Final April revenues

The final day of April brought in just under $1 billion in personal income taxes, bringing the total for the month to about $10.1 billion, after refunds. The Department of Finance had projected PIT revenues, not including withholding from wages, of about $8.7 billion. The $1.4 billion in unanticipated revenues will be enough to erase the shortfall for the year to date, leaving the governor and the Legislature with pretty much what was projected in the governor's budget in January.

As Maine goes...

The New York Times reports here on problems with Maine's health care program, which was meant to provide universal coverage. One big issue: adverse selection. It's mostly people with health problems who are applying for coverage under the state program, and it's not just people who didn't have insurance before. That's driving costs far higher than expected. One fix the governor is contemplating: an individual mandate.

Hanretty on The Hill

Karen Hanretty, the professional pundit and conservative Republican commentator who hung her shingle in Sacramento for a few years, has moved on to The Hill, literally, where she began blogging today for the newspaper/web site that covers Congress intensely.

April bailout arrives, after all

The bean -- and revenue -- counters over at the Capitol must have just breathed a major sigh of relief. The latest numbers are in from the Franchise Tax Board, and it looks as if the state not only met its projections for the month but came out ahead.

The Department of Finance had projected personal income tax revenues, not including withholding from wages, of about $8.7 billion for the month. With the weekend plus Monday still to go, the FTB is reporting $9.2 billion already on hand. If the recent past is any indication, Monday's mail should produce a minimum of $500 million, maybe closer to $1 billion. That would leave the state somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion ahead for the month.

That would more than wipe out the $1.3 billion shortfall in revenues for the year to date.

Taxes on banks and corporations, by the way, also met projections for the month. They appear to be coming in about $100 million above what the department expected.

On the prison deal

With a prison deal in hand, legislative leaders seem intent on rushing it through both houses of the Legislature today, before lobbyists for two of the state's most powerful unions -- the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and the Service Employees International Union -- can peel away support from the rank and file members. This is a pretty amazing turn of events in a Legislature that has long been subject to the infuence of both unions.

In this case, leaders from both parties decided that they did not want to risk a federal takeover of the prison system because of overcrowded conditions. The Democrats feared that a court takeover would mean a blank check and a fiscal "black hole" that would drain the treasury and endanger other programs. The Republicans feared that court involvement might mean the release of dangerous felons. Together, they agreed on a package that adds more prison beds, beefs up rehabilitation programs and promises aggressive oversight of the Schwarzenegger Administration's management of the programs.

Some people will never be happy with any fix that includes new prison beds. But with 16,000 inmates sleeping in gymnasiums and day rooms, with the state's population growing steadily, and with a court-appointed overseer of the prison health system ordering thousands more medical beds, a reform-only solution was never in the cards. This plan at least has the virtue of holding the state's prison managers accountable for their future performance. And it does include plans for an expansion of drug treatment, vocational and education programs, and a requirement that every inmate be evaluated to determine his or her potential to benefit from rehabilitation programs. The second phase of the construction program could not go forward unless the prisons were meeting benchmarks for implementing those new programs.

The unions seem most upset about a provision that would temporarily allow more out-of-state transfers of inmates as a safety-valve to relieve overcrowding. The SEIU also opposes a plan to move non-violent female prisoners into community facilities that might be run by private companies or served by non-profit agencies. That proposal is not part of this plan but could get new life from the momentum created here. The CCPOA, meanwhile, is without a contract and stands to lose leverage with Schwarzenegger if the Legislature helps him reduce the heat the state is getting from the federal courts.

One big idea that's not in this package, a sentencing reform commission, will probably come later this spring or summer. The idea is supported by Democrats in the Legislature, by Schwarzenegger and by the prison guards union in one form or another. It is opposed by most Republicans. But it would take only a majority vote to pass a bill creating the panel. That's something that can be worked out by the Democrats and the governor in a separate deal. Putting it into this bipartisan package would have hopelessly complicated the politics involved and blocked bipartisan agreement on the rest of the package.

The same may be true of a proposal to allow the state to end parole for certain ex-cons who stay clean for 12 months after being released from prison. That's not in this package but could very well happen anyway, down the road.

