wright occasionally decide to stick to the subject at hand, he made little sense. Although he admitting that AB 32 resulted in billions of dollars of savings in health benefits, Wright dismissed them, saying that's not what AB 32 was meant to be about. Instead, he recited the tired industry arguments against AB 32 -- that California was taking on climate change alone (without recognizing the massive investment in job creation that our pioneering effort has led to) and that businesses would relocate outside of California because of the law (without noting the number of businesses and jobs creating from creating more efficient advanced technology).

Wright was joined by Republican Senate climate denier Bob Dutton, who used the hearing to complain about CARB's budget. Only Senator Michael Rubio (D) asked legitimate questions about the cap-and-trade program, and provided intelligent discourse about the impacts on business and options on how to implement AB 32 smoothly.

Meanwhile, Wright's committee analysis prepared for the hearing, the "Examination of Economic Impacts of AB 32 Cap-and-Trade Program," might well have been written by the polluters themselves. It was based on two discredited studies paid for by polluters instead of independent analysis or any mention of CARB and other research that noted the economic benefits of AB 32.

And if the pollution industry's grip on Senator Wright's hearing wasn't obvious enough, one polluting industry witness was invited to sit on the committee dias and provide testimony -- a violation of Senate Rules that required the Senate staff to correct mid-hearing.

Mr. Wright is certainly entitled to his opinion. But to utilize legislature resources and taxpayer dollars for a sham of a hearing instead of a legitimate discussion of the economic impact of cap and trade regulations is a disservice to all Californians and the State Senate.

In the next few weeks, the California Legislature will decide if low-income families will be able to afford "Obamacare."Senator Ed Hernandez (D-Los Angeles) has legislation, SB 703, that would establish a basic health plan to do just that.

In an op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News, John Ramey of the Local Health Plans of California makes the case for this option. And he notes that Kaiser and Blue Shield are opposing it in hopes of reaping the lion's share of the business in the Health Exchange.

"Federal health care reform goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2014, but it won't be as simple as flipping a switch. State officials must take a number of steps to ensure the system works as intended, getting as many people as possible into affordable coverage. While the state took a huge step forward in 2010 by creating the California Health Benefits Exchange, ensuring that lower-income Californians will be able to afford basic benefits remains an unanswered challenge.

"That's why it's vital that California put in place a piece of President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act known as the Basic Health Plan. It's an additional tool to ensure lower-income people have access to care. The plan gives states the ability to establish a subsidized health plan for working people who earn between 133 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $15,000 to $21,500 per year.

Assembly GOP leader Connie Conway today ousted fellow Republican Brian Nestande as chair of the Assembly Republican Caucus. His sin? Supporting legislation supported by the California Business Roundtable, one of the state's largest pro-business groups, to close a tax loophole that benefits out-of-state companies, robbing the state treasury of $1 billion per year.

This marks the second move by Conway to drive moderates out of Republican ranks. Earlier this year, Conway's solidarity with the Tea Party wing of the Republican Caucus led Republican Nathan Fletcher to leave the party altogether. He now is an Independent.

It's not typical for a leader to push two members of her Caucus to defect (the well-liked Nestande is still in the party, but some, such as San Diego Union Tribune reporter Mike Gardner are speculating he'll leave too) -- particularly when there are so few members to begin with (Republican ranks are at a post-Watergate low).