One last point: some activists seem to be calling on the federal judges to order a reduction in the state's prison population rather than a plan to accommodate the current level of inmates and future growth. That might be a desirable outcome. But it is not the job of the courts. In a democracy, the people, through their representatives (and in California, through the initiative) get to decide how long people should remain in prison for certain crimes. The federal courts can weigh in on whether the conditions inside those prisons meet the minimum standards required by the Constitution. But they have no place in deciding what level of incarceration is best for the state.

Guv to EPA: a waiver, or else

Schwarzenegger says he warned the US EPA today that California will sue the federal government if the state does not get a waiver authorizing it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Details here.

Everything is beautiful

Although signs of progress in the Legislature are few, the governor emerged from his office Tuesday to proclaim that everything is fantastic. A deal on prisons in right around the corner, and grand agreements on water storage and health care will be forthcoming. The budget will be tight but hey, we'll get through it, because everyone is going to work together for the good of the people of California. Given what happened last year, you hesitate to doubt him. But where do we get a pair of those rose-colored glasses?

Here is the full transcript of his press conference.

You can also watch the video from that site.

How a (non) bill becomes a law

Does it matter that no one has introduced a bill containing the governor's health care plan?

Democrats have been sniping about that fact for weeks now, and the LA Times picks up the theme here. But I'm not sure it's that big a deal.

First of all, if the governor had found someone to carry his plan, the Democrats would have killed it already in its first committee hearing. Headline: "Governor's health plan dead." How, exactly, would that have given him the "momentum" he has supposedly ceded to the Democrats by not introducing a bill?

Second, the governor's plan, even though it is not in bill form, is far more detailed than either plan introduced by the legislative leaders. The outline the administration released had a budget that showed how much the program would likely cost and how much of that money would come from current sources, the federal government, and new taxes/fees on business, doctors and hospitals. It described the kind of coverage that would be included at various income levels, and how much of their income consumers would be expected to pay. There's an economic study from an MIT expert with a computer model showing where all the money would flow, who would be covered and how. So there's not much question about how he envisions his program working.

But most important, even if he did have a bill, or a package of bills, he would still be in negotiations with the Democrats (and any Republicans who wanted to play along) over the final product. Remember, the governor may not have a bill, but he does have a pen. A veto pen. Hard to believe he would sign the kind of bill the Dems are cooking up now. It looks remarkably similar to SB 2, the pay or play bill he opposed in 2003 and helped repeal in 2004. And the way it's looking, it will also include guaranteed issue of insurance, without a mandate for everyone to buy coverage, which means it would be a magnet for the sick, driving up costs and driving more people away from coverage. (If you're healthy, why should you pay for coverage now if you are guaranteed to get it when you're sick?) So the Democrats might have bills, but they have no chance of having those bills signed without satisfying Schwarzenegger. Looks like a two-way street to me.

If there ever is a deal, it will be hashed out in back-room negotiations among the governor, legislators, their staffs, and the interest groups. It will then be written into legal language and inserted into a bill and brought before the Legislature (probably with about three days notice, if we're lucky). And that bill, not the governor's non-bill or the Democrats' no-chance bill, will be the only one that matters.

AB 32 actions

The ARB is recommending 36 actions in the first phase of its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Together, the board estimates, they would reduce emissions by between 33 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent and 46 million. Other existing ARB regulations already are expected to produce a reduction of 30 million metric tons. Finally, the board expects some greenhouse gas benefits from its traditional regulations aimed at air pollutants. The goal by 2020 is 174 million metric tons.

Some of the proposals are already underway, such as the governor's proposal for a low-carbon fuel standard. Others are new.

Among them:

--Reduce emissions from professional servicing of vehicle air conditioning units.
--Improve the capture of methane from landfills
--Improve manure management
--New specifications for commercial refrigeration
--Tougher light-duty vehicle standards
--Cooler automobile paints
--Tire inflation standards
--Promote telecommuting
--Electrification of truck stops and ports

AB 32 early actions proposed

The Air Resources Board has released its list of proposed "early actions" to comply with AB 32's requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California. You can see the report here.

Post-partisan goes presidential

Barack Obama wants to take Schwarzenegger's low-carbon fuel standard national.

Full confidence

Rex Babin on Doolittle and Co. View the full image here.

Auditor finds prison contract problems

A state audit requested by the court-appointed receiver over prison medical care has found that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has done a bad job contracting for medical services, awarded contracts improperly, failed to verify medical credentials, and failed to protect inmate privacy, among other things. The receiver, Robert Sillen, said he will respond within 60 days with a plan to fix the deficiencies.

CalPERS study finds that spending helps the economy

CalPERS has commissioned a study to show the supposed economic impact of the pensions it pays to retired government workers.

But the study, or at least the way it is being reported by the retirement fund, is a classic case of looking at what is rather than what could be.

Yes, when you pay people pensions, they spend the money, and that spending creates other economic activity, including jobs.

But that money came from the taxpayers and the employees in the first place, and was invested by CalPERS. If the taxpayers and employees kept the money and spent it or invested it themselves, much of the same economic activity would result, and perhaps even more.

This is a little bit like those studies purporting to show that a new sports arena would add a certain amount of money to a local economy. Most of the effect is simply measuring activity that would have occurred elsewhere anyway.

Early warning signs

The month is only half over, but so far the state's April tax returns are not exactly overflowing the treasury. Through the first 13 working days of April, the personal income tax payments reported by the FTB totalled $2.8 billion, compared with $3.3 billion last year. Corporate tax payments were about on par with last April at $1.4 billion. Refunds, meanwhile, were running a bit below last year's pace at $1.2 billion, which is good news for the state. The final week of the month will be crucial, and last year's final week of April was huge, including a Monday when $2.7 billion in personal income tax payments were counted. But it still looks as if, at best, the state will meet its projections for the month. Unless there is a big sugar daddy out there who hasn't paid his taxes yet, don't look for an April shower of revenues to make up for the lackluster January.

Roll Call: Doolittle home searched

Roll Call is reporting that the FBI has searched the Virginia home of Rep. John Doolittle.

UPDATE: The Hill says the search was Friday.

UPDATE: Here is the Bee's report.

Nunez on redistricting

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez's redistricting proposal is intriguing, to say the least. He wants to strip the Legislature of its authority to draw district lines and give that power to the Little Hoover Commission.

Kudos to the speaker for a) offering a proposal and b) including congressional districts in the mix. With him at the table, if he is there in good faith, there is a decent chance of a true reform coming out of this process.

Unfortunately, his idea for using the Little Hoover Commission does not really pass the test of "independence." The commission is highly respected for the work it now does as a government watchdog. But that does not mean it would make a good choice for this job.

All of the members of the commission are appointed by the governor and by legislative leaders. And since there's no ban on ex-parte communications, there would be nothing to stop the legislators and the governor from appointing members specifically for the line-drawing and then weighing in, if not controlling, the outcome. If Núñez had suggested a commission made up of appointees of the Legislature and the governor but not called "Little Hoover," most reformers would have considered that a non-starter. The only reason his idea will even get consideration from folks who have been pushing for independent redistricting is that he is tying it to a commission that already has a good reputation. But there is no guarantee that the people who would draw the lines would be the same people who have done such a good job pointing out waste and inefficiencies in state government.

The next question is what criteria the commission would use. After the usual one-man, one-vote rule, and the federal Voting Rights Act, the speaker's proposal says that the districts must first be geographically contiguous, then must represent communities of interest, and then must respect city and county boundaries and geographic boundaries to the extent practicable. Finally, it says the districts shall be "reasonably geographically compact."

The criteria are not ranked, but their rank is implied by the order in which they are listed.

This is a potential problem.

The definition of "communities of interest" includes "social, cultural, ethnic, geographic or economic interests."

By placing this standard above existing city and county boundaries, the proposal suggests that it would be fine to split a city several times in order to keep voters together by ethnic group or cultural ties. That's a bad idea. Remember, the Voting Rights Act already prohibits any action that would infringe on the right of minorities to be represented by someone reflecting their race or ethnicity. Why also draw district lines that group voters by ethnicity? Shouldn't we be moving away from state policies that seek to herd people together by skin color or nation of origin, and toward policies that bring together people of different backgrounds and beliefs?

Just as you wouldn't draw a district to include mostly Jews, or mostly Catholics, neither should you draw one that includes mostly Asians, blacks or Latinos.

Having said all that, I'm still not sure whether this proposal would be better or worse than the status quo. I'm inclined to think worse. Because if the commission is not really independent but is filled with people who have ties to legislators and the governor, then those people are going to be receptive to pressures from those parties. And if that pressure leads to a poorly drafted plan, the Legislature will be insulated from criticism over it because their fingerprints would be absent. It would be better to continue to hold them accountable, and to hold out for a truly independent commission.

Boomer and immigrants, and housing

USC demographer Dowell Myers is going to be in town again this week to discuss some of the conclusions in his book, Immigrants and Boomers: Forging a New Social Contract for the Future of America.

Here is Myers take on the housing bubble, from an email he sent me this morning:

"I think the greatest impact is formation of "the Califronia Island". Our high prices now really cut us off from migration from other states (and domestic migration HAS gone negative even though we have substantial job growth, and immigration is also lower than in 1995-2000). All has changed since 2000. Back then our prices were only 156% higher in Califorinia than Texas. By 2005 the barrier increased to 351%. Effectively, an already high barrier has now doubled and may be prohibitive for anyone other than New Yorkers or New Englanders.

Meanwhile the generation gap has also opened wider. As a ratio to the incomes of 30-34 year-olds, California prices doubled from a multiple of 4.2 to 8.7. So how are younger people really supposed to bail out the baby boomers when they want to cash out their homes? I call this false accumulation of wealth 'piggybank mirage.'"

But all is not lost. One of the themes of Myers' book is that the solution to this problem is already here: the millions of young immigrants who are now coming of age. If we educate and train them and equip them to be productive members of the workforce, they will continue to buy houses in big numbers and at least, perhaps, keep the market from imploding.

Exit exam results

Schools Supt. Jack O'Connell announced this morning that the pass rate on the high school exit exam is still creeping upward. That's good news. But he also disclosed this little tidbit that seems like even better news: nearly half the seniors who finished their four years without passing the exam have returned to school to try to master the skills they need to pass the test.

According to O'Connell, an independent assessment of the test has found that statewide, 17,522 -- or an estimated 45 percent -- of students in the Class of 2006 who had not passed the exit exam by the end of their traditional senior year have returned to school. The consultant estimated that about 85 percent of these students have reenrolled in high school, while 15 percent are enrolled in an adult education program.

You have to wonder how many of those students would have made the effort to go back to school after the end of the senior year if they had been handed a diploma at graduation despite not being able to read, write or do math at the level needed to pass the exit exam.

Enforcing an individual mandate

This LA Times story the other day revealing internal discussions about how the Schwarzenegger administration would enforce a mandate to buy health insurance is now getting national attention. But the flap is a curious one because it completely ignores not only current practice but how other plans on the table would address the same issue.

The outcry is coming because someone has suggested that the requirement for individuals to buy coverage would be enforced by checking that they do so and fining them if they don't, perhaps enrolling them automatically in a default plan. But all of this and more is already being done with what is supposedly the model for advocates of government-run health care, and it would be done in spades if the single payer plan that these folks propose for California ever became law.

Try opting out of Medicare. Sure, you don't have to use their doctors and let them pay for your services. But try not paying the premium, better known as a payroll tax. You will not only be tracked down and fined, you will probably be put in federal prison. And if California's single payer proposal ever passed, it would include a payroll tax on the order of 12 percent combined between employee and employer. Same thing. Try not paying it. You would soon be hearing from the state Board of Equalization, and you'd be facing some very serious tax evasion charges.

Prefer "pay or play" systems that require employers to provide insurance or else pay a tax to the state? Suppose you decided you would rather have more cash than the coverage your employer was required to provide. So you and your employer get together and the boss agrees to pay you -- in cash -- half the amount he would otherwise be forced to pay for your insurance premium. You think the government would look the other way? Think again.

My point: If the government is going to require people to buy insurance, or if it's going to require them to pay taxes in exchange for coverage, there is going to be coercion involved. That's the nature of government. Last time I checked it was the same with the public schools, the park system, and every other public service.

The only difference in the case of the individual mandate to buy health insurance is that the individual has a little more freedom to decide how to fulfill the requirement. Because of that bit of freedom, the enforcement mechanisms ironically seem heavy handed. But they are actually less onerous than the enforcement mechanisms commonly used for mandates that leave people no choice at all.

Advocates of "pay or play" or single payer have no standing to criticize enforcement of an individual mandate unless they intend to somehow make their own proposals voluntary, which they don't. The only people with clean hands in this argument are those who advocate no government role at all in providing health care or in collecting taxes to subsidize its purchase.

'Abolish high school'

As the father of two very different teen-age boys, I was intrigued by this essay in Education Week by Robert Epstein, the former editor in chief of Psychology Today and author of a new book on adolescence. He's advocating the abolition of high school, or at least high school as we know it. He argues that most teens are actually quite competent young adults when given the opportunity to flourish rather than being jammed into high school classrooms and force-fed a rigid curriculum. And he has a theory that our very well-known problem with teen rebellion is not so much hormonal as cultural, and stems from the way we treat our teenagers.

Revenues still bleeding

The Finance Department's monthly bulletin is out, and it says revenues were $444 million below projections for March, and $1.3 billion short for the fiscal year so far. The weakness in March was in personal income tax and sales tax. Taxes on corporate profits are once again holding their own and even coming in above expectations.

April, of course, will be the make or break month for the current fiscal year and for next year's projections. The state is expecting about $11.3 billion in personal income tax revenues this month. That's actually less than the treasury collected in April 2006, so it's certainly still possible that the collections will meet or exceed the projection. The tallies from the first 11 days of the month don't look remarkable either on the plus or minus side. The next 20 days will be crucial.

But probably the best possible outcome the governor and legislators can hope for at this point is a decent sized April bump that brings them back to even for the year and lets them hang onto the budget forecasts for next year with a straight face. We'll see.

Et tu, Liz?

They are not calling it a blog, but the LAO has a new page on its website that sure looks like one. It's entirely focused on the issue of retiree health care, and what various state and local governments are doing, or not doing, to prepare for the coming liabilities. You can find it here.

Schwarzenegger counsel on LNG Issue

Below is a statement issued this afternoon by Louis Mauro, the governor's deputy legal affairs secretary, regarding the liquefied natural gas terminal proposed off the coast of Southern California. Short version: the governor has 45 days to review the federal decision on the matter, and if he does nothing, he is deemed to approve it. He says he will conduct his review even though the state Lands Commission on Monday rejected a permit to let the facility's builders lay a pipeline through state waters to the coast.

The statement:

"The federal Deepwater Port Act (33 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq.) establishes the requirements for the federal government to issue a license to operate a deepwater port in federal waters. The proposal by BHP Billiton LNG International Inc. for an offshore Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility requires a license under the federal Act.

"The federal Act provides that the federal government may not issue a license without approval from the Governor of an adjacent coastal state. (33 U.S.C. § 1503(c)(8).) In this instance, the adjacent coastal state is California. Pursuant to the federal Act, Governor Schwarzenegger has 45 days from the last federal hearing on the matter to communicate his approval, his approval with conditions, or his disapproval of the project. If the Governor does not communicate his decision within 45 days, approval is presumed under the Act. (33 U.S.C. § 1508(b)(1).)

"The last federal hearing on the matter occurred on April 4, 2007. Thus, the Governor's 45-day review period has commenced. The Governor's Office is conducting a careful and thorough review of the matter and the Governor has not made any decision on this project. Governor Schwarzenegger's decision is due by May 21, 2007.

"The State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission are responsible for reviewing different and distinct aspects of the proposed project pursuant to different laws. The Governor reviews whether a federal license should issue in federal waters, but the State Lands Commission reviews whether a lease of state lands should be approved for a proposed pipeline over state lands (within three miles offshore). And the California Coastal Commission reviews whether the project is consistent with California coastal laws.

"Yesterday, the State Lands Commission voted to disapprove a lease of state lands for the pipeline, and it did not certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The California Coastal Commission will hold a hearing on the project on April 12, 2007.

"Because the decisions by the State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission may be subject to legal challenge and review, and may not be final, the Governor will continue his review of the application for a federal license. If the Governor fails to communicate a decision within 45 days, he will be deemed to have approved the project. His continuing review will ensure that he can take appropriate steps to protect the environment and the people of California."

Gay marriage bill

The Assembly Judiciary Committee today passed AB 43, starting the latest gay marriage bill on its journey to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk. But as he did last year, Schwarzenegger is likely to veto this measure if it reaches him.

His reasoning: the voters, in passing Proposition 22 in 2000, defined marriage in California as a union of a man and a woman. If supporters of gay marriage want to change that, they need to ask the voters to repeal that initiative or ask the courts to find it unconstitutional.

I have not heard him waver from that position. Which makes this bill more of a communications tool for the movement than a serious legislative proposal.

First a nation-state, now a country

In this Newsweek cover story, Schwarzenegger says California is tired of waiting for the feds to act on global warming and now "We're acting as a new country."

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the mag, MIT Prof. Richard Lindzen suggests that Schwarzenegger's policies might be doing more harm than good.

An online presidential debate

If you can handle watching 10 minutes of Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, check out this “online presidential debate” that Sacramento native Bryan Barton posted on YouTube today. It’s a creative mix, and remix, of interviews with the two Republican congressmen on the issues of immigration, gun rights and small business. Barton, a 26-year-old graduate of UC San Diego, hosts the debate and intersperses some brief, off-the-wall commentary and video between the answers. One amusing shot has him hopping a short fence into the United States at the border southeast of San Diego. Barton promises that this will be the first in a series aimed at young viewers. Even if your politics and Barton’s don’t match, the production shows the potential for this kind of thing in the future.

The no tax pledge

In this new "post-partisan" era, you can always count on Sen. Tom McClintock to remind us that there are big differences between the two major parties on at least one issue: taxes.

McClintock announces this morning that 46 of 47 Republican lawmakers have signed a pledge not to raise taxes to balance the budget this year. The one hold-out was Sacramento's Roger Niello, who says he simply doesn't like to sign pledges.

I don't know of anyone who seriously expected the Legislature and the governor to try to raise taxes this year to balance the budget, although I guess we won't really know until the April tax receipts are in at the end of the month. The real question is whether any of them would vote to raise taxes to expand access to health care, per the governor's proposal. This move would suggest that the answer is "no" to that as well. And if that's the case, it is going to make it that much harder for Schwarzenegger to get his plan into law. He would have to continue to call his charges "fees" and assume he can pass them with a majority vote, then wait for the courts to decide if they are legal.

By the way, the PPIC frequently asks Californians if they would prefer to pay higher taxes and have a government that provides more services, or lower taxes and have a government that provides fewer services. The last time that question was asked, in January, 27 percent of Republicans said they would prefer to pay higher taxes and get more services. Sixty-seven percent said they would rather pay lower taxes. Clearly, Republicans are partial to lower taxes. But as usual, the Republicans in the Legislature are monolithic -- reflecting the dominant wing of their party but not its entire breadth.

In the middle

From cross tabs in the latest Field Poll, note the bell curve shape of the governor's approval rating when sorted by ideology. Strong conservatives are happy but not thrilled, conservatives are at the top, middle of the roaders are near them, then it declines again as you approach strong liberals. Strong conservatives and strong liberals have about the same level of approval of the job he is doing. I wonder how many other politicians in America evoke that sort of response.

Ballots, not bullets

Senate Leader Don Perata wants to put an advisory measure on the Feb. 5, 2008 ballot urging President Bush to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

Clean gene

Assemblyman Jared Huffman wants to rein in gene-splicing technology. But Dr. Henry Miller says here that modern gene splicing in the lab is a lot more precise, and safer, than old-fashioned, trial-and-error breeding in the field.

'Pratfall in Damascus'

The Washington Post editorial page is not impressed with Nancy Pelosi's Middle East diplomacy.

Bush, Schwarzenegger approval ratings

The Survey and Policy Research Institute released another poll in its series this morning. Bush's approval rating in California continues to drop, while Schwarzenegger's remains high.

Just 23 percent of California adults and voters approve of the job Bush is doing. The governor's approval rating: 57 percent among all adults and 60 percent among likely voters.

Feinstein's military appropriations

The blogosphere is buzzing about Sen. Dianne Feinstein's recent resignation from the Senate Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, weeks after this investigative report on alleged conflicts of interest appeared in Metro, a Silicon Valley weekly. The piece says that Feinstein participated in decisions worth billions of dollars to three firms in which her husband, Richard Blum, had a major interest.

UPDATE: Feinstein spokesman Scott Gerber says the allegation of conflicts is "nonsense" and adds that senator has followed ethics committee guidance on this issue. As for her departure from the subcommittee, that happened on Jan. 7 as part of a routine shuffle of assignments brought about by the Democratic takeover of the Senate. A press release noting her shift from military appropriations to the Interior subcommittee is on this page.

CSU strike averted

The CSU faculty and the administrative officials have reached agreement on a tentative four-year deal that will raise the average pay for fully tenured, full-time professors to more than $100,000.

"We pretty much got everything that we'd asked for," said union president John Travis "We're pretty satisfied with this agreement."

Read more about it here.

Term limits polling explained

This poll by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State and the explanation by its director, Phil Trounstine, do an excellent job of analyzing how the way the term limits reform question is framed affects the poll results. Bottom line: if the voters think legislators are getting less time in office, they like the idea, but if they think it is extending their terms, they are opposed.

Post-partisan newspaper ownership

Sam Zell, the man who is buying the Tribune Co., and thus the Los Angeles Times, appears to a big believer in post-partisanship. At least when it comes to political donations. He has given to John Kerry, George W. Bush, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Kevin Roderick has more.

By the way, this financial explainer by the LAT's Michael Hiltzik (the former blogger and columnist) is the most lucid analysis of the deal and all its ins and outs that I have read.

Court to EPA: Ok to regulate CO2

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning issued a landmark, 5-4 opinion in a global warming case that should preserve California's ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

The court ruled that the US Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate CO2 emissions as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. And if the US can do it, California should be able to do it under the provisions of the law that give California the ability to enact its own regulations that are stricter than federal rules.

The court also ordered the EPA to reevaluate its contention that, even if it has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it need not do so at this time.

An early story on the ruling is here.

A 'new gentleness'

Matt Dowd, the former Bush adviser who was chief strategist to Schwarzenegger's re-election campaign, breaks with the president in this interview in the Sunday New York Times. He says he is exploring ways of encouraging a "new gentleness" in politics, and campaigns that seek to win more than just 51 percent of the vote.

Dowd's musings sound a lot like Schwarzenegger's definition of 'post-partisanship.' The strategist says he wants to bring people together and not just divide and conquer. Clearly this evolution is a work in progress. Schwarzenegger's campaign was forward looking and optimistic, and it reached out to groups that Republicans traditionally ignored. (One exit poll showed they got about 30 percent of the black vote). But it was also in some ways as vicious as any traditional campaigns. Their attack on Phil Angelides for daring to propose new taxes, and their exaggeration of his proposals, were not designed to bring people together but to brand him as a dangerous liberal.

So maybe it is one thing to try to govern from the center once you are in office, and another to actually get into office, or hold on to it in a tough re-election campaign.

I don't think Schwarzenegger's landslide was driven so much by the tone of his campaign as by his accomplishments in office, especially the infrastructure bonds and the global warming deal. Those sent signals to Democrats and independents that he could work across party lines. No amount of "gentle" campaigning would have persuaded people of that without the goods to back it up